Annual Statements Open main menu

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC - Quarter Report: 2005 June (Form 10-Q)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

 

X

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

   
 

For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2005

 

OR

 

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

   
 

For the transition period from ____________ to ____________

Commission
File Number

Registrant, State of Incorporation,
Address of Principal Executive Offices and Telephone Number

I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.

1-11299

ENTERGY CORPORATION
(a Delaware corporation)
639 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
Telephone (504) 576-4000

72-1229752

1-10764

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
(an Arkansas corporation)
425 West Capitol Avenue, 40th Floor
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone (501) 377-4000

71-0005900

1-27031

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
(a Texas corporation)
350 Pine Street
Beaumont, Texas 77701
Telephone (409) 838-6631

74-0662730

1-8474

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
(a Louisiana corporation)
4809 Jefferson Highway
Jefferson, Louisiana 70121
Telephone (504) 840-2734

72-0245590

1-31508

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
(a Mississippi corporation)
308 East Pearl Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Telephone (601) 368-5000

64-0205830

0-5807

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
(a Louisiana corporation)
1600 Perdido Street, Building 505
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
Telephone (504) 670-3674

72-0273040

1-9067

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
(an Arkansas corporation)
Echelon One
1340 Echelon Parkway
Jackson, Mississippi 39213
Telephone (601) 368-5000

72-0752777

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes

X

No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

 

Yes

No

Entergy Corporation

Ö

 

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

 

Ö

Entergy Gulf States, Inc.

 

Ö

Entergy Louisiana, Inc.

 

Ö

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.

 

Ö

Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

 

Ö

System Energy Resources, Inc.

 

Ö

Common Stock Outstanding

 

Outstanding at July 29, 2005

Entergy Corporation

($0.01 par value)

207,579,330

Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc. separately file this combined Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Information contained herein relating to any individual company is filed by such company on its own behalf. Each company reports herein only as to itself and makes no other representations whatsoever as to any other company. This combined Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q supplements and updates the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the calendar year ended December 31, 2004, and the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, filed by the individual registrants with the SEC, and should be read in conjunction therewith.

 

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
June 30, 2005

 

Page Number

   

Definitions

1

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

4

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

8

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

11

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

19

 

Consolidated Statements of Income

21

 

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

22

 

Consolidated Balance Sheets

24

 

Consolidated Statements of Retained Earnings, Comprehensive Income, and
Paid-In Capital

26

 

Selected Operating Results

27

 

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

28

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

42

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

44

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

46

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

50

 

Income Statements

52

 

Statements of Cash Flows

53

 

Balance Sheets

54

 

Selected Operating Results

56

Entergy Gulf States, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

57

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

60

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

61

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

68

 

Income Statements

69

 

Statements of Cash Flows

71

 

Balance Sheets

72

 

Statements of Retained Earnings and Comprehensive Income

74

 

Selected Operating Results

75

Entergy Louisiana, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

76

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

79

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

80

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

86

 

Income Statements

87

 

Statements of Cash Flows

89

 

Balance Sheets

90

 

Selected Operating Results

92

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

93

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

95

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

96

Critical Accounting Estimates

100

 

Income Statements

102

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
June 30, 2005

 

Page Number

   
 

Statements of Cash Flows

103

 

Balance Sheets

104

 

Selected Operating Results

106

Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

107

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

109

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

110

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

114

 

Income Statements

115

 

Statements of Cash Flows

117

 

Balance Sheets

118

 

Selected Operating Results

120

System Energy Resources, Inc.

 
 

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

 
   

Results of Operations

121

   

Liquidity and Capital Resources

121

   

Significant Factors and Known Trends

122

   

Critical Accounting Estimates

123

 

Income Statements

124

 

Statements of Cash Flows

125

 

Balance Sheets

126

Notes to Respective Financial Statements

128

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

140

Part II. Other Information

 
 

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

141

 

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

142

 

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

142

 

Item 5. Other Information

144

 

Item 6. Exhibits

146

Signature

149

 

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

 

In this filing and from time to time, Entergy makes statements concerning its expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, and future events or performance. Such statements are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although Entergy believes that these forward-looking statements and the underlying assumptions are reasonable, it cannot provide assurance that they will prove correct. Except to the extent required by the federal securities laws, Entergy undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the statements. Some of those factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this report and in subsequent securities filings) include:

  • resolution of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including various performance-based rate discussions and implementation of new Texas legislation, and other regulatory proceedings, including those related to Entergy's System Agreement and Entergy's utility supply plan
  • Entergy's ability to manage its operation and maintenance costs
  • the performance of Entergy's generating plants, and particularly the capacity factors at its nuclear generating facilities
  • prices for power generated by Entergy's unregulated generating facilities, the ability to hedge, sell power forward or otherwise reduce the market price risk associated with those facilities, including the Non-Utility Nuclear plants, the ability to meet credit support requirements, and the prices and availability of power Entergy must purchase for its utility customers
  • Entergy's ability to develop and execute on a point of view regarding prices of electricity, natural gas, and other energy-related commodities
  • changes in the financial markets, particularly those affecting the availability of capital and Entergy's ability to refinance existing debt, execute its share repurchase program, and fund investments and acquisitions
  • actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt and preferred stock, and changes in the rating agencies' ratings criteria
  • changes in inflation, interest rates, and foreign currency exchange rates
  • Entergy's ability to purchase and sell assets at attractive prices and on other attractive terms
  • volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, uranium, and other energy-related commodities
  • changes in utility regulation, including the beginning or end of retail and wholesale competition, the ability to recover net utility assets and other potential stranded costs, the establishment of a regional transmission organization that includes Entergy's utility service territory, and the application of market power criteria by the FERC
  • changes in regulation of nuclear generating facilities and nuclear materials and fuel, including possible shutdown of nuclear generating facilities, particularly those in the northeastern United States
  • uncertainty regarding the establishment of interim or permanent sites for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal
  • resolution of pending or future applications for license extensions or modifications of nuclear generating facilities
  • changes in law resulting from the new federal energy legislation, including the repeal of PUHCA
  • changes in environmental, tax, and other laws, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, mercury, and other substances
  • the economic climate, and particularly growth in Entergy's service territory
  • variations in weather and the occurrence of hurricanes and other storms and disasters
  • advances in technology
  • the potential effects of threatened or actual terrorism and war
  • the effects of Entergy's strategies to reduce tax payments
  • the effects of litigation and government investigations
  • changes in accounting standards, corporate governance, and securities law requirements
  • Entergy's ability to attract and retain talented management and directors
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

 

DEFINITIONS

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

Abbreviation or Acronym

Term

   

AFUDC

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction

ALJ

Administrative Law Judge

ANO 1 and 2

Units 1 and 2 of Arkansas Nuclear One Steam Electric Generating Station (nuclear), owned by Entergy Arkansas

APSC

Arkansas Public Service Commission

Board

Board of Directors of Entergy Corporation

Cajun

Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

capacity factor

Actual plant output divided by maximum potential plant output for the period

City Council or Council

Council of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana

CPI-U

Consumer Price Index - Urban

DOE

United States Department of Energy

domestic utility companies

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans, collectively

EITF

FASB's Emerging Issues Task Force

Energy Commodity Services

Entergy's business segment that includes Entergy-Koch, LP and Entergy's non-nuclear wholesale assets business

Entergy

Entergy Corporation and its direct and indirect subsidiaries

Entergy Corporation

Entergy Corporation, a Delaware corporation

Entergy-Koch

Entergy-Koch, LP, a joint venture equally owned by subsidiaries of Entergy and Koch Industries, Inc.

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPDC

Entergy Power Development Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation

FASB

Financial Accounting Standards Board

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

firm liquidated damages

Transaction that requires receipt or delivery of energy at a specified delivery point (usually at a market hub not associated with a specific asset); if a party fails to deliver or receive energy, the defaulting party must compensate the other party as specified in the contract

FSP

FASB Staff Position

Grand Gulf

Unit No. 1 of Grand Gulf Steam Electric Generating Station (nuclear), 90% owned or leased by System Energy

GWh

Gigawatt-hour(s), which equals one million kilowatt-hours

Independence

Independence Steam Electric Station (coal), owned 16% by Entergy Arkansas, 25% by Entergy Mississippi, and 7% by Entergy Power

IRS

Internal Revenue Service

ISO

Independent System Operator

kV

Kilovolt

kW

Kilowatt

kWh

Kilowatt-hour(s)

LDEQ

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LPSC

Louisiana Public Service Commission

Mcf

One thousand cubic feet of gas

MMBtu

One million British Thermal Units

MPSC

Mississippi Public Service Commission

DEFINITIONS (Continued)

Abbreviation or Acronym

Term

MW

Megawatt(s), which equals one thousand kilowatt(s)

MWh

Megawatt-hour(s)

Nelson Unit 6

Unit No. 6 (coal) of the Nelson Steam Electric Generating Station, owned 70% by Entergy Gulf States

Net debt ratio

Gross debt less cash and cash equivalents divided by total capitalization less cash and cash equivalents

Net MW in operation

Installed capacity owned or operated

Net revenue

Operating revenue net of fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses; and other regulatory credits

Non-Utility Nuclear

Entergy's business segment that owns and operates five nuclear power plants and sells electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NYPA

New York Power Authority

PPA

Purchased power agreement

production cost

Cost in $/MMBtu associated with delivering gas, excluding the cost of the gas

PRP

Potentially responsible party (a person or entity that may be responsible for remediation of environmental contamination)

PUCT

Public Utility Commission of Texas

PUHCA

Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended

PURPA

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978

Ritchie Unit 2

Unit 2 of the R.E. Ritchie Steam Electric Generating Station (gas/oil)

River Bend

River Bend Steam Electric Generating Station (nuclear), owned by Entergy Gulf States

SEC

Securities and Exchange Commission

SFAS

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards as promulgated by the FASB

SMEPA

South Mississippi Electric Power Agency, which owns a 10% interest in Grand Gulf

spark spread

Dollar difference between electricity prices per unit and natural gas prices after assuming a conversion ratio for the number of natural gas units necessary to generate one unit of electricity

System Agreement

Agreement, effective January 1, 1983, as modified, among the domestic utility companies relating to the sharing of generating capacity and other power resources

System Energy

System Energy Resources, Inc.

