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

175K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown

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

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Actual 2022 and projected 2023 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:


	2022
	CT / CCGT (b)		Legacy Gas		Nuclear		Coal		Renewables (c)		Purchased Power (d)		MISO Purchases (e)
Entergy Arkansas	30	%	1	%	50	%	12	%	3	%	—	%	4	%
Entergy Louisiana	44	%	9	%	23	%	3	%	2	%	8	%	11	%
Entergy Mississippi	59	%	6	%	18	%	7	%	1	%	—	%	9	%
Entergy New Orleans	54	%	1	%	35	%	1	%	1	%	1	%	7	%
Entergy Texas	31	%	20	%	11	%	5	%	—	%	9	%	24	%
System Energy (a)	—	%	—	%	100	%	—	%	—	%	—	%	—	%
Utility	42	%	8	%	27	%	5	%	2	%	5	%	11	%


	2023
	CT / CCGT (b)		Legacy Gas		Nuclear		Coal		Renewables (c)		Purchased Power (d)		MISO Purchases (e)
Entergy Arkansas	26	%	—	%	58	%	13	%	3	%	—	%	—	%
Entergy Louisiana	47	%	5	%	30	%	3	%	3	%	12	%	—	%
Entergy Mississippi	63	%	—	%	26	%	10	%	1	%	—	%	—	%
Entergy New Orleans	48	%	1	%	45	%	2	%	3	%	1	%	—	%
Entergy Texas	44	%	31	%	15	%	9	%	—	%	1	%	—	%
System Energy (a)	—	%	—	%	100	%	—	%	—	%	—	%	—	%
Utility	44	%	6	%	36	%	7	%	2	%	5	%	—	%

(a)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.

(b)Represents natural gas sourced for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine units and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine units.

(c)Includes generation from both owned and purchased power resources.

(d)Excludes MISO purchases and renewables purchased through purchased power agreements.

(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 2022 is not projected for 2023.

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 2023, 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-term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility and Entergy Louisiana has a firm storage service agreement that provide 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 six two- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2023. These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year. If needed, additional Powder River Basin (PRB) coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs. Based on the high cost of alternate sources, modes of transportation, and infrastructure improvements necessary for its delivery, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2023. Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing Union Pacific transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2023.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to four two- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2023. 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 the Entergy Arkansas plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2023. Coal will be transported to Nelson via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2023.

Coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas- and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units became constrained and were unable to fully meet supply needs and obligations beginning in August 2021. Deliveries remained constrained through 2022 with modest improvement expected later in 2023. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control enough 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 2023, but is also currently experiencing delivery constraints. 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 2027. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners, including their ability to work through supply disruptions caused by global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, or national events, such as political disruption. 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 Symmetry Energy Solutions 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 Symmetry Energy Solutions 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 2022 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.

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 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 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 proceedings at the FERC related to System Energy.

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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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

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

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of operating expense 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 all of its outstanding series of first mortgage bonds, as well as for its outstanding term loan and the pollution control revenue refunding bonds issued on its behalf. 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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 certain of 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.

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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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.

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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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.
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

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the shutdown and sale of each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. With the sale of Palisades in June 2022, Entergy completed its multi-year strategy to exit the merchant power business.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides decommissioning-related services to nuclear power plants owned by non-affiliated entities in the United States.

Property

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes ownership in 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
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.

All of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ owned generation falls under the authority of MISO. Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its owned generation and its contracted power purchases include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. The majority of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ owned generation and contracted power purchases are sold under cost-based contract.

Other Business Activities

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

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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.

Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 65 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 non-exempt 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 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, environmental adjustment charge, 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 for purchase power contracts that exceed either 5 MW or one year in term;
procurement process to acquire capacity over 50 MW;
audits of the energy efficiency rider;
avoided cost payment to non-exempt Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC 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 mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to non-exempt 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;
avoided cost payments to non-exempt Qualifying Facilities;
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 non-exempt 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.

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, 2022 of $195.0 million for the one-time fee. 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 $1.7 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 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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 2020, 2021, and 2022 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2022, Entergy’s subsidiaries have won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $1 billion.

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 ANO in 1996, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, 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 November 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2021 the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and 2 decommissioning. In November 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that ANO 1’s decommissioning trust was adequately funded, but that ANO 2’s fund had a projected shortage as a result of a decline in decommissioning trust fund investment values over the past year. The filing proposes a reinstatement of decommissioning cost recovery for ANO 2. Management cannot predict the outcome of this filing.

