Item 1. Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

246K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown

Item 1. Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:


	Natural Gas		Nuclear		Coal		Purchased Power		MISO Purchases
Year	% of Gen	Cents Per kWh	% of Gen	Cents Per kWh	% of Gen	Cents Per kWh	% of Gen	Cents Per kWh	% of Gen	Cents Per kWh
2020	47	1.92	29	0.57	3	2.54	8	4.36	13	2.48
2019	40	2.33	28	0.73	6	2.31	8	4.86	18	2.71
2018	39	2.84	27	0.84	9	2.24	8	5.23	17	3.71

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:


	Natural Gas				Nuclear				Coal				Purchased Power (d)				MISO Purchases (e)
	2020		2021		2020		2021		2020		2021		2020		2021		2020		2021
Entergy Arkansas (a)	24	%	35	%	60	%	51	%	10	%	13	%	1	%	1	%	5	%	—
Entergy Louisiana	51	%	59	%	26	%	27	%	1	%	2	%	9	%	12	%	13	%	—
Entergy Mississippi (b)	73	%	69	%	14	%	22	%	4	%	9	%	—		—		9	%	—
Entergy New Orleans (b)	55	%	56	%	33	%	40	%	1	%	2	%	2	%	2	%	9	%	—
Entergy Texas	39	%	60	%	11	%	13	%	2	%	6	%	23	%	21	%	25	%	—
System Energy (c)	—		—		100	%	100	%	—		—		—		—		—		—
Utility (a) (b)	47	%	55	%	29	%	31	%	3	%	6	%	8	%	8	%	13	%	—

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.

(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.

(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%. Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.

(d)Excludes MISO purchases.

(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements. Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

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

Coal

Entergy Arkansas has committed to seven one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2021. These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year. The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year. Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2021. Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2021. If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs. For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2021. Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

For the year 2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units were adequate to meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2021. Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

Nuclear Fuel

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units. These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company. Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis. The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing. The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool. Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.

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

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

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services. The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes. These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.

Natural Gas Purchased for Resale

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

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 2020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P. The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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

Federal Regulation of the Utility

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

System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

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

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.

Transmission and MISO Markets

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.

System Energy and Related Agreements

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below). In July 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity. In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations. Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased power obligations ceased effective July 2001 and July 2003, respectively, as approved by the FERC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of complaints filed with the FERC regarding System Energy’s return on equity.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

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

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf. Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates. In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share. Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement. In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions. Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its 14% share of the costs of Grand Gulf capacity and energy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates. Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs. Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy Arkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the MPSC through its annual unit power cost rate mechanism.

Availability Agreement

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

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

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

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

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

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

Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required. If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Service Companies

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

Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc. On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Gulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.

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

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring

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

Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC. Entergy New Orleans, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Arkansas Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

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

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Property

Nuclear Generating Stations

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


Power Plant	Market	In Service Year	Acquired	Location	Capacity - Reactor Type	License Expiration Date
Indian Point 3 (a)	NYISO	1976	Nov. 2000	Buchanan, NY	1,041 MW - Pressurized Water	2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (a)	NYISO	1974	Sept. 2001	Buchanan, NY	1,028 MW - Pressurized Water	2024 (a)
Palisades (b)	MISO	1971	Apr. 2007	Covert, MI	811 MW - Pressurized Water	2031 (b)

(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the NRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the transfer of the Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the plant to Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

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

Non-nuclear Generating Stations

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


Plant	Location	Ownership	Net Owned Capacity (a)	Type
Independence Unit 2; 842 MW	Newark, AR	14%	121 MW(b)	Coal
RS Cogen; 425 MW (c)	Lake Charles, LA	50%	213 MW	Gas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6; 550 MW	Westlake, LA	11%	60 MW(b)	Coal

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.

(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities. For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.

(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators

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

Energy and Capacity Sales

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.

Customers

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

Competition

The NYISO market is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New York power market is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet most of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. Almost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.

Seasonality

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

Fuel Supply

Nuclear Fuel

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.

Other Business Activities

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

Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.

TLG Services, a subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy provides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029.

Regulation of Entergy’s Business

Federal Power Act

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

the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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

State Regulation

Utility

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
the acquisition, sale, or lease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.

Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to retail ratemaking or other regulatory jurisdiction in Missouri.

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

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

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

utility service;
utility service areas;

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.

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

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

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

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

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects;
utility service areas, including extensions into new areas;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements. The NRC has broad authority to impose civil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, Palisades, and Big Rock Point.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 2020 of $192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous to Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $800 million.