System Fuels

System Fuels, Inc.

TWh

Terawatt-hour(s), which equals one billion kilowatt-hours

unit-contingent

Transaction under which power is supplied from a specific generation asset; if the specified generation asset is unavailable as a result of forced outage or unanticipated event or circumstance, the seller is not liable to the buyer for any damages resulting from the seller's failure to deliver power

unit-contingent with
availability guarantees

Transaction under which power is supplied from a specific generation asset; if the specified generation asset is unavailable as a result of forced outage or unanticipated event or circumstance, the seller is not liable to the buyer for any damages resulting from the seller's failure to deliver power unless the actual availability over a specified period of time is below an availability threshold specified in the contract

DEFINITIONS (Concluded)

Abbreviation or Acronym

Term

   

Unit Power Sales Agreement

Agreement, dated as of June 10, 1982, as amended and approved by FERC, among Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy, relating to the sale of capacity and energy from System Energy's share of Grand Gulf

UK

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

U.S. Utility

Entergy's business segment that generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electric power, with a small amount of natural gas distribution

Waterford 3

Unit No. 3 (nuclear) of the Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, 100% owned or leased by Entergy Louisiana

weather-adjusted usage

Electric usage excluding the effects of deviations from normal weather

White Bluff

White Bluff Steam Electric Generating Station, 57% owned by Entergy Arkansas

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Results of Operations

Entergy's consolidated earnings applicable to common stock for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

Second Quarter

Six Months Ended

Operating Segment

 

2005

 

2004

2005

2004

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Utility

 

$211,717 

 

$194,964 

$302,216 

$310,621 

Non-Utility Nuclear

 

58,277 

 

62,994 

136,242 

131,828 

Parent Company & Other Business
  Segments

 


16,156 

 


7,224 


19,688 


29,894 

Total

 

$286,150 

 

$265,182 

$458,146 

$472,343 

Entergy's income before taxes is discussed below according to the operating segments listed above. See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements herein for more information concerning Entergy's operating segments and their financial results in 2005 and 2004.

Refer to ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES - SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS for further information with respect to operating statistics.

U.S. UTILITY

The increase in earnings for the U.S. Utility for the second quarter 2005 compared to the second quarter 2004 from $195.0 million to $211.7 million was primarily due to higher net revenue partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses and lower other income.

The decrease in earnings for the U.S. Utility for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 from $310.6 million to $302.2 million was primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses and higher depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher net revenue and lower interest expenses.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

  

 

Amount

  

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$1,100.6 

Price applied to unbilled sales

 

71.0 

Volume/weather

 

10.8 

Other

 

(1.6)

2005 net revenue

 

$1,180.8 

The price applied to unbilled sales variance resulted from an increase in the fuel cost component included in the price applied to unbilled sales. The increase in the fuel cost component is attributable to an increase in the price of natural gas, the nuclear refueling outage at Waterford 3, and the nuclear maintenance outages at River Bend. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to an increase in electricity usage totaling 161 GWh in the residential and commercial sectors.  Industrial sales volume declined primarily due to the loss to cogeneration, which had been expected, of one large customer.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased from $2.0 billion for the second quarter 2004 to $2.2 billion for the second quarter 2005. The increase includes an increase in fuel cost recovery revenues of $81.7 million resulting primarily from increases in the market prices of natural gas and purchased power. As such, this revenue increase is offset by increased fuel and purchased power expenses. The increases in the price applied to unbilled sales and volume/weather variances, discussed above, also contributed to the increase in gross operating revenues.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

  

 

Amount

  

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$2,025.4 

Price applied to unbilled sales

 

55.5 

Deferred fuel cost revisions

 

15.5 

Rate refund provisions

 

7.5 

Volume/weather

 

(15.8)

Other

 

2.3 

2005 net revenue

 

$2,090.4 

The price applied to unbilled sales variance resulted from an increase in the fuel cost component included in the price applied to unbilled sales. The increase in the fuel cost component is attributable to an increase in the price of natural gas, the nuclear refueling outage at Waterford 3, and the nuclear maintenance outages at River Bend. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The deferred fuel cost revisions variance is due to a revised estimate of fuel costs filed for recovery at Entergy Arkansas in the March 2004 energy cost recovery rider, which reduced net revenue in the first quarter of 2004 by $11.5 million. The remainder of the variance is due to the 2004 energy cost recovery true-up, made in the first quarter of 2005, which increased net revenue by $4.0 million.

The rate refund provisions variance is due primarily to accruals recorded in 2004 for potential rate action at Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Gulf States. Included in the current period variance are provisions recorded at Entergy Louisiana in 2005 as a result of LPSC-approved settlements in March 2005 and May 2005. The settlements are discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

The volume/weather variance resulted from decreased usage by residential customers and a decrease in usage during the unbilled sales period. Industrial sales volume was relatively unchanged as the loss to cogeneration, which had been expected, of one large customer was offset by an increase in usage by other customers, primarily in the chemical industry.  See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased from $3.8 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2004 to $4.0 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The increase includes an increase in fuel cost recovery revenues of $151 million resulting primarily from increases in the market prices of natural gas and purchased power. As such, this revenue increase is offset by increased fuel and purchased power expenses. The increase in the price applied to unbilled sales, discussed above, also contributed to the increase in gross operating revenues.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $391.7 million for the second quarter 2004 to $432.6 million for the second quarter 2005 primarily due to:

  • an increase of $17.9 million in payroll and benefits costs;
  • an increase of $9.1 million in nuclear expenses for contract and material costs associated with maintenance outages and timing of payroll related expenses; and
  • an increase of $5.1 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Other income decreased from $30.5 million for the second quarter 2004 to $20.1 million for the second quarter 2005 primarily due to:

  • a decrease of $10.1 million at Entergy Gulf States due to a reduction in 2004 in the loss provision for an environmental clean-up site; and
  • a decrease of $7.1 million at Entergy Louisiana due to the write-off in June 2005 of a portion of the customer care system investment and the related allowance for equity funds used during construction pursuant to an LPSC-approved settlement.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $6.2 million in interest and dividend income primarily due to higher interest on temporary cash investments.

Interest on long-term debt decreased from $97.6 million for the second quarter 2004 to $91.2 million for the second quarter 2005 primarily due to the net retirement of $319 million of long-term debt at the domestic utility companies in 2004. Refer to Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements herein for details of long-term debt.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $723 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 to $798 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 primarily due to:

  • an increase of $33.3 million in payroll and benefits costs;
  • an increase of $13.2 million in nuclear expenses for contract and material costs associated with maintenance outages and timing of payroll related expenses;
  • an increase of $8.1 million in fossil expenses as a result of additional planned off-peak fossil generation maintenance outages; and
  • an increase of $5.1 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased from $385.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 to $398.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 due primarily to an increase in plant in service.

Other income, which was $45.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and $45.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, includes the following:

  • a decrease of $10.1 million at Entergy Gulf States due to a reduction in 2004 in the loss provision for an environmental clean-up site;
  • a decrease of $7.1 million at Entergy Louisiana due to the write-off in June 2005 of a portion of the customer care system investment and the related allowance for equity funds used during construction pursuant to an LPSC-approved settlement;
  • an increase of $10.6 million in interest and dividend income primarily due to higher interest on temporary cash investments; and
  • an increase of $9.8 million in the allowance for equity funds used during construction as a result of higher construction expenditures.

Interest on long-term debt decreased from $199.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 to $184.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 primarily due to the net retirement of $319 million of long-term debt at the domestic utility companies in 2004. Refer to Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements herein for details of long-term debt.

NON-UTILITY NUCLEAR

Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004:

 

 

Second Quarter

 

Six Months Ended

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net MW in operation at June 30

 

4,105

 

4,001

 

4,105

 

4,001

Generation in GWh for the period

 

8,156

 

8,196

 

16,422

 

16,882

Capacity factor for the period

 

90.9%

 

93.6%

 

92.1%

 

96.3%

Average realized price per MWh

 

$42.63

 

$41.33

 

$42.09

 

$40.49

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

The decrease in earnings for Non-Utility Nuclear from $63.0 million to $58.3 million was primarily due to higher operation and maintenance expenses resulting primarily from increased benefits costs and the effects of lower generation associated with planned and unplanned refueling and maintenance outages. Partially offsetting the decrease was an increase in revenues due to higher contract pricing.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

The increase in earnings for Non-Utility Nuclear from $131.8 million to $136.2 million was primarily due to miscellaneous income of $15.8 million net-of-tax resulting from a reduction in the decommissioning liability for a plant, as discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. Also contributing to the increase in earnings was higher contract pricing. The increase in earnings was partially offset by the effects of lower generation associated with planned and unplanned refueling and maintenance outages and higher operation and maintenance expenses resulting primarily from increased benefits costs.