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. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC to adjust Waterford 3 and River Bend decommissioning collections based on the latest site-specific decommissioning cost estimates for those plants. The filing seeks to increase Waterford 3 decommissioning collections and decrease River Bend decommissioning collections. The procedural schedule in the case has been suspended pending settlement negotiations. Management cannot predict the outcome of this filing.

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 July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a rate case that proposed continuation of the cessation of River Bend decommissioning collections. In December 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to abate the hearing on the merits to give parties additional time to finalize a settlement, which was approved by the presiding ALJ along with an order for the parties to file monthly settlement status reports. Management cannot predict the outcome of this filing.

In December 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.

Plant owners are required to provide the NRC with a biennial report (annually for units that have shut down or will shut down within five years), based on values as of December 31, addressing the owners’ ability to meet the NRC minimum funding levels. Depending on the value of the trust funds, plant owners may be required to take steps, such as providing financial guarantees through letters of credit or parent company guarantees or making additional contributions to the trusts, to ensure that the trusts are adequately funded and that NRC minimum funding requirements are met. In March 2021 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy’s 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 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 96 nuclear industry reactors currently participating). In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, or System Energy 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

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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, and “unacceptable performance,” or Column 5. 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. Continued plant operation is not permitted for plants in Column 5. All of the nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility business are currently in Column 1, except Waterford 3, which is in Column 2.

In September 2022 the NRC placed Waterford 3 in Column 2 based on an error associated with a radiation monitor calibration. Entergy corrected the issue with the radiation monitor in February 2022; however, Waterford 3 is expected to remain in Column 2 until third quarter 2023 based on a subsequent radiation monitor calibration issue.

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.

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.

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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 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 March 2021 the EPA published a final rule designating 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. No challenges to these final designations were filed within the 60 day deadline. 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. In February 2021 the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s motion to hold the litigation in abeyance pending the agency’s review of the appropriate and necessary rule. In February 2022 the EPA issued a proposed rule revoking the 2020 rule and determining, again, that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants. The EPA is seeking additional information, which it could use to further tighten the standard. 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. 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 April 2022 the EPA published a rule to address interstate transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS which will increase the stringency of the CSAPR program in all four of the states where the Utility operating companies operate. If finalized as proposed, the rule will significantly reduce emission allowances and would likely require the installation of post-combustion nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions controls on any coal or large legacy gas units that will operate beyond 2026 and are not currently equipped with such controls. Fifteen Entergy-owned units, totaling approximately 9,370 MW of total unit capacity, are identified by the EPA for selective catalytic reduction retrofits.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on the EPA estimates, Entergy’s share of the capital costs would be approximately $1.6 billion if all the identified units were in fact retrofitted. Additionally, the EPA is proposing controls on certain non-electric generating NOx sources. Since releasing the proposed rule, the price for Group 3 NOx sources allowances has increased significantly, peaking at over $45,000 per allowance in late August 2022 before stabilizing in the range of $15,000 to $18,000 per allowance since September 2022. Comments on the proposed rule were due in June 2022. MISO, other impacted regional transmission organizations, and various state public service commissions all filed comments expressing reliability concerns if the rule is finalized as proposed. Entergy filed individual comments which assert, in addition to other issues, that the EPA’s proposal represents over-control of the Entergy units in Arkansas and Mississippi; the EPA should consider an alternative approach or provide flexibility for units with a limited remaining useful life; the EPA should consult with regional transmission organizations to determine the reliability impacts of the proposed rule; and the EPA should consider and incorporate current economic trends, including inflation, into any benefit-costs analysis supporting the rule.

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 to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units. The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states. This rule establishes a series of 10-year planning periods, with states required to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for each planning period, with each SIP including such air pollution control measures as may be necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of the CAVR by the year 2064. The various states are currently in the process of developing SIPs to implement the second planning period of the CAVR, which addresses the 2018-2028 planning period.

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, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, agreed to begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; agreed to cease using coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; agreed to cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserved the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and committed to installing or proposing 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 waived 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, was subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 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. The District Court approved and entered the proposed settlement in March 2021. Entergy met the settlement deadline to use low-sulfur coal and is on target to meet the other requirements of the settlement. See “Remaining Useful Lives Review” in the “State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery” section of Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the APSC’s proceeding related to Entergy Arkansas’s utility generation units.