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

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning

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

In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking to adjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the ongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. In December 2018 the PUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning fund was adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, among other things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted a settlement including the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In January 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. As a result of the sale, NorthStar assumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries. In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.

In March 2020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants. Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of the nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

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

Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The costs of this insurance

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry. Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025. The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $137.6 million per reactor (with 97 nuclear industry reactors currently participating). In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased. The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

NRC Reactor Oversight Process

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. The nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020. Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.

Environmental Regulation

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments

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

New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.

New Source Review (NSR)

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement. Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and is monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement. Several years ago, however, the EPA implemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit. Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area fails to meet an ambient standard, it is considered to be in nonattainment and is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

Ozone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the applicable NAAQS for ozone. The ozone nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area. Both Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area to ozone attainment could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Potential SO2 Nonattainment

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion. In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana are designated as nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In December 2020 the EPA designated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final designations must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Entergy continues to monitor this situation.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.

Cross-State Air Pollution

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule requires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, but determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.

Regional Haze

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

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR. In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff. In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit granted the stay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state had proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has finalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is currently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II SIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking an investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.

In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which had been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date of January 22, 2021. The EPA issued final approval in December 2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.

The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In July 2019 the EPA released the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to existing coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for consideration by states at each coal unit. The rule and associated rulemakings by the EPA replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which established

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA for further consideration and also vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy is currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in a future action.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level. Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations. Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost implications. These initiatives include:

designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions. New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of federal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance risk;

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds;
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals; and
the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in an economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner. By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions. These voluntary actions included a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. In 2006, Entergy started including emissions from controllable power purchases in addition to its ownership share of generation and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010. In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020. In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 39.1 million tons in 2020 and 40.7 million tons in 2019. Since its original commitment in 2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

Entergy voluntarily conducted a climate scenario analysis and published a comprehensive report in March 2019. The report follows the framework and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in Entergy developing and publishing a new goal of reducing the Utility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to 10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy is implementing projects at its White Bluff and Independence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In February 2019 the EPA published its proposed revised definition of Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and effective in June 2020. In October 2019 the EPA repealed the 2015 rule and re-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges have been filed against both rules.

Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites

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

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

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released. Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs. Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA. CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties. Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA. Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies. In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation. Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities. Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs. The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities. Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.

Coal Combustion Residuals

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

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria. Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $20.1 million.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit program.

Pursuant to the EPA Rule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to date has detected concentrations of certain listed constituents in the area, but has not indicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and detection monitoring will continue as the rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Consequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is the deadline under the finalized CCR rule to commence closure of any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new CCR rule continue to be assessed. Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the EPA’s continuing review of the rule. Consequently, the nature and cost of additional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931. Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal. The same area also has been used as a landfill. In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site. Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center. In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface. In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site. The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006. The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. In that review, the EPA indicated that the remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million, to be allocated between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas. In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA released the third Five Year Review in late-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is not necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA has determined that no additional actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas. The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003. Both soil and groundwater contamination existed at the site. Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site. Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million. Groundwater monitoring wells at the site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017, Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. In November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the wetland area and, in February 2018, a site summary report of findings was submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In January 2019 the TCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the necessity of the water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and results were submitted to the TCEQ for review. Based on the groundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an Ecological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the TCEQ extended the APAR and Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy timely met.

Litigation

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments. Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases. The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.

Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

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

Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,400 people.


Utility:
Entergy Arkansas			1,244
Entergy Louisiana			1,654
Entergy Mississippi			750
Entergy New Orleans			303
Entergy Texas			658
System Energy			—
Entergy Operations			3,529
Entergy Services			3,859
Entergy Nuclear Operations			1,356
Other subsidiaries			47
Total Entergy			13,400

Approximately 3,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:


Gender (%)	2020	2019
Female	21	20
Male	79	80
	100	100


Race/Ethnicity (%)	2020	2019
White	78	79
Black/African American	15	15
Hispanic/Latino	3	2
Asian	2	2
Other	2	2
	100	100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.

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

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

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

Utility Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

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

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

The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings. Between base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has available rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain incremental costs. These riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of distribution-related capital investment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, a transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs. Entergy Texas also is required to make a filing every three years,

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues. In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period. Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi). In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term. The initial five-year term expires in 2021. Entergy Arkansas has requested APSC approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026. If Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan were terminated or not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism. If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan. Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year. The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013. The formula rate plan was most recently extended through the test year 2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and the addition of a transmission cost recovery mechanism. The formula rate plan continues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities and purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items. MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Louisiana has a pending request to extend its formula rate plan with certain modifications, including implementation of a distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base. In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year. Based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, the base rates of Entergy New Orleans were frozen until rates were implemented in connection with the base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in 2018. In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019. The resolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes. In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the 2018 rate case. As part of this settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, in return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which has monthly billings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

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

Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.