PARENT COMPANY & OTHER BUSINESS SEGMENTS

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

The increase in earnings for Parent Company & Other Business Segments from $7.2 million to $16.2 million was primarily due to $14.4 million of tax benefits in 2005 from the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and an increase of $5.5 million from the non-nuclear wholesale assets business primarily due to lower operation and maintenance expenses and proceeds from the sale of SO2 allowances. The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $13.9 million due to the absence of earnings from Entergy's investment in Entergy-Koch because of the sale of Entergy-Koch's energy trading and pipeline businesses in the fourth quarter of 2004, as discussed in the Form 10-K.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

The decrease in earnings for Parent Company & Other Business Segments from $29.9 million to $19.7 million was primarily due to a decrease of $30.1 million due to the absence of earnings from Entergy's investment in Entergy-Koch due to the sale of Entergy-Koch's energy trading and pipeline businesses in the fourth quarter of 2004, as discussed in the Form 10-K. Also contributing to the decrease in earnings was the favorable settlement of a tax issue, which increased earnings by $11 million in the first quarter of 2004. The decrease was partially offset by $14.4 million of tax benefits in 2005 from the American Job Creations Act of 2004 and an increase of $14.1 million from the non-nuclear wholesale assets business primarily due to lower operation and maintenance expenses and proceeds from the sale of SO2 allowances.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 34.8% and 38.0%, respectively. The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 34.8% and 36.0%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter and the six months ended June 30, 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to tax benefits from the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and investment tax credit amortization, partially offset by state income taxes and regulatory plant differences on utility plant items. Also contributing to the difference for the six months ended June 30, 2005 is a downward revision in the estimate of federal income tax expense related to tax depreciation. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter and the six months ended June 30, 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and regulatory plant differences on utility plant items, partially offset by the favorable settlement of a tax audit issue and investment tax credit amortization.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy's capital structure, capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital, and sources of capital. Following are updates to that discussion.

The Form 10-K reported that Entergy expected to contribute $185.9 million in 2005 to its pension plans. Entergy has elected to make additional contributions, and now expects to contribute $253.3 million to its pension plans in 2005. Entergy contributed $117.7 million to its pension plans during the six months ended June 30, 2005.

Capital Structure

Entergy's capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital percentage as of June 30, 2005 is primarily the result of increased debt outstanding due to additional borrowings on Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facility along with a decrease in shareholders' equity, primarily due to repurchases of common stock, both of which are discussed below.

 

 

June 30,
2005

December 31, 2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net debt to net capital

 

48.7%

45.3%

 

45.6%

 

45.9%

Effect of subtracting cash from debt

 

1.9%

2.1%

 

1.8%

 

1.6%

Debt to capital

 

50.6%

47.4%

 

47.4%

 

47.5%

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of notes payable, capital lease obligations, preferred stock with sinking fund, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt, common shareholders' equity, and preferred stock without sinking fund. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy's financial condition.

In May 2005, Entergy Corporation terminated its two, separate, revolving credit facilities, a $500 million five-year credit facility and a $965 million three-year credit facility. At that time Entergy Corporation entered into a $2 billion, five-year credit facility, which expires in May 2010. As of June 30, 2005, $635 million in borrowings were outstanding on this facility. Entergy also has the ability to issue letters of credit against the borrowing capacity of the credit facility, and letters of credit totaling $83.5 million had been issued against this facility at June 30, 2005. The total unused capacity for this facility as of June 30, 2005 was approximately $1.3 billion. The commitment fee for this facility is currently 0.13% per annum of the unused amount. Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior debt ratings of the domestic utility companies.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans each have 364-day credit facilities available as follows:


Company

 


Expiration Date

 

Amount of
Facility

 

Amount Drawn as of
June 30, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entergy Arkansas

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

Entergy Mississippi

 

May 2006

 

$25 million

 

-

Entergy New Orleans

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

(a)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $85 million.

(b)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $15 million.

See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of Entergy's short-term credit facilities.

Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital

See the table in the Form 10-K under "Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital," which sets forth the amounts of Entergy's planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for 2005 through 2007.

In March 2005, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement to purchase for $88 million the Attala power plant, a 480 MW natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating facility owned by Central Mississippi Generating Company (CMGC). Entergy Mississippi plans to invest approximately $20 million in facility upgrades at the Attala plant plus $3 million in other costs, bringing the total capital cost of the project to approximately $111 million. The Attala plant will be 100 percent owned by Entergy Mississippi, and the acquisition is expected to close in late 2005 or early 2006. The purchase of the plant is contingent upon obtaining necessary approvals from various federal agencies, state permitting agencies, and the MPSC, including MPSC approval of investment cost recovery. In May and June 2005, Entergy Mississippi made filings at the MPSC to commence proceedings for MPSC approval both of the acquisition and of the investment cost recovery for the plant. Entergy Mississippi and CMGC had previously executed a purchased power agreement in July 2004 for 100 percent of the plant's output, and this agreement will expire upon the close of the acquisition or in March 2008, whichever occurs earlier. The planned construction and other capital investments table in the Form 10-K includes the estimated cost of the Attala acquisition as a 2006 capital commitment.

Cash Flow Activity

As shown in Entergy's Statements of Cash Flows, cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$620 

 

$507 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

 767 

 

929 

 

Investing activities

 

(698)

 

(484)

 

Financing activities

 

(74)

 

(392)

Effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents

 

 

(2)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

(5)

 

51 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$615 

 

$558

Operating Activities

Entergy's cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $162 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due a decrease at the U.S. Utility. The U.S. Utility provided $535 million in cash from operating activities in 2005 compared to providing $669 million in 2004. The decrease resulted primarily from an increase of $80 million in pension plan contributions, the $90 million refund to customers in the Louisiana jurisdiction made as a result of the global settlement, an increase of $72 million in income tax payments, and changes in the timing of fuel cost recovery compared to the prior period. These increased uses of cash were partially offset by various items, including the timing of receivable collections and vendor payments compared to the prior period. The Non-Utility Nuclear segment also contributed to the decrease. The Non-Utility Nuclear segment provided $235 million in cash from operating activities in 2005 compared to providing $265 million in 2004. This decrease was caused primarily by nuclear refueling outage costs, as this business had one more refueling outage in the first half of 2005 than in the first half of 2004.

Investing Activities

Investing activities used $698 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to using $484 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the following activity:

  • Construction expenditures were $44 million higher in 2005 than in 2004. The increase is in the U.S. Utility segment, and is primarily due to increases at Entergy Louisiana resulting from an increase in spending on transmission and nuclear projects and an increase of $19.8 million in capacity costs that have been deferred and are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.
  • The non-nuclear wholesale assets business received $22 million in 2004 from the sale of the Crete power plant.
  • Entergy Louisiana purchased the Perryville plant in June 2005 for $162.5 million. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this acquisition. In April 2005, the LPSC approved the acquisition and the long-term cost-of-service purchased power agreement under which Entergy Gulf States will purchase 75 percent of the plant's output.
  • The non-nuclear wholesale assets business received a return of invested capital of $34 million in 2005 from the Top Deer wind power joint venture after Top Deer obtained debt financing.
  • Entergy made an additional capital contribution of approximately $73 million to Entergy-Koch in 2004.
  • Approximately $60 million of the cash collateral for a letter of credit that secured the installment obligations owed to NYPA for the acquisition of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants was released to Entergy in 2004.
  • Entergy's net investment in temporary investments decreased by $188 million during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and decreased by $208 million during the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding these investments.
  • The U.S. Utility used $64 million in 2005 and $31 million in 2004 for other regulatory investments as a result of fuel cost under-recovery. See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the accounting treatment of these fuel cost under-recoveries.

 

Financing Activities

Financing activities used $74 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to using $392 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the following activity:

  • Net issuances of long-term debt by the U.S. Utility segment provided $108 million during the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to retirements of long-term debt net of issuances using $253 million during the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for the details of long-term debt activity in 2005.
  • Entergy Corporation repurchased $640 million of its common stock during the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $271 million during the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Part II, Item 2 herein and in the First Quarter 2005 Form 10-Q for details regarding Entergy Corporation's common stock repurchases in 2005.
  • Entergy Corporation increased the net borrowings on its credit facility by $585 million during the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $255 million during the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for a description of the Entergy Corporation credit facility.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for discussions of rate regulation, federal regulation, market and credit risks, utility restructuring, and nuclear matters. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

State and Local Rate Regulation

See the Form 10-K for the chart summarizing material rate proceedings. Following are updates to that chart.

In March 2005, the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a range of issues for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement resulted in credits totaling $76 million for retail electricity customers in Entergy Gulf States' Louisiana service territory and credits totaling $14 million for retail electricity customers of Entergy Louisiana. The settlement dismissed Entergy Gulf States' fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth annual earnings reviews, Entergy Gulf States' ninth post-merger earnings review and revenue requirement analysis, the continuation of a fuel review for Entergy Gulf States, dockets established to consider issues concerning power purchases for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana for the summers of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, all prudence issues associated with decisions made through May 2005 related to the nuclear plant uprates at issue in these cases, and an LPSC docket concerning retail issues arising under the System Agreement. The settlement does not include the System Agreement case at FERC. In addition, Entergy Gulf States agreed not to seek recovery from customers of $2 million of excess refund amounts associated with the fourth through the eighth annual earnings reviews and Entergy Louisiana agreed to forgo recovery of $3.5 million of deferred 2003 capacity costs associated with certain power purchase agreements. The credits were issued in connection with April 2005 billings. Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana had reserved for the approximate refund amounts.

The settlement includes the establishment of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Gulf States that, among other provisions, establishes an ROE mid-point of 10.65% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permits Entergy Gulf States to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed range of 9.9% to 11.4% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Gulf States. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Gulf States. Under the settlement, there was no change to Entergy Gulf States' retail rates at that time.

In June 2005, the Alliance for Affordable Energy and an individual plaintiff filed an appeal in the 19th Judicial District Court for the parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The plaintiffs allege that neither Entergy Gulf States nor the LPSC published notice that a formula rate plan was to be considered as part of the settlement and that the LPSC order should be set aside as null and void and without effect because the Louisiana Constitution requires that notice be published when a utility files a proposed rate schedule that would result in a change in rates. Management believes the plaintiffs' claim is without merit and expects to intervene in the proceeding to oppose the appeal.