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 July 31, 2021 to ensure reasonable progress is being made to attain

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

visibility improvements. Entergy received information collection requests from the Arkansas and Louisiana Departments of Environmental Quality requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, Nelson Industrial Steam Company (NISCO), and Ninemile. Responses to the information collection requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies. Louisiana has issued its draft SIP which, at this time, does not propose any additional air emissions controls for the affected Entergy units in Louisiana. Some public commenters, however, believe additional air controls are cost-effective. It is not yet clear how the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) will respond in its final SIP, and the agency, like many other state agencies, did not meet the July 31, 2021 deadline to submit a SIP to the EPA for review.

Similar to the LDEQ, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) did not meet the July 31, 2021 SIP submission deadline, but subsequently submitted it to the EPA for review. The ADEQ reviewed Entergy’s Independence plant, but determined that additional air emission controls would not be cost-effective considering the facility’s commitment to cease coal-fired combustion by December 31, 2030.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has completed its second-planning period SIP and submitted it to the EPA for review. There were no Entergy sources selected for additional emission controls. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality continues to develop its SIP, but there are no Entergy sources that are expected to be impacted.

In August 2022 the EPA issued findings of failure to submit regional haze SIPs to 15 states, including Louisiana and Mississippi. These findings were effective September 2022 and start the two-year period for the EPA to either approve a SIP submitted by the state or issue a final federal plan.

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 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. 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. In March 2021 the D.C. Circuit issued a partial mandate vacating the ACE rule, but withheld the mandate vacating the repeal of the Clean Power Plan pending the EPA’s new rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, there currently is no regulation in place with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric generating units and states are not expected to take further action to develop and submit plans at this time. In October 2021 the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the already vacated ACE rule. In June 2022 the United States Supreme Court held that the EPA could not use generation shifting as the best system of emission reduction under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA does still have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but those emissions reductions must be technology based. The EPA has announced its intent to propose a rule for existing power plants pursuant to the Clean Air Act by March 2023. The ultimate impact of the United States Supreme Court's decision cannot be determined at this time.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In April 2021, President Biden announced a target for the United States in connection with the United Nations’ “Paris Agreement” on climate change. The target consists of a 50-52 percent reduction in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. President Biden has also stated that a goal of his administration is for the electric power industry to decarbonize fully by 2035. The details surrounding implementation of these targets are not finalized, and the impacts to Entergy of any potential related legislation cannot be predicted.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would most efficiently reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions and increase planning certainty for electric utilities. 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, which it ultimately outperformed by approximately 8% both cumulatively and on an annual basis. In 2019, in connection with a climate scenario analysis following the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets, Entergy announced a 2030 carbon dioxide emission rate goal focused on a 50% reduction from Entergy’s base year - 2000. Entergy now anticipates achieving this reduction several years early. In September 2020, Entergy announced a commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 inclusive of all businesses, all applicable gases, and all emission scopes. In 2022, Entergy enhanced its commitment to include an interim goal of 50% carbon-free energy generating capacity by 2030 and expanded its interim emission rate goal to include all purchased power. See “Risk Factors” in Part I Item 1A for discussion of the risks associated with achieving these climate goals. Entergy’s comprehensive, third-party verified greenhouse gas inventory and progress against its voluntary goals are published on its website.

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 participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2022 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for 21 consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2022 CDP Climate Change and CDP Water Security evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives 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:

reconsideration and revision of ambient air quality standards downward which could lead to additional areas of nonattainment;
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 SO2, mercury, carbon dioxide, and other air emissions. New legislation or regulations applicable to

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 cap and trade programs to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases;
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;
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.

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.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In June 2020 the EPA’s revised definition of waters of the United States in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) became effective, narrowing the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. In August 2021 a federal district court vacated and remanded the NWPR for further consideration. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) subsequently issued a statement that the agencies would revert to pre-2015 regulations pending a new rulemaking. In December 2022 the EPA and the Corps released a final definition of waters of the United States that replaces the NWPR with a definition that is consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime as interpreted by several United States Supreme Court decisions. Most notably, the exclusion for waste treatment systems is retained.

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, 2022, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $27 million.

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 its two recycle ponds (four ponds total), prior to the April 11, 2021 deadline under the finalized CCR rule for 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.

