| Rate And Regulatory Matters | 3 Months Ended |
| Mar. 31, 2022 |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| Entergy Arkansas [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| Entergy Louisiana [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| Entergy Mississippi [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| Entergy New Orleans [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| Entergy Texas [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
| System Energy [Member] | |
| Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovery balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $34.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022, subject to refund, pending a final MPSC order. A final order is expected in the second quarter 2022, with the resulting final rates, including amounts above the 2% cap of 2021 retail revenues, effective July 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $14.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $40.2 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $32.3 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.2 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. The filing is subject to review by the City Council and other parties over a 75-day review period, followed by a 25-day period to resolve any disputes among the parties. Resulting rates will be effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council would set a procedural schedule that would extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of March 31, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. Based on the course of the proceeding to date, System Energy has recorded a provision of $38 million, including interest, as of March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process , and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC . In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through March 31, 2022, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $135 million through March 31, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through March 31, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, APSC, and City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, APSC, and City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana was seeking an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana was requesting that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.339 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. The securitization process is expected to be completed in second quarter 2022. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 millio |