In June 2005, Entergy Gulf States made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the test year ending December 31, 2004. The filing shows a net revenue deficiency of $2.58 million indicating that no refund liability exists. The filing also indicates that a prospective rate increase of $23.8 million is required in order for Entergy Gulf States to earn the authorized ROE mid-point of 10.65%. Subject to the consideration of comments expected to be filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in the third quarter 2005, rate changes associated with the formula rate plan are scheduled to take effect with the first billing cycle in October 2005.  Any disputed issues will be subject to further investigation by the LPSC, with any resolution of such issues being made effective October 2005.

Regarding Entergy Louisiana's January 2004 rate filing, in March 2005, the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a proposed settlement that includes an annual base rate increase of approximately $18.3 million that was implemented, subject to refund, effective with May 2005 billings. In May 2005, the LPSC approved a modified settlement which, among other things, reduces depreciation and decommissioning expense due to assuming a life extension of Waterford 3 and results in no change in rates. Subsequently, in June 2005, Entergy Louisiana made a revised compliance filing with the LPSC supporting a revised depreciation rate for Waterford 3, which reflects the removal of interim additions, and a rate increase from the purchase of the Perryville power plant, which results in a net $0.8 million annual rate reduction. Entergy Louisiana reduced rates effective with the first billing cycle in June 2005 and expects to refund excess revenue collected during May 2005, including interest, in the third quarter of 2005.

The May 2005 rate settlement with the LPSC includes the adoption of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Louisiana, the terms of which include an ROE mid-point of 10.25% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permit Entergy Louisiana to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed regulatory earnings range of 9.45% to 11.05% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Louisiana. The initial formula rate plan filing will be in May 2006 based on a 2005 test year with rates effective September 2006. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana.

In July 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the LPSC an application for a change in its rates and charges seeking an increase of $9.1 million in gas base rates in order to allow Entergy Gulf States an opportunity to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return. In June 2005, the LPSC unanimously approved Entergy Gulf States' proposed settlement that includes a $5.8 million gas base rate increase effective the first billing cycle of July 2005 and a rate stabilization plan with an ROE mid-point of 10.5%.

Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT in July 2005 a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider, consistent with the recently passed Texas legislation discussed below under "Utility Restructuring." The rider requests $23.1 million annually in incremental revenues on a Texas retail basis which represents the incremental purchased capacity costs, including Entergy Gulf States' obligation to purchase power from Entergy Louisiana's recently acquired Perryville plant, over what is already in Entergy Gulf States' base rates. Entergy Gulf States has reached an agreement with parties with respect to the date upon which cost recovery and cost reconciliation would begin.  The parties have agreed that Entergy Gulf States will implement the rider after approval by the PUCT which could be up to 185 days from the date of filing but will reconcile and recover incremental purchased capacity costs incurred beginning September 1, 2005. The September 1, 2005 agreed upon date for the beginning of the cost recovery and cost reconciliation as well as the requested amount and the processes for implementing the rider are subject to PUCT action and approval. If approved by the PUCT, the rider would be subject to semi-annual modifications and reconciliation in conjunction with Entergy Gulf States' fuel reconciliation proceedings. Also see "Utility Restructuring" below for discussion of the provisions in the Texas legislation regarding Entergy Gulf States' ability to file a general rate case and for recovery of transition to competition costs.

In May 2005, the MPSC approved a joint stipulation entered into between the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi regarding Entergy Mississippi's annual formula rate plan filing that provides for no change in rates based on a performance adjusted ROE mid-point of 10.50%, establishing an allowed regulatory earnings range of 9.1% to 11.9%.

In April 2005, Entergy New Orleans made its annual scheduled formula rate plan filings with the City Council.  The filings show that a decrease of $0.2 million in electric revenues is warranted and an increase of $3.9 million in gas revenues is warranted. The filings triggered the prescribed period for review by the City Council's Advisors and other parties, and rate adjustments, if any, could be implemented as soon as September 2005.

In May 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council a request for continuation of the formula rate plan and generation performance-based rate plan for an additional three years. The filing requests a target equity component of the capital structure of 45%, an increase from the current target of 42%.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

 

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before Entergy's retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the proceeding that the LPSC commenced before itself regarding the System Agreement. As noted above in "State and Local Rate Regulation," the settlement of various issues involving Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana that was approved by the LPSC has resolved the System Agreement proceeding before the LPSC, which has been dismissed without prejudice.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

FERC's Supply Margin Assessment

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the FERC's supply margin assessment and, in particular, the order issued by the FERC in December 2004 pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).  On June 30, 2005, the FERC issued an order addressing Entergy's delivered price test (DPT) analysis.  The FERC found that material questions of fact exist that may affect the results of the DPT submitted by Entergy.  These issues include, for example, whether the entire Entergy control area is the appropriate relevant geographic market or whether there exist binding transmission constraints such that it is more appropriate to define more than one geographic market within the Entergy control area.  Accordingly, the FERC initiated an evidentiary hearing to address the impact of any transmission constraints on the appropriate scope of the relevant market; which information will be required prior to the FERC making a determination on whether Entergy has market power within its control area. On July 22, 2005, Entergy notified the FERC that it was withdrawing its request for market-based rate authority for sales within its control area. Instead, the domestic utility companies and their affiliates will transact at cost-based rates for wholesale sales within the Entergy control area. Entergy indicated that it will file the proposed cost-based rate schedules within 60 days. Additionally, Entergy reserves its right to request market-based rate authority for sales within its control area in the future. The FERC ALJ in the proceeding issued an order that cancelled a pre-hearing conference set for July 26, 2005, set a deadline of August 8, 2005 for objections to Entergy's notice of withdrawal, and stated that if no objections were filed by August 8, 2005 Entergy's withdrawal notice will have disposed of all pending issues in the proceeding. The relinquishment of market-based rates for sales within the Entergy control area is not expected to have a material effect on the financial results of Entergy.

Additionally, on May 5, 2005, the FERC issued an order addressing the remaining prongs in the market-based rate proceeding: transmission market power, barriers to entry/reciprocal dealing, and affiliate abuse.  The FERC granted rehearing in part and instituted a proceeding under Section 206 of the FPA to investigate whether Entergy satisfies the FERC's transmission market power and affiliate abuse/reciprocal dealing standards for the granting of market-based rate authority, and established a refund effective date pursuant to the provisions of Section 206, for purposes of the additional issues set for hearing.  However, the FERC decided to hold that investigation in abeyance pending the outcomes of the ICT proceeding and the affiliate purchased power agreements proceeding.  The FERC declined to require a hearing on the remaining prong regarding barriers to entry.  On June 6, 2005, Entergy sought rehearing of the May 5 Order and that request for rehearing is pending.

Interconnection Orders

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ALJ Initial Decision and FERC order directing Entergy Louisiana to refund, in the form of transmission credits, approximately $15 million in expenses and tax obligations previously paid by a generator. Entergy's request for rehearing was denied by the FERC.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Utility Restructuring

Previous developments and information related to electric industry restructuring are presented in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

Retail-Texas

In June 2005, a Texas law was enacted which provides that:

  • Entergy Gulf States is authorized by the legislation to proceed with a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utilities, one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the LPSC and one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the PUCT;
  • the portions of all prior PUCT orders requiring Entergy Gulf States to comply with any provisions of Texas law governing transition to retail competition are void;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a plan by January 1, 2006, identifying the power region(s) to be considered for certification and the steps and schedule to achieve certification;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a transition to competition plan no later than January 1, 2007, that would address how Entergy Gulf States intends to mitigate market power and achieve full customer choice, including potential construction of additional transmission facilities, generation auctions, generation capacity divestiture, reinstatement of a customer choice pilot project, establishment of a price to beat, and other measures;
  • Entergy Gulf States' rates are subject to cost-of-service regulation until retail customer choice is implemented;
  • Entergy Gulf States may not file a general base rate case in Texas before June 30, 2007, with rates effective no earlier than June 30, 2008, but may seek before then the recovery of certain incremental purchased power capacity costs, adjusted for load growth, not in excess of five percent of its annual base rate revenues (as discussed above in "State and Local Regulation," in July 2005 Entergy Gulf States filed a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider); and
  • Entergy Gulf States may recover over a period not to exceed 15 years reasonable and necessary transition to competition costs incurred before the effective date of the legislation and not previously recovered, with appropriate carrying charges.

Retail-Louisiana

In November 2001, the LPSC decided not to move forward with retail open access for any customers at this time. The LPSC instead directed its staff to hold collaborative group meetings concerning open access from time to time, and to have the LPSC staff monitor developments in neighboring states and to report to the LPSC regarding the progress of retail access developments in those states. In September 2004, in response to a study performed by the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies that evaluated a limited industrial-only retail choice program, the LPSC asked the LPSC staff to solicit comments and obtain information from utilities, customers, and other interested parties concerning the potential costs and benefits of a limited choice program, the impact of such a program on other customers, as well as issues such as stranded costs and transmission service.  Comments from interested parties were filed with the LPSC in January 2005. A technical conference was held in April 2005 and in May 2005 interested parties filed reply comments to arguments made at the technical conference. Entergy stated that it believes that there is no new information or credible evidence that would justify altering the LPSC's previous conclusion that retail access is not in the public interest.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Market and Credit Risks

Commodity Price Risk

As discussed in the Form 10-K, some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear power plants and the wholesale supply agreements entered into by Entergy's Competitive Retail business contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide collateral to secure its obligations under the agreements. The Entergy subsidiary may be required to provide collateral based upon the difference between the current market and contracted power prices in the regions where the Non-Utility Nuclear and Competitive Retail businesses sell power. The primary form of the collateral to satisfy these requirements would be an Entergy Corporation guaranty.  Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of collateral.  At June 30, 2005, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had in place as collateral $922.7 million of Entergy Corporation guarantees, $81.0 million of which support letters of credit. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation's credit rating to specified levels below investment grade, Entergy may be required to replace Entergy Corporation guarantees with cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements.