Other Environmental Matters

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 letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. Liability and PRP

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of response costs are yet to be determined. In December 2020, Entergy responded to the demand letter, without admitting liability or waiving any rights, indicating that it would engage in good faith negotiations with the EPA with respect to the demand. An initial meeting between the EPA and the PRPs took place in June 2021. Negotiations between the PRPs and the EPA are ongoing.

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.

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers. As of December 31, 2022, Entergy subsidiaries employed 11,707 people.


Utility:
Entergy Arkansas			1,227
Entergy Louisiana			1,597
Entergy Mississippi			716
Entergy New Orleans			296
Entergy Texas			648
System Energy			—
Entergy Operations			3,317
Entergy Services			3,870
Entergy Nuclear Operations			13
Other subsidiaries			23
Total Entergy			11,707

Approximately 3,084 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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


Gender (%)	2022	2021
Female	22.2	21.4
Male	77.8	78.6


Race/Ethnicity (%)	2022	2021
White	74.8	76.4
Black/African American	17.3	16.4
Hispanic/Latino	3.0	2.7
Asian	2.3	2.0
Other	2.6	2.5

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.

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 Talent and Compensation Committee (formerly Personnel Committee) establishes priorities and each quarter reviews strategies and results on a range of topics covering the workforce, the workplace, and the marketplace. 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, succession plans, and talent pipeline to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Talent and Compensation 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.

The Talent and Compensation Committee’s Charter was revised in 2021 to acknowledge the committee’s responsibility for overseeing and monitoring the effectiveness of Entergy’s human capital strategies, including its workforce diversity, inclusion, and organizational health and safety strategies, programs, and initiatives. In recognition of the importance that organizational health and diversity, inclusion, and belonging play in enabling Entergy to achieve its business strategies, the committee receives periodic reports on Entergy’s organization health and diversity, inclusion, and belonging programs, strategies, and performance, including briefings at each of its regular meetings. The committee also receives updates on Entergy’s performance to date on key workforce, workplace, and marketplace measures, including progress in the representation of women and underrepresented minorities, both in the total workforce and in director level and above placements, progress in key diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and diverse supplier spend.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on enterprise risks, 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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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. The continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic and another historic hurricane season presented significant challenges. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.51 in 2022, compared to 0.46 in 2021, and 0.40 in 2020. The results of 2021 unfortunately included an employee fatality. Entergy has enhanced dramatically leadership efforts and field presence to further its objective of zero fatalities, which it achieved in 2022. Also in 2022, there was a significant decrease in the number of serious injuries. 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.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (DIB)

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 (second quartile), in 2021 of 63 (third quartile), and in 2022 of 61 (third quartile). Although the score declined slightly in 2022 as compared to 2021, it improved from the 2014 baseline. Management uses the results of the annual survey to design and implement strategies to positively influence organizational health. Initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at approximately 90 percent in 2019-2022.

Entergy believes that creating a culture of 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. In 2022, Entergy continued to focus its actions to engage a diverse workforce, infusing DIB into hiring policies, practices and procedures, aligning Employee Resource Group goals to DIB goals, growing its DIB Champion network, integrating DIB into Entergy’s leadership development programs, and facilitating training from the executive leadership ranks down to the frontline. Through these efforts, Entergy aspires to create greater understanding and accountability regarding the behaviors and outcomes that are indicative of a premier utility.

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.

Part I Item 1

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 and current reports on Form 8-K (including related filings in XBRL format); 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 and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTORS 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 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, the risk of disallowance of recovery of certain costs, 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, in some cases, affected stakeholders. Regulators in a future rate proceeding may alter the timing or amount of certain costs for which recovery is allowed or modify the current authorized rate of return. Rate refunds may also be required, subject to applicable law.

In addition, regulators have initiated and may initiate additional 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 may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns. Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings. For a discussion of such appeals and related litigation for both the Utility operating companies and System Energy, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

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 and maintenance of their assets and infrastructure, their preparedness for major storms or other extreme weather events and/or the time it takes to restore service after such events, or the quality of their service or the reasonableness of the cost of their

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 or other legislation or regulatory actions that adversely affect the Utility operating companies.