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

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates. On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies. For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.

The Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.

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

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

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

The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

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

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from the potential additional cost allocation to the Utility operating companies from transmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and its Utility operating companies.

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather. Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages. A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power 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. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel. Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages. If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

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

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through 2020 and beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries. Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services at acceptable prices or at all. The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for nuclear facilities. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy. A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification. For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1.

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties. As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

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

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

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

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement. In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.

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

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere. The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, which is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $137.6 million per reactor. With 97 reactors currently

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $14 billion per incident. The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors. As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, which is $450 million for each operating site. Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under Secondary Financial Protection. As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion). The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $137.6 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due to insured losses. As of December 31, 2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $104 million for the Utility plants. Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.

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

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

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

Under NRC regulations, nuclear plant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place. The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used. If the projected amount of each individual plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations. If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs required to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required. Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula. The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs. In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of, or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts. Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.

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

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel. These concerns have led to, and may continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that might lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units. Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals. If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(Entergy Corporation)

Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses. As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2021 and 99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown and sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.

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

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

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

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

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

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

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity. Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities. The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates. The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions. In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1.29 million per day per violation. If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules. This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators. The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets. These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.

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

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain. Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets. Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets. In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure and sale of its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure and sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant. Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

General Business

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies such as natural disasters or substantial increases in gas and fuel prices. Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.

Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms. At times there are also spikes in the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirements of the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in 2012, and Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta in 2020. The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, changes in regulation or governmental policy (including tax and trade policy), or other unknown events, could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase. In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage. Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of high interest rates, and uncertainty or reduced liquidity in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses. Access to capital markets could be restricted and/or borrowing costs could be increased due to certain sources of debt and equity capital being unwilling to invest in companies that experience extreme weather events, that rely on fossil fuels or offerings to fund fossil fuel projects, or due to risks related to climate change. Events beyond Entergy’s control may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities. Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal. Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

A downgrade in Entergy Corporation*’s or its subsidiaries’* credit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporation*’s and its subsidiaries’* ability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity. If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any of the Utility operating companies’, or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease, and cash or letter of credit collateral demands may be triggered by the terms of a number of commodity contracts, leases, and other agreements.

Most of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ suppliers and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions. If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, and purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require posting of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas or purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2020 based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $62 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $6 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, 2020, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $30 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, 2020, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $22 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

Recent U.S. tax legislation may materially adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and CARES Act of 2020 significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The interpretive

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

guidance issued by the IRS and state tax authorities may be inconsistent with Entergy’s own interpretation and the legislation could be subject to amendments, which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation.

As further described in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of amortization of accumulated deferred income taxes and payment of such amounts to customers in 2019, Entergy’s net regulatory liability for income taxes balance is $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2020. Depending on the outcome of IRS examinations or tax positions and elections that Entergy may make, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be required to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on 2018, 2019 and 2020 results of operations and financial condition, the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the regulatory proceedings that have considered the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities. These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes. These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken. Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements. Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete strategic transactions, is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies, which could materially affect their future prospects, results of operations, and benefits that they anticipate from such transactions.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ future prospects and results of operations significantly depend on their ability to successfully implement their business strategies, which are subject to business, regulatory, economic, and other risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control. As a result, Entergy and its subsidiaries may be unable to fully achieve the anticipated results of such strategies.

Additionally, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring, or other strategic transactions. For example, Entergy has entered into an agreement to sell its equity interests in the subsidiary that owns the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant and an agreement to sell the equity interests of Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3, in each case after each of the plants has been shut down and defueled. Also, a significant portion of Entergy’s utility business over the next several years includes the construction and/or purchase of a variety of generating units. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition or results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

acquired businesses or assets may not produce revenues, earnings, or cash flow at anticipated levels;
acquired businesses or assets could have environmental, permitting, or other problems for which contractual protections prove inadequate;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may assume liabilities that were not disclosed to them, that exceed their estimates, or for which their rights to indemnification from the seller are limited;
Entergy may experience issues integrating businesses into its internal controls over financial reporting;
the disposition of a business, including Entergy’s planned exit from the merchant power business, could divert management’s attention from other business concerns;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory or governmental approvals to close a transaction, such approvals may be granted subject to terms that are unacceptable, or Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve anticipated regulatory treatment of any such transaction or acquired business or assets; and
Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that they anticipate from the transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that they may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material effect on their business, financial condition or results of operations.