Central States Compact Claim

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 holds each state responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste originating in that state, but allows states to participate in regional compacts to fulfill their responsibilities jointly.  Arkansas and Louisiana participate in the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (Central States Compact or Compact).  Commencing in 1998, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana made a series of contributions to the Central States Compact to fund the Central States Compact's development of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to be located in Boyd County, Nebraska.  In December 1998, Nebraska, the host state for the proposed Central States Compact disposal facility, denied the compact's license application for the proposed disposal facility.  Several parties, including the commission that governs the compact (the Compact Commission), filed a lawsuit against Nebraska seeking damages resulting from Nebraska's denial of the proposed facility's license.  After a trial, the U.S. District Court concluded that Nebraska violated its good faith obligations regarding the proposed waste disposal facility and rendered a judgment against Nebraska in the amount of $151 million.  In August 2004, Nebraska agreed to pay the Compact $141 million in settlement of the judgment. In July 2005, the Compact Commission decided to distribute a substantial portion of the proceeds from the settlement to the nuclear power generators that had contributed funding for the Boyd County facility, including Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana. On August 1, 2005, Nebraska paid the full amount of the settlement to the Compact, and the Compact distributed from the settlement proceeds $23.6 million to Entergy Arkansas, $19.9 million to Entergy Gulf States, and $18.4 million to Entergy Louisiana.  Management is still analyzing the accounting treatment of the receipts, but expects that some portion of the receipts could result in income for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy's accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, unbilled revenue, impairment of long-lived assets, pension and other postretirement benefits, and other contingencies. The following is an update to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

In the first quarter of 2005, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business recorded a reduction of $26.0 million in its decommissioning cost liability in conjunction with a new decommissioning cost study as a result of revised decommissioning costs and changes in assumptions regarding the timing of when the decommissioning of a plant will begin. The revised estimate resulted in miscellaneous income of $26.0 million ($15.8 million net-of-tax), reflecting the excess of the reduction in the liability over the amount of undepreciated asset retirement cost.

In the second quarter of 2005, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability in accordance with a new decommissioning cost study for Waterford 3 that reflected an expected life extension for the plant. The revised estimate resulted in a $153.6 million reduction in its decommissioning liability, along with a $49.2 million reduction in utility plant and a $104.4 million reduction in the related regulatory asset.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
           
                 
    Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands, Except Share Data)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $2,124,134    $1,952,049    $3,868,516    $3,653,377 
Natural gas   43,660    38,146    130,610    121,962 
Competitive businesses   541,725    494,902    1,033,806    961,307 
TOTAL   2,709,519    2,485,097    5,032,932    4,736,646 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operating and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   474,203    488,368    1,054,284    1,038,495 
  Purchased power   739,786    555,439    1,239,565    1,004,959 
  Nuclear refueling outage expenses   39,150    39,099    78,960    80,706 
  Other operation and maintenance   599,575    567,746    1,134,239    1,068,997 
Decommissioning   36,525    37,098    73,524    75,446 
Taxes other than income taxes   107,465    103,283    210,454    200,585 
Depreciation and amortization   213,902    215,640    438,079    426,289 
Other regulatory credits - net   (30,697)   (15,888)   (47,462)   (31,977)
TOTAL   2,179,909    1,990,785    4,181,643    3,863,500 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   529,610    494,312    851,289    873,146 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   11,164    8,016    24,049    15,479 
Interest and dividend income   34,756    25,823    65,646    54,074 
Equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated equity affiliates   2,158    20,288    (35)   40,107 
Miscellaneous - net   (11,333)   13,571    14,469    18,740 
TOTAL   36,745    67,698    104,129    128,400 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES                 
Interest on long-term debt   109,299    116,211    220,052    235,672 
Other interest - net   14,058    13,563    26,222    19,778 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (6,181)   (4,970)   (13,690)   (10,124)
TOTAL   117,176    124,804    232,584    245,326 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   449,179    437,206    722,834    756,220 
                 
Income taxes   156,390    166,195    251,425    272,192 
                 
CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME   292,789    271,011    471,409    484,028 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   6,639    5,829    13,263    11,685 
                 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $286,150    $265,182    $458,146    $472,343 
                 
Earnings per average common share:                
  Basic   $1.36    $1.16    $2.15    $2.06 
  Diluted   $1.33    $1.14    $2.11    $2.02 
Dividends declared per common share   $0.54    $0.45    $1.08    $0.90 
                 
Average number of common shares outstanding:                
  Basic   211,134,467    228,714,654    212,622,976    229,489,646 
  Diluted   215,568,534    232,775,049    217,091,580    234,007,635 
                 
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.                
                 
                 

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
         
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
   
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Consolidated net income   $471,409    $484,028 
Adjustments to reconcile consolidated net income to net cash flow        
provided by operating activities:        
  Reserve for regulatory adjustments   (73,803)   2,407 
  Other regulatory credits - net   (47,462)   (31,977)
  Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning   511,603    501,735 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   95,985    138,574 
  Equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated equity affiliates - net of dividends   35    (13,824)
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (129,074)   (184,375)
    Fuel inventory   13,246    (22,592)
    Accounts payable   (25,284)   33,120 
    Taxes accrued   74,540    111,393 
    Interest accrued   (18,118)   (18,811)
    Deferred fuel   (97,100)   1,911 
    Other working capital accounts   (54,588)   23,352 
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   10,272    (2,239)
  Changes in other regulatory assets   25,234    4,217 
  Other   10,176    (97,849)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   767,071    929,070 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction/capital expenditures   (639,651)   (595,618)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   24,049    15,479 
Nuclear fuel purchases   (184,445)   (100,229)
Proceeds from sale/leaseback of nuclear fuel   125,680    61,694 
Proceeds from sale of assets and businesses     21,978 
Payment for purchase of plant   (162,075)  
Investment in non-utility properties     (8,442)
Decrease (increase) in other investments   63,193    (11,071)
Purchases of other temporary investments   (1,591,025)   (376,100)
Liquidation of other temporary investments   1,778,975    583,600 
Decommissioning trust contributions and realized change in trust assets   (48,527)   (44,588)
Other regulatory investments   (63,800)   (30,696)
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (697,626)   (483,993)
         
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.        
         
         
         
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
         
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of:        
  Long-term debt   637,215    272,977 
  Preferred stock   30,000   
  Common stock and treasury stock   89,868    107,840 
Retirement of long-term debt   (531,919)   (539,779)
Repurchase of common stock   (639,820)   (271,237)
Redemption of preferred stock   (2,250)   (2,250)
Changes in credit line borrowings - net   584,850    255,000 
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (229,353)   (202,349)
  Preferred stock   (13,261)   (11,913)
Net cash flow used in financing activities   (74,670)   (391,711)
         
Effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents   129    (2,401)
         
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   (5,096)   50,965 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   619,786    507,433 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $614,690    $558,398 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $250,302    $259,674 
  Income taxes   $83,688    $25,729 
         

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT ASSETS        
Cash and cash equivalents:        
  Cash   $104,992    $79,136 
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,        
   which approximates market   509,698    540,650 
     Total cash and cash equivalents   614,690    619,786 
Other temporary investments   -    187,950 
Notes receivable   2,051    3,092 
Accounts receivable:        
  Customer   415,382    435,191 
  Allowance for doubtful accounts   (21,979)   (23,758)
  Other   368,400    342,289 
  Accrued unbilled revenues   597,361    460,039 
     Total receivables   1,359,164    1,213,761 
Deferred fuel costs   223,980    85,911 
Accumulated deferred income taxes   8,303    76,899 
Fuel inventory - at average cost   114,005    127,251 
Materials and supplies - at average cost   579,375    569,407 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs   159,484    107,782 
Prepayments and other   117,862    116,279 
TOTAL   3,178,914    3,108,118 
         
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Investment in affiliates - at equity   168,040    231,779 
Decommissioning trust funds   2,543,275    2,453,406 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)   224,545    219,717 
Other   76,158    90,992 
TOTAL   3,012,018    2,995,894 
         
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT        
Electric   29,710,868    29,053,340 
Property under capital lease   732,583    738,554 
Natural gas   276,874    262,787 
Construction work in progress   1,082,681    1,197,551 
Nuclear fuel under capital lease   268,193    262,469 
Nuclear fuel   339,446    320,813 
TOTAL PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT   32,410,645    31,835,514 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization   13,431,269    13,139,883 
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT - NET   18,979,376    18,695,631 
          
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:        
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net   737,906    746,413 
  Other regulatory assets   1,381,259    1,429,261 
Long-term receivables   29,884    39,417 
Goodwill   377,172    377,172 
Other   884,622    918,871 
TOTAL   3,410,843    3,511,134 
         
TOTAL ASSETS   $28,581,151    $28,310,777 
         
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.        
 