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, all of which could face resistance from customers and other stakeholders especially in a rising cost environment, whether due to inflation or high fuel prices or otherwise, and/or in periods of economic decline or hardship. Significant increases in costs could increase financing needs and otherwise adversely affect Entergy, the Utility operating companies, and System Energy’s business, financial position, results of operation, or cash flows. 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, due to the methodology used to determine cost of service rates or otherwise, could put upward pressure on rates, possibly resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Further, the failure of regulatory structures to evolve to accommodate the changing needs and desires of customers with respect to the sourcing and use of electricity also could diminish sales by the operating companies. 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, and sudden or prolonged increases in fuel and purchased power costs could lead to increased customer arrearages or bad debt expenses.

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 or not reflected in rates as permitted by approved rate schedules and accounting rules, 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

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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. The Utility operating companies also may experience, and in some instances have experienced, an increase in customer bill arrearages and bad debt expenses due to, among other reasons, increases in fuel and purchased power costs, especially in periods of economic decline or hardship. For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power cost recovery, 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 owned and controlled generating facilities into the MISO resource adequacy construct (the annual Planning Resource Auction, discussed below), as well as the 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 and resource adequacy construct. 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. MISO market rules may change or be interpreted in ways that cause additional cost and risk, including compliance 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. Further, FERC policies and regulation addressing cost responsibility for transmission projects, including transmission projects to interconnect new generation facilities, may potentially give rise to cash and financing-related risks as well as result in upward pressure on the retail rates of the Utility operating companies, which, in turn, may result in adverse actions by the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators. 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 or changes in FERC policies or regulation related to cost responsibility for transmission projects, 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 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, and the resulting costs, 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.

Moreover, the resource adequacy construct provided under the MISO tariff confers certain rights and imposes certain obligations upon load-serving entities, including the Utility operating companies, that are served

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

from the transmission systems subject to MISO’s functional control, including the transmission facilities of the Utility operating companies. The MISO tariff provisions governing these rights and obligations are subject to change and have recently undergone significant changes, some of which are the subject of pending litigation and/or appeals. Due to their magnitude and the speed with which they have been implemented, these changes carry risk, including compliance risk, and may result in material additional costs being passed through to the Utility operating companies’ customers in retail rates, including but not limited to additional capacity costs incurred in the annual MISO Planning Resource Auction. Also, by virtue of the Utility operating companies’ participation in MISO and the design and terms of the MISO resource adequacy construct, other load-serving entities served by the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets, which are under MISO’s functional control, may be able to circumvent reasonable resource planning obligations and avoid, in whole or in part, the full cost of procuring the resources reasonably needed to reliably supply their respective loads. In particular, the design of the current MISO resource adequacy construct and the absence of a minimum capacity obligation in MISO create a risk of other load-serving entities engaging in “free ridership” through their strategy for participation in the MISO resource adequacy construct and energy and ancillary services markets – specifically, by using energy and ancillary services available from the Utility operating companies’ owned and controlled generating units without paying a reasonable share of the cost of the capacity required to provide such energy and ancillary services. As a result, there are a variety of risks to the Utility operating companies and their customers, including the risk of bearing additional costs for resources needed to ensure reliable service, the risk of reduced reliability and the enhanced risk of outages and lost sales which, because of the methodology for establishing cost of service rates, presents the risk of upward pressure on the Utility operating companies’ rates.

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.

The continued 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.

The global 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic continues to be an evolving situation and could lead to further disruption of the general economy, impacts on the customers of Entergy’s Utility operating companies, and disruption of the operations of Entergy’s subsidiaries, whether due to, among other things, the emergence or spread of new variants of COVID-19, precautionary or reactionary measures, market reactions or impacts, or supply chain constraints.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies experienced an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers. The arrearages due to COVID-19 have begun to decline, although management cannot predict the timing of the completion of collections of such arrearages. While the Utility operating companies 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 subject to approval by the retail regulators.

Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges that originated during or have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions, including shortages or delays in the availability of key components, parts, and supplies such as electronic components and solar panels; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed refueling and maintenance outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability challenges, including from COVID-19 infections, health, or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

telecommuting; 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.

Although the economy has been recovering, another 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, especially in an environment of higher inflation. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic or related impacts create additional disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impact Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its 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 ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of new or existing variants of COVID-19, the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, further 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.