The completion of capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, and other capital improvements involve substantial risks. Should such efforts be unsuccessful, the financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity of Entergy and the Utility operating companies could be materially affected.

Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks. These variables include, but are not limited to, project management expertise, escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance, and reliance on suppliers for timely and satisfactory performance. Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, levels of public support or opposition, suppliers and contractors not performing as expected or required under their contracts and/or experiencing financial problems that inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations under contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs, downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affect the schedule, cost, and performance of these projects. If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Entergy and the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project. In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of the project or new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with capital projects, including the potential construction and/or purchase of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and as to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Failure to attract, retain and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.

We rely on a large and changing workforce of team members, including employees, contractors and temporary staffing. Certain events, such as an aging workforce, mismatching of skill sets, failing to appropriately anticipate future workforce needs, or the unavailability of contract resources may lead to operating challenges and increased costs. The challenges include lack of resources, loss of knowledge base, and the time required for skill development. In this case, costs, including costs for contractors to replace employees, productivity costs, and safety costs, may increase. Failure to hire and adequately train replacement employees, or the future availability and cost of contract labor may adversely affect the ability to manage and operate the business, especially considering the workforce needs associated with nuclear generation facilities and new skills required to operate a modernized, technology-enabled power grid. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to successfully attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce, their results of operations, financial position, and cash flows could be negatively affected.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities. These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures. These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters. Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies. Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures. Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards. In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate. The Utility operating companies currently are involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants potentially are subject to increased regulation, controls, and mitigation expenses. In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, or are revised or withdrawn by the EPA, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes. Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals. If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

stopped or become subject to additional costs. For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergy**’**s Business – Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs related to reliability standards.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards. Such standards, which are established by the NERC, the SERC, and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented. Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards. The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies. In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets. In addition, the retail regulators of the Utility operating companies possess the jurisdiction, and in some cases have exercised such jurisdiction, to impose standards governing the reliable operation of the Utility operating companies’ distribution systems, including penalties if these standards are not met. The changes to the reliability standards applicable to the electric power industry are ongoing, and Entergy cannot predict the ultimate effect that the reliability standards will have on its Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companies*’* results of operations and system reliability.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues. As a corollary, mild temperatures in either season tend to decrease energy usage and resulting revenues. Higher consumption levels coupled with seasonal pricing differentials typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarter of the fiscal year than in the other quarters. Extreme weather conditions including hurricanes or tropical storms, flooding events, or ice storms may stress the Utility operating companies’ generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and reduced customer satisfaction. These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors including weather and economic conditions, trends in energy efficiency, new technologies, and self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their grid demand. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results. Others, such as the organic turnover of appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones, adoption of newer technologies including smart thermostats, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management, and rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect by reducing sales growth rates from historical norms. As a result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may lose customers or experience lower average use per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and continuing advances have the potential to further limit sales growth in the future. The Utility operating companies also may face competition from other companies offering products and services to Entergy’s customers. Electricity sales to industrial

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity markets; however, industrial sales are sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate. Negative changes in any of these or other factors, particularly sustained economic downturns or sluggishness, have the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The effects of climate change, environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions, or achieving voluntary climate commitments could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, some federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change. For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations focused considerable attention on CO2 emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change. Since that ruling, the EPA has promulgated regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles, and from new, existing, and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative establishes a cap on CO2 emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their CO2 emissions, and a similar program has been developed in California. In Louisiana, the Office of the Governor announced the creation of a Climate Initiatives Task Force and issued an executive order that established a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 while the City Council of New Orleans passed a renewable and clean portfolio standard that sets a goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 and absolute zero emissions by 2050. The impact that continued changes in the governmental response to climate change risk will have on existing and pending environmental laws and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions is currently unclear.