 
 
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt   $375,286    $492,564 
Notes payable   43    193 
Accounts payable   871,244    896,528 
Customer deposits   234,223    222,320 
Taxes accrued   237,239    224,011 
Nuclear refueling outage costs    6,021    -  
Interest accrued   126,360    144,478 
Obligations under capital leases   135,262    133,847 
Other    260,706    218,442 
TOTAL   2,246,384    2,332,383 
         
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued   5,097,025    5,067,381 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits   389,468    399,228 
Obligations under capital leases   170,322    146,060 
Other regulatory liabilities   378,485    329,767 
Decommissioning and retirement cost liabilities   1,959,346    2,066,277 
Transition to competition   79,101    79,101 
Regulatory reserves   20,174    103,061 
Accumulated provisions   560,478    549,914 
Long-term debt   7,843,705    7,016,831 
Preferred stock with sinking fund   15,150    17,400 
Other   1,475,720    1,541,331 
TOTAL   17,988,974    17,316,351 
         
Commitments and Contingencies        
         
Preferred stock without sinking fund   395,683    365,356 
         
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Common stock, $.01 par value, authorized 500,000,000        
 shares; issued 248,174,087 shares in 2005 and in 2004   2,482    2,482 
Paid-in capital   4,845,037    4,835,375 
Retained earnings   5,212,985    4,984,302 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (147,007)   (93,453)
Less - treasury stock, at cost (38,226,127 shares in 2005 and        
 31,345,028 shares in 2004)   1,963,387    1,432,019 
TOTAL   7,950,110    8,296,687 
         
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY   $28,581,151    $28,310,777 
         
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF RETAINED EARNINGS, COMPREHENSIVE INCOME, AND PAID-IN CAPITAL
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
                     
        Three Months Ended
        2005   2004
        (In Thousands)
RETAINED EARNINGS                    
Retained Earnings - Beginning of period       $5,040,655        $4,605,907     
  Add - Earnings applicable to common stock       286,150    $286,150    265,182    $265,182 
  Deduct:                    
    Dividends declared on common stock       113,820        102,458     
    Capital stock and other expenses             295     
      Total       113,820        102,753     
Retained Earnings - End of period       $5,212,985        $4,768,336     
                     
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE                    
INCOME (LOSS) (Net of Taxes):                    
Balance at beginning of period                    
 Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       ($161,446)       ($41,997)    
  Other accumulated comprehensive income items       44,649        48,490     
      Total       (116,797)       6,493     
                     
Net derivative instrument fair value changes                    
 arising during the period       (46,621)   (46,621)   (77,544)   (77,544)
                     
Foreign currency translation adjustments       (85)   (85)   693    693 
                     
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)       16,496    16,496    (24,843)   (24,843)
                     
Balance at end of period:                    
  Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       ($208,067)       ($119,541)    
  Other accumulated comprehensive income items       61,060        24,340     
      Total       ($147,007)       ($95,201)    
Comprehensive Income           $255,940        $163,488 
                     
PAID-IN CAPITAL                    
Paid-in Capital - Beginning of period       $4,826,797        $4,792,171     
  Add: Common stock issuances related to stock plans       18,240        26,873     
Paid-in Capital - End of period       $4,845,037        $4,819,044     
                     
                     
                     
                     
        Six Months Ended
        2005   2004
        (In Thousands)
RETAINED EARNINGS                    
Retained Earnings - Beginning of period       $4,984,302        $4,502,508     
  Add - Earnings applicable to common stock       458,146    $458,146    472,343    $472,343 
  Deduct:                    
    Dividends declared on common stock       229,448        206,220     
    Capital stock and other expenses       15        295     
      Total       229,463        206,515     
Retained Earnings - End of period       $5,212,985        $4,768,336     
                     
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE                    
INCOME (LOSS) (Net of Taxes):                    
Balance at beginning of period                    
  Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       ($141,411)       ($25,811)    
  Other accumulated comprehensive income items       47,958        18,016     
      Total       (93,453)       (7,795)    
                     
Net derivative instrument fair value changes                    
 arising during the period       (66,655)   (66,655)   (93,730)   (93,730)
                     
Foreign currency translation adjustments       (129)   (129)   2,401    2,401 
                     
Minimum pension liability adjustment       (2,054)   (2,054)    
                     
Net unrealized investment gains       15,284    15,284    3,923    3,923 
                     
Balance at end of period:                    
  Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       ($208,066)       ($119,541)    
  Other accumulated comprehensive income items       61,059        24,340     
     Total       ($147,007)       ($95,201)    
Comprehensive Income           $404,592        $384,937 
                     
PAID-IN CAPITAL                    
Paid-in Capital - Beginning of period       $4,835,375        $4,767,615     
  Add: Common stock issuances related to stock plans       9,662        51,429     
Paid-in Capital - End of period       $4,845,037        $4,819,044     
                     
                     
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.                    
                     

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
U.S. Utility Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $607   $603   $4    1 
  Commercial   480   479   1    - 
  Industrial   560   558   2    - 
  Governmental   48   48   -    - 
    Total retail   1,695   1,688   7    - 
  Sales for resale   105   104   1    1 
  Other   324   160   164    103 
    Total   $2,124   $1,952   $172    9 
                 
U.S. Utility Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   7,005   6,911   94    1 
  Commercial   6,287   6,220   67    1 
  Industrial   9,810   9,922   (112)   (1)
  Governmental   620   609   11    2 
    Total retail   23,722   23,662   60    - 
  Sales for resale   1,938   2,367   (429)   (18)
    Total   25,660   26,029   (369)   (1)
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
U.S. Utility Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $1,229   $1,212   $17    1 
  Commercial   942   914   28    3 
  Industrial   1,116   1,072   44    4 
  Governmental   93   92   1    1 
    Total retail   3,380   3,290   90    3 
  Sales for resale   200   203   (3)   (1)
  Other   288   160   128    80 
    Total   $3,868   $3,653   $215    6 
                 
U.S. Utility Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   14,575   14,637   (62)   - 
  Commercial   12,277   12,107   170    1 
  Industrial   19,406   19,412   (6)   - 
  Governmental   1,229   1,209   20    2 
    Total retail   47,487   47,365   122    - 
  Sales for resale   3,670   4,785   (1,115)   (23)
    Total   51,157   52,150   (993)   (2)
                 

 

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property and replacement power insurance associated with Entergy's nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Decommissioning and Other Retirement Costs

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear decommissioning costs. In the first quarter of 2005, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business recorded a reduction of $26.0 million in its decommissioning cost liability in conjunction with a new decommissioning cost study as a result of revised decommissioning costs and changes in assumptions regarding the timing of when the decommissioning of a plant will begin. The revised estimate resulted in miscellaneous income of $26.0 million ($15.8 million net-of-tax), reflecting the excess of the reduction in the liability over the amount of undepreciated asset retirement cost.

In the second quarter of 2005, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability in accordance with a new decommissioning cost study for Waterford 3 that reflected an expected life extension for the plant. The revised estimate resulted in a $153.6 million reduction in its decommissioning liability, along with a $49.2 million reduction in utility plant and a $104.4 million reduction in the related regulatory asset.

Income Taxes

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding certain material income tax audit matters involving Entergy. Following is an update to that disclosure.

Mark to Market of Certain Power Contracts

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in 2001, Entergy Louisiana changed its method of accounting for income tax purposes related to its wholesale electric power contracts. The most significant of these is the contract to purchase power from the Vidalia hydroelectric project. On audit of Entergy Louisiana's 2001 tax return, the IRS made an adjustment reducing the amount of the deduction associated with this method change. The adjustment had no material impact on Entergy Louisiana's earnings and required no additional cash payment of 2001 income tax. The Vidalia contract method change has resulted in cumulative cash flow benefits of approximately $790 million through June 30, 2005. This benefit is expected to reverse in the years 2005 through 2031. The tax accounting election has had no effect on book income tax expense. The timing of the reversal of this benefit depends on several variables, including the price of power.

CashPoint Bankruptcy

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Harrison County Plant Fire

On May 13, 2005, an explosion and fire damaged the non-nuclear wholesale assets business's Harrison County power plant.  A catastrophic failure and subsequent natural gas escape from a nearby 36-inch interstate pipeline owned and operated by a third party is believed to have caused the damage.  Current estimates are that the cost to clean-up the site and reconstruct the damaged portions of the plant could be at least $50 million and take until

second quarter 2006 to be completed.  The plant's property insurer has acknowledged coverage, subject to a $200 thousand deductible. Entergy does not expect the damage caused to the Harrison County plant to have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Employment Litigation

Entergy Corporation and certain subsidiaries are defendants in numerous lawsuits filed by former employees asserting that they were wrongfully terminated and/or discriminated against on the basis of age, race, sex, or other protected characteristics. The defendant companies deny any liability to the plaintiffs.

 

NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the domestic utility companies. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

Filings with the LPSC

Global Settlement (Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana)

In March 2005, the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a range of issues for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement resulted in credits totaling $76 million for retail electricity customers in Entergy Gulf States' Louisiana service territory and credits totaling $14 million for retail electricity customers of Entergy Louisiana. The settlement dismissed Entergy Gulf States' fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth annual earnings reviews, Entergy Gulf States' ninth post-merger earnings review and revenue requirement analysis, the continuation of a fuel review for Entergy Gulf States, dockets established to consider issues concerning power purchases for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana for the summers of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, all prudence issues associated with decisions made through May 2005 related to the nuclear plant uprates at issue in these cases, and an LPSC docket concerning retail issues arising under the System Agreement. The settlement does not include the System Agreement case at FERC. In addition, Entergy Gulf States agreed not to seek recovery from customers of $2 million of excess refund amounts associated with the fourth through the eighth annual earnings reviews and Entergy Louisiana agreed to forgo recovery of $3.5 million of deferred 2003 capacity costs associated with certain power purchase agreements. The credits were issued in connection with April 2005 billings. Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana reserved for the approximate refund amounts.

The settlement includes the establishment of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Gulf States that, among other provisions, establishes an ROE mid-point of 10.65% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permits Entergy Gulf States to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed range of 9.9% to 11.4% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Gulf States. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Gulf States. Under the settlement, there was no change to Entergy Gulf States' retail rates at that time.