(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, the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, or the inability to securitize future storm restoration costs 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, inability to securitize future storm restoration costs, or loss of revenues as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather, including lower credit ratings and, thus, higher costs for future debt issuances. The inability to recover losses either excluded by insurance or in excess of the insurance limits that can be secured economically also could have a material effect on Entergy and its Utility operating companies. 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, especially in a rising cost environment.

In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to the Entergy distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems across Louisiana, resulting in storm costs of $2.5 billion. Entergy Louisiana began recovering a portion of these costs through securitization financings in 2022. In January 2023 the LPSC issued orders finding prudent the costs incurred by Entergy Louisiana in responding to Hurricane Ida and allowing Entergy Louisiana to securitize the remaining $1.491 billion in such costs. Because such orders are not yet final and non-appealable (due to the forty-five day appeal period) and, further, because the bond rating and marketing process has yet to occur, there is an element of risk, and Entergy Louisiana is unable to predict with certainty the ultimate success of its recovery initiatives or the timing of such recovery.

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas sales 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. Changing weather patterns and extreme weather conditions, including hurricanes or tropical storms, flooding events, or ice storms, the frequency or intensity of which may be exacerbated by climate change, 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, criticism or adverse publicity, 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. In addition, changes to regulatory policies, such as those that allow customers to directly access the market to procure wholesale energy or those that incentivize development and utilization of new, developing, or alternative sources of generation, could, and in some instances, have reduced sales, and other non-traditional procurements, such as virtual purchase power agreements, could, and in some instances have limited growth opportunities or reduced sales at the Utility operating companies. 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 lighting and their replacement with more efficient ones and 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 or 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 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 Utility operating companies also may not realize anticipated or expected growth in industrial sales from electrification opportunities to help such customers achieve their environmental and sustainability goals. This could occur because of changes in customers’ goals or business priorities, competition from other companies, or decisions by such customers to seek to achieve such goals through methods not offered by Entergy.

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

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

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are expected to 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 and System Energy. Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating costs. Consequently, there is pressure on plant owners to operate nuclear power plants at higher capacity factors, though such operations always must be consistent with safety, reliability, and nuclear regulatory requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower nuclear plant 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.

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 may extend the planned outage duration beyond that required for only refueling activities. 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 most of 2027. 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, geopolitical conditions, 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;

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 foreign countries, such as Russia, and international sanctions or tariffs impacting trade with such countries could further restrict the ability of such suppliers or service providers 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.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy 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, certain of the 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, and System Energy, 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, or System Energy.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy 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 and System Energy 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 these 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 these Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

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, certain of the Utility operating companies, and System Energy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy, 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 and System Energy 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 and System Energy may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act and/or by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) 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. As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies and System Energy 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. 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 96 reactors currently participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $13 billion per incident. The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors. As 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 and System Energy, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 $688 million). 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 and System Energy. NEIL provides onsite property and decontamination coverage. 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 January 1, 2023, the maximum annual assessment amounts total approximately $70 million for the Utility plants. Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments.

As mentioned above, 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, or System Energy.

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy 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 and System Energy maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose. Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy 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 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.

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 nuclear generating plant owned by certain of the Utility operating companies or System Energy 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, the results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, or System Energy 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 certain of the Utility operating companies or System Energy may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to these Utility operating companies or System Energy, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, and the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9, 14, and 16 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.

General Business

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

Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries 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. In addition, Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ 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 area with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005,

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in 2012, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta in 2020, and Winter Storm Uri and Hurricane Ida in 2021. The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including an adverse decision or 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, the Utility operating companies, and System Energy, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.

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 offerings to fund fossil fuel projects or companies that are impacted by extreme weather events, that rely on fossil fuels, or that are impacted by risks related to climate change. Factors 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. These factors include depressed economic conditions, a recession, increasing interest rates, inflation, sanctions, trade restrictions, political instability, war, terrorism, and extreme volatility in the debt, equity, or credit markets. Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal. Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities, and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility, and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

A downgrade in Entergy’s or its Registrant Subsidiaries*’* credit ratings could negatively affect Entergy’s and its Registrant Subsidiaries*’* ability to access capital or the cost of such capital and/or could require Entergy 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 and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant Subsidiary’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, storm risk exposure, diversification, and financial strength and liquidity. If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy’s or any of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ 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’s and its subsidiaries’ suppliers and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions. If Entergy’s or the Registrant Subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy 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 or its subsidiaries.

Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries may be materially adversely affected by negative publicity or the inability to meet its stated goals or commitments, among other potential causes.