Developing and implementing plans for compliance with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, clean/renewable energy requirements, or for achieving voluntary climate commitments can lead to additional capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures and could significantly affect the economic position of existing facilities and proposed projects. The operations of low or non-emitting generating units (such as nuclear units) at lower than expected capacity factors could require increased generation from higher emitting units, thus increasing the company’s greenhouse gas emission rate. Moreover, long-term planning to meet environmental requirements can be negatively impacted and costs may increase to the extent laws and regulations change prior to full implementation. These requirements could, in turn, lead to changes in the planning or operations of balancing authorities or organized markets in areas where the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities do business. Violations of such requirements may subject Entergy Wholesale Commodities and the Utility operating companies to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards. To the extent Entergy believes any of these costs are recoverable in rates, however, additional material rate increases for customers could be resisted by Entergy’s regulators and, in extreme cases, Entergy’s regulators might attempt to deny or defer timely recovery of these costs. Future changes in regulation or policies governing the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases or mix of generation sources could (i) result in significant additional costs to Entergy’s utility operating companies, their suppliers or customers, (ii) make some of Entergy’s electric generating units uneconomical to maintain or operate, (iii) result in the early retirement of generation facilities and stranded costs if Entergy’s utility operating companies are unable to fully recover the costs and investment in generation and (iv) could increase the difficulty that Entergy and its utility operating companies have with obtaining or maintaining required environmental regulatory approvals, each of which could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and its subsidiaries. In addition, lawsuits have occurred or are reasonably expected against emitters of greenhouse gases alleging that these

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

companies are liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by climate change. These lawsuits may seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.

In addition to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wildfires, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures), and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms. Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands. A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by the physical impacts of climate change, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, more frequent and longer lasting outages, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction. Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues. Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In September 2020, Entergy voluntarily committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to achieve this commitment. Moreover, Entergy cannot predict the ultimate impact of achieving this objective, or the various implementation aspects, on its system reliability, or its results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations. Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses. Entergy’s Utility operating companies also own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities. Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations. Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.

Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities. Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under various provisions of the Clean Water Act and/or state water pollution control provisions. Regulations and authorizations for both water intake and use and for waste discharge can become more stringent in times of water shortages, low flows in rivers, low lake levels, low groundwater aquifer volumes, and similar conditions. The increased use of water by industry, agriculture, and the population at large, population growth, and the potential impacts of climate change on water resources may cause water use restrictions that affect Entergy and its subsidiaries.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices, which could materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines. As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges. However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time. In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged. To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities. As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities. Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations, which may materially affect the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations. Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries. If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations. In such event, Entergy and its subsidiaries might incur losses in addition to amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties. In addition, the credit commitments of Entergy’s lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources.

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans. A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs. Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future. Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs. The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations. For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters. The states in which the Utility operating companies operate have proven to be unusually litigious environments. Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases. Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or our suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a business that requires evolving information technology systems that include sophisticated data collection, processing systems, software, network infrastructure, and other technologies that are becoming more complex and may be subject to mandatory and prescriptive reliability and security standards. The functionality of Entergy’s technology systems depends on its own and its suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology. Suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology systems to which Entergy is connected directly or indirectly support a variety of business processes and activities to store sensitive data, including (i) intellectual property, (ii) proprietary business information, (iii) personally identifiable information of customers and employees, and (iv) data with respect to invoicing and the collection of payments, accounting, procurement, and supply chain activities. Any significant failure or malfunction of such information technology systems could result in loss of data or disruptions of operations.

There have been attacks and threats of attacks on energy infrastructure by cyber actors, including those associated with foreign governments. As an operator of critical infrastructure, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, cyber attacks, and data breaches, whether as a direct or indirect act against one of Entergy’s generation, transmission or distribution facilities, operations centers, infrastructure, or information technology systems used to manage, monitor, and transport power to customers and perform day-to-day business functions. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct business.

Given the rapid technological advancements of existing and emerging threats, Entergy’s technology systems remain inherently vulnerable despite implementations and enhancements of the multiple layers of security

Part I Item 1A & 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

and controls. If Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ technology systems were compromised and unable to detect or recover in a timely fashion to a normal state of operations, Entergy or its subsidiaries could be unable to perform critical business functions that are essential to the company’s well-being and could result in a loss of its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, including personal information of its customers, employees, suppliers, and others in Entergy’s care.

Any such attacks, failures or data breaches could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation. Although we purchase insurance coverage for cyber-attacks or data breaches, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses that might arise in connection with these events. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of litigation (and associated damages and fines).

(Entergy New Orleans)

The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profit to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility. Distribution charges recover fixed costs on a volumetric basis and, thus, are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers. When purchased gas cost charges increase due to higher gas procurement costs, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations. Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs that Entergy New Orleans recovers from its customers. Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers occurs.

(System Energy)

System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf. Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to receive capacity and energy. The useful economic life of Grand Gulf is finite and is limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a request in a separate proceeding for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC has also authorized the filing of a prudence complaint at the FERC relating to Grand Gulf operations. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. The Utility operating companies have agreed to implement certain protocols for providing retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy, see Notes 5 and 8 to the

Previous: Cover and table of contents · Next: Item 1A. & 1B