Retail Rates - Electric

(Entergy Louisiana)

See Note 2 to consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Louisiana's rate filing with the LPSC requesting a base rate increase. In March 2005, the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a proposed settlement that included an annual base rate increase of approximately $18.3 million which was implemented, subject to refund, effective with May 2005 billings. In May 2005, the LPSC approved a modified settlement which, among other things, reduces depreciation and decommissioning expense due to assuming a life extension of Waterford 3 and results in no change in rates. Subsequently, in June 2005, Entergy Louisiana made a revised compliance filing with the LPSC supporting a revised depreciation rate for Waterford 3, which reflects the removal of interim additions, and a rate increase from the purchase of the Perryville power plant, which results in a net $0.8 million annual rate reduction. Entergy Louisiana reduced rates effective with the first billing cycle in June 2005 and expects to refund excess revenue collected during May 2005, including interest, in the third quarter of 2005.

The May 2005 rate settlement includes the adoption of a three-year formula rate plan, the terms of which include an ROE mid-point of 10.25% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permit Entergy Louisiana to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed regulatory earnings range of 9.45% to 11.05% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Louisiana. The initial formula rate plan filing will be in May 2006 based on a 2005 test year with rates effective September 2006. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana.

(Entergy Gulf States)

In June 2005, Entergy Gulf States made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the test year ending December 31, 2004. The filing shows a net revenue deficiency of $2.58 million indicating that no refund liability exists. The filing also indicates that a prospective rate increase of $23.8 million is required in order for Entergy Gulf States to earn the authorized ROE mid-point of 10.65%. Subject to the consideration of comments expected to be filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in the third quarter 2005, rate changes associated with the formula rate plan are scheduled to take effect with the first billing cycle in October 2005.  Any disputed issues will be subject to further investigation by the LPSC, with any resolution of such issues being made effective October 2005.

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States)

In July 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the LPSC an application for a change in its rates and charges seeking an increase of $9.1 million in gas base rates in order to allow Entergy Gulf States an opportunity to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return. In June 2005, the LPSC unanimously approved Entergy Gulf States' proposed settlement that includes a $5.8 million gas base rate increase effective the first billing cycle of July 2005 and a rate stabilization plan with an ROE mid-point of 10.5%.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Gulf States)

Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT in July 2005 a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider, consistent with the recently passed Texas legislation discussed below under "Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71." The rider requests $23.1 million annually in incremental revenues on a Texas retail basis which represents the incremental purchased capacity costs, including Entergy Gulf States' obligation to purchase power from Entergy Louisiana's recently acquired Perryville plant, over what is already in Entergy Gulf States' base rates. Entergy Gulf States has reached an agreement with parties with respect to the date upon which cost recovery and cost reconciliation would begin.  The parties have agreed that Entergy Gulf States will implement the rider after approval by the PUCT which could be up to 185 days from the date of filing but will reconcile and recover incremental purchased capacity costs incurred beginning September 1, 2005. The September 1, 2005 agreed upon date for the beginning of the cost recovery and cost reconciliation as well as the requested amount and the processes for implementing the rider are subject to PUCT action and approval. If approved by the PUCT, the rider would be subject to semi-annual modifications and reconciliation in conjunction with Entergy Gulf States' fuel reconciliation proceedings. Also see "Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71" below for discussion of the provisions in the Texas legislation regarding Entergy Gulf States' ability to file a general rate case and for recovery of transition to competition costs.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

In April 2005, Entergy New Orleans made its annual scheduled formula rate plan filings with the City Council.  The filings show that a decrease of $0.2 million in electric revenues is warranted and an increase of $3.9 million in gas revenues is warranted. The filings triggered the prescribed period for review by the City Council's Advisors and other parties, and rate adjustments, if any, could be implemented as soon as September 2005.

In May 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council a request for continuation of the formula rate plan and generation performance-based rate plan for an additional three years. The filing requests a target equity component of the capital structure of 45%, an increase from the current target of 42%.

Deferred Fuel Costs

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding fuel proceedings involving the domestic utility companies. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

In March 2005, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its energy cost recovery rider for the period April 2005 through March 2006. The filed energy cost rate, which accounts for 15 percent of a typical residential customer's bill using 1,000 kWh per month, increased 31 percent primarily attributable to a true-up adjustment for an under-recovery balance of $11.2 million and a nuclear refueling adjustment resulting from outages scheduled in 2005 at ANO 1 and 2.

In March 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT a fuel reconciliation case covering the period September 2000 through August 2003. Entergy Gulf States is reconciling $1.43 billion of fuel and purchased power costs on a Texas retail basis. This amount includes $8.6 million of under-recovered costs that Entergy Gulf States is asking to reconcile and roll into its fuel over/under-recovery balance to be addressed in the next appropriate fuel proceeding. This case involves imputed capacity and River Bend payment issues similar to those decided adversely in a January 2001 proceeding that is now on appeal. On January 31, 2005, the ALJ issued a Proposal for Decision that recommended disallowing $10.7 million (excluding interest) related to these two issues. In April 2005, the PUCT issued an order reversing in part the ALJ's Proposal for Decision and allowing Entergy Gulf States to recover a part of its request related to the imputed capacity and River Bend payment issues. The PUCT's order reduced the disallowance in the case to $8.3 million. Both Entergy Gulf States and certain cities served by Entergy Gulf States filed motions for rehearing on these issues which were denied by the PUCT. Entergy Gulf States and certain Cities filed appeals to the Travis County District Court. The appeals are pending. Any disallowance will be netted against Entergy Gulf States' under-recovered costs and will be included in its deferred fuel costs balance.

In January 2001, Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT a fuel reconciliation case covering the period from March 1999 through August 2000. Entergy Gulf States was reconciling approximately $583 million of fuel and purchased power costs. As part of this filing, Entergy Gulf States requested authority to collect $28 million, plus interest, of under-recovered fuel and purchased power costs. In August 2002, the PUCT reduced Entergy Gulf States' request to approximately $6.3 million, including interest through July 31, 2002. Approximately $4.7 million of the total reduction to the requested surcharge relates to nuclear fuel costs that the PUCT deferred ruling on at that time. In October 2002, Entergy Gulf States appealed the PUCT's final order in Texas District Court. In its appeal, Entergy Gulf States is challenging the PUCT's disallowance of approximately $4.2 million related to imputed capacity costs and its disallowance related to costs for energy delivered from the 30% non-regulated share of River Bend. The case was argued before the Travis County Texas District Court in August 2003 and the Travis County District Court judge affirmed the PUCT's order. In October 2003, Entergy Gulf States appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the appellate court occurred in September 2004 and in May 2005, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision affirming the PUCT's disallowance. Entergy Gulf States has filed a motion for rehearing with the appellate court in this case.

In August 2000, the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The time period that is the subject of the audit is January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001. In September 2003, the LPSC staff issued its audit report and recommended a disallowance with regard to one item. The issue relates to the alleged failure to uprate Waterford 3 in a timely manner, a claim that also has been raised in the summer 2001, 2002, and 2003 purchased power proceedings. The settlement approved by the LPSC in March 2005, discussed above, resolves the uprate imprudence disallowance and is no longer at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the issuance of the audit report, the scope of this docket was expanded to include a review of annual reports on fuel and purchased power transactions with affiliates and a prudence review of transmission planning issues. Also, in July 2005, the LPSC expanded the audit to include the years 2002 through 2004. A procedural schedule has been established and LPSC staff and intervenor testimony is due in November 2005.

In January 2003, the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States and its affiliates pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The audit will include a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States through its fuel adjustment clause in Louisiana for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2002. Discovery is underway, but a detailed procedural schedule extending beyond the discovery stage has not yet been established, and the LPSC staff has not yet issued its audit report. In June 2005, the LPSC expanded the audit to include the years through 2004.

In January 2005, the MPSC approved a change in Entergy Mississippi's energy cost recovery rider. Entergy Mississippi's fuel over-recoveries for the third quarter of 2004 of $21.3 million will be deferred from the first quarter 2005 energy cost recovery rider adjustment calculation. The deferred amount of $21.3 million plus carrying charges is being refunded through the energy cost recovery rider in the second and third quarters of 2005 at a rate of 45% and 55%, respectively.

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K, the City Council passed resolutions implementing a package of measures developed by Entergy New Orleans and the Council Advisors to protect customers from potential gas price spikes during the 2004 - 2005 winter heating season including the deferral of collection of up to $6.2 million of gas costs associated with a cap on the purchased gas adjustment in November and December 2004 and in the event that the average residential customer's gas bill were to exceed a threshold level. The deferrals of $1.7 million resulting from these caps will receive accelerated recovery over a seven-month period that began in April 2005.

In November 2004, the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to confer with the City Council Advisors regarding possible modification of the current gas cost collection mechanism in order to address concerns regarding its fluctuations particularly during the winter heating season. In June 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed a new purchased gas adjustment tariff with the City Council. If approved by the City Council, the tariff would be effective in the fourth quarter of 2005.

Fuel Adjustment Clause Litigation

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the complaint filed by a group of ratepayers with the City Council alleging that Entergy New Orleans and certain affiliates engaged in fuel procurement and power purchasing practices and included certain costs in its fuel adjustment charges that could have resulted in its customers being overcharged by more than $100 million over a period of years. In May 2005, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans affirmed the City Council resolution that resulted in a refund to customers of $11.3 million, including interest, during the months of June through September 2004, finding no support for the plaintiffs' claim that the refund amount should be higher. In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Civil District Court decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71

Previous developments and information related to electric industry restructuring are presented in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

Louisiana

In November 2001, the LPSC decided not to move forward with retail open access for any customers at this time. The LPSC instead directed its staff to hold collaborative group meetings concerning open access from time to time, and to have the LPSC staff monitor developments in neighboring states and to report to the LPSC regarding the progress of retail access developments in those states. In September 2004, in response to a study performed by the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies that evaluated a limited industrial-only retail choice program, the LPSC asked the LPSC staff to solicit comments and obtain information from utilities, customers, and other interested parties concerning the potential costs and benefits of a limited choice program, the impact of such a program on other customers, as well as issues such as stranded costs and transmission service.  Comments from interested parties were filed with the LPSC in January 2005. A technical conference was held in April 2005 and in May 2005 interested parties filed reply comments to arguments made at the technical conference. Entergy stated that it believes that there is no new information or credible evidence that would justify altering the LPSC's previous conclusion that retail access is not in the public interest.