As with any company, Entergy’s and its Registrant Subsidiaries’ reputations are an important element of their ability to effectively conduct their business. Entergy’s and its Registrant Subsidiaries’ reputations could be harmed by a variety of factors, including: failure of a generating asset or supporting infrastructure; failure to restore

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

power after a hurricane or other severe weather event in a manner perceived as timely by regulators or customers; the incurrence of storm restoration costs perceived as excessive by regulators or customers; failure to effectively manage land and other natural resources; real or perceived violations of environmental regulations, including those related to climate change; real or perceived issues with Entergy’s safety culture or work environment; inability to meet their climate or human capital strategy goals; inability to keep their electricity rates stable; involvement in a class-action or other high-profile lawsuit; significant delays in construction projects; occurrence of or responses to cyber attacks or security vulnerabilities; acts or omissions of Entergy management or acts or omissions of a contractor or other third-party working with or for Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries, which actually or perceivably reflect negatively on Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries; measures taken to offset reductions in demand or to supply rising demand; a significant dispute with one of Entergy’s or its Registrant Subsidiaries’ customers or other stakeholders; or negative political and public sentiment resulting in a significant amount of adverse press coverage and other adverse statements affecting Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries.

Addressing any adverse publicity or regulatory scrutiny is time consuming and expensive and, regardless of the factual basis for the assertions being made (or lack thereof), can have a negative impact on the reputations of Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries, on the morale and performance of their employees, and on their relationships with their respective regulators, customers, and commercial counterparties. Adverse publicity or regulatory scrutiny may also have a negative impact on Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries’ ability to take timely advantage of various business or market opportunities.

Deterioration in Entergy’s or its Registrant Subsidiaries’ reputations may harm Entergy’s or its Registrant Subsidiaries’ relationships with their customers, regulators, and other stakeholders, may increase their cost of doing business, may interfere with its ability to attract and retain a qualified, inclusive, and diverse workforce, may impact Entergy’s or its Registrant Subsidiaries’ ability to raise debt capital, and may potentially lead to the enactment of new laws and regulations, or the modification of existing laws and regulations, that negatively affect the way Entergy or its Registrant Subsidiaries conduct their business, or may have a material adverse effect on their financial condition and results of operations.

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 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 further significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code by, among other things, enacting a new corporate alternative minimum tax and expanding federal tax credits for clean energy production. The interpretive 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. Further, changes in tax legislation or guidance, or uncertainties regarding interpretation of such tax legislation or guidance, could impact interpretation of and negotiations around certain contractual arrangements with counterparties, which could result in unfavorable changes to such arrangements or delays. In addition, the retail regulatory treatment of the expanded tax credits and corporate alternative minimum tax included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could materially impact Entergy’s future cash flows, and this legislation could result in unintended consequences not yet identified that could have a material adverse impact on Entergy’s financial results and future cash flows.

Based on initial IRS guidance and current internal forecasts, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may become subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 beginning in the next two to three years.

The tax rate decrease included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required Entergy to record a regulatory liability for income taxes payable to customers. Such regulatory liability for income taxes is described in Note 3 to the

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

financial statements. 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.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on 2022, 2021, 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. For further discussion of the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, see the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 3 to the financial statements.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ 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 or interpretive guidance relating thereto, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. The intended and unintended consequences of recently enacted legislation could have a material adverse impact on Entergy’s financial results and future cash flows. 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, including achieving Entergy’s climate goals and commitments, 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, a significant portion of Entergy’s utility business plan over the next several years includes the construction and/or purchase of a variety of solar facilities. These or other transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies, including increased costs or delays resulting from supply chain issues. 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:

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;

Part I Item 1A and 1B

Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

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 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, such as transmission and distribution infrastructure replacements or upgrades, 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, reliance on suppliers for timely and satisfactory performance, continued pandemic-related delays and cost increases, and supply chains and material constraints, including those that may result from major storm events, both within and outside of Entergy’s service area. Delays in obtaining permits, challenges in securing sufficient land for the siting of solar panels, 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, further direct and indirect trade and tariff issues, including those associated with imported solar panels, supply chain delays or disruptions, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies 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 areas, 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.

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

Entergy relies on a large and changing workforce of team members, including employees, contractors, and temporary staffing. Certain factors, such as an aging workforce, mismatching of skill sets, failing to appropriately

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