Texas

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the status of retail open access in Entergy Gulf States' Texas service territory and Entergy Gulf States' independent organization request.

In June 2005, a Texas law was enacted which provides that:

  • Entergy Gulf States is authorized by the legislation to proceed with a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utilities, one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the LPSC and one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the PUCT;
  • the portions of all prior PUCT orders requiring Entergy Gulf States to comply with any provisions of Texas law governing transition to retail competition are void;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a plan by January 1, 2006, identifying the power region(s) to be considered for certification and the steps and schedule to achieve certification;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a transition to competition plan no later than January 1, 2007, that would address how Entergy Gulf States intends to mitigate market power and achieve full customer choice, including potential construction of additional transmission facilities, generation auctions, generation capacity divestiture, reinstatement of a customer choice pilot project, establishment of a price to beat, and other measures;
  • Entergy Gulf States' rates are subject to cost-of-service regulation until retail customer choice is implemented;
  • Entergy Gulf States may not file a general base rate case in Texas before June 30, 2007, with rates effective no earlier than June 30, 2008, but may seek before then the recovery of certain incremental purchased power capacity costs, adjusted for load growth, not in excess of five percent of its annual base rate revenues (as discussed above in "Filings with the PUCT," in July 2005 Entergy Gulf States filed a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider); and
  • Entergy Gulf States may recover over a period not to exceed 15 years reasonable and necessary transition to competition costs incurred before the effective date of the legislation and not previously recovered, with appropriate carrying charges.

NOTE 3. COMMON EQUITY

Common Stock

Earnings per Share

The following tables present Entergy's basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) calculations included on the consolidated income statement:

 

 

For the Three Months Ended June 30,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Millions, Except Per Share Data)

 

 

 

 

$/share

 

 

 

$/share

Earnings applicable to common stock

 

$286.2

 

 

 

$265.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average number of common shares outstanding - basic

 


211.1

 


$1.36 

 


228.7

 


$1.16 

Average dilutive effect of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock Options

 

4.2

 

(0.027)

 

3.6

 

(0.018)

 

Equity Awards

 

 

 

0.3

 

(0.002)

 

Deferred Units

 

0.2

 

(0.001)

 

0.2

 

(0.001)

Average number of common shares outstanding - diluted

 


215.5

 


$1.33 

 


232.8

 


$1.14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Six Months Ended June 30,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Millions, Except Per Share Data)

 

 

 

 

$/share

 

 

 

$/share

Earnings applicable to common stock

 

$458.1

 

 

 

$472.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average number of common shares outstanding - basic

 


212.6

 


$2.15 

 


229.5

 


$2.06 

Average dilutive effect of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock Options

 

4.3

 

(0.042)

 

4.0

 

(0.035)

 

Equity Awards

 

 

 

0.3

 

(0.003)

 

Deferred Units

 

0.2

 

(0.002)

 

0.2

 

(0.002)

Average number of common shares outstanding - diluted

 


217.1

 


$2.11 

 


234.0

 


$2.02 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entergy's stock option and other equity compensation plans are discussed in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K.

Treasury Stock

For the six months ended June 30, 2005, Entergy Corporation issued 2,266,901 shares of its previously repurchased common stock to satisfy stock option exercises and other stock-based awards and repurchased 9,148,000 shares of common stock for a total purchase price of $639.8 million.

Retained Earnings

On July 29, 2005, Entergy Corporation's Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.54 per share, payable on September 1, 2005, to holders of record as of August 12, 2005.


NOTE 4. LINES OF CREDIT, RELATED SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS, AND LONG-TERM DEBT

In May 2005, Entergy Corporation terminated its two, separate, revolving credit facilities, a $500 million five-year credit facility and a $965 million three-year credit facility. At that time Entergy Corporation entered into a $2 billion, five-year credit facility, which expires in May 2010. As of June 30, 2005, $635 million in borrowings were outstanding on this facility. Entergy also has the ability to issue letters of credit against the borrowing capacity of the credit facility, and letters of credit totaling $83.5 million had been issued against this facility at June 30, 2005. The total unused capacity for this facility as of June 30, 2005 was approximately $1.3 billion. The commitment fee for this facility is currently 0.13% per annum of the unused amount. Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior debt ratings of the domestic utility companies.

The short-term borrowings of Entergy's subsidiaries are limited to amounts authorized by the SEC. The current limits authorized are effective through November 30, 2007. In addition to borrowing from commercial banks, Entergy's subsidiaries are authorized to borrow from Entergy's money pool. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce Entergy's subsidiaries' dependence on external short-term borrowings. Borrowings from the money pool and external borrowings combined may not exceed the SEC authorized limits. As of June 30, 2005, Entergy's subsidiaries' aggregate authorized limit was $1.6 billion and the outstanding borrowings from the money pool were $365.6 million.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans each have 364-day credit facilities available as follows:


Company

 


Expiration Date

 

Amount of
Facility

 

Amount Drawn as of
June 30, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entergy Arkansas

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

Entergy Mississippi

 

May 2006

 

$25 million

 

-

Entergy New Orleans

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

(a)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $85 million.

(b)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $15 million.

The 364-day credit facilities have variable interest rates and the average commitment fee is 0.13%. The $85 million Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana credit facilities each require the respective company to maintain total shareholders' equity of at least 25% of its total assets. In July 2005, Entergy New Orleans granted the lender a security interest in its customer accounts receivables to secure its borrowings under its facility. Under the terms of the security agreement, Entergy New Orleans has the option to withdraw the security interest at any time.

The following long-term debt has been issued by Entergy in 2005:

 

Issue Date

 

Amount

 

 

 

(In Thousands)

U.S. Utility

 

 

 

Mortgage Bonds:

 

 

 

5.66% Series due February 2025 - Entergy Arkansas

January 2005

 

$175,000

6.18% Series due March 2035 - Entergy Gulf States

February 2005

$85,000

5.70% Series due June 2015 - Entergy Gulf States

May 2005

$200,000

4.50% Series due June 2010 - Entergy Arkansas

May 2005

$100,000

4.67% Series due June 2010 - Entergy Louisiana

May 2005

 

$55,000

4.98% Series due July 2010 - Entergy New Orleans

June 2005

 

$30,000

Issuance after balance sheet date:

5.12% Series due August 2010 - Entergy Gulf States

July 2005

$100,000

Other Long-Term Debt:

 

 

 

5.00% Series due January 2021, Independence County - Arkansas
(Entergy Arkansas)


March 2005


$45,000

Bank term loan due June 2010, avg rate 4.26%
(Entergy Corporation)


June 2005


$60,000

The following long-term debt was retired by Entergy thus far in 2005:

 

Retirement Date

 

Amount

 

 

 

(In Thousands)

U.S. Utility

 

 

 

Mortgage Bonds:

 

 

 

7.00% Series due October 2023 - Entergy Arkansas

February 2005 

$175,000

Retirements after balance sheet date:

6.125% Series due July 2005 - Entergy Arkansas

July 2005 

$100,000

8.125% Series due July 2005 - Entergy New Orleans

July 2005 

$30,000

6.77% Series due August 2005 - Entergy Gulf States

August 2005 

$98,000

Other Long-term Debt:

 

 

 

Grand Gulf Lease Obligation payment (System Energy)

N/A

 

$28,790

8.75% Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debentures
due 2046 - Entergy Gulf States


March 2005


$87,629

6.25% Series due January 2021, Independence County - Arkansas
(Entergy Arkansas)


April 2005


$45,000

9.0% Series due May 2015, West Feliciana Parish - Louisiana
(Entergy Gulf States)


May 2005


$45,000

7.5% Series due May 2015, West Feliciana Parish - Louisiana
(Entergy Gulf States)


May 2005


$41,600

7.7% Series due December 2014, West Feliciana Parish -
Louisiana (Entergy Gulf States)


June 2005


$94,000

Bank term loan due June 2005, avg rate 2.98%
(Entergy Corporation)


June 2005


$60,000

 

In June 2005, Entergy Louisiana purchased its $55 million of 4.9% Series St. Charles Parish bonds from the holders, pursuant to a mandatory tender provision, and has not remarketed the bonds at this time.

NOTE 5. PREFERRED STOCK

In June 2005, Entergy Mississippi issued 1,200,000 shares of $25 par value 6.25% Series Preferred Stock, all of which are outstanding as of June 30, 2005. The dividends are cumulative and will be payable quarterly beginning November 1, 2005. The preferred stock is redeemable on or after July 1, 2010, at Entergy Mississippi's option, at the call price of $25 per share. The proceeds from this issuance were used in the third quarter of 2005 to redeem all $20 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 8.36% Series Preferred Stock and all $10 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 7.44% Series Preferred Stock.

NOTE 6. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS

Entergy grants stock options, which are described more fully in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K. Effective January 1, 2003, Entergy prospectively adopted the fair value based method of accounting for stock options prescribed by SFAS 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation." Prior to 2003, Entergy applied the recognition and measurement principles of APB Opinion 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," and related Interpretations in accounting for those plans. Awards under Entergy's plans vest over three years. Therefore, the cost related to stock-based employee compensation included in the determination of net income for 2004 is less than that which would have been recognized if the fair value based method had been applied to all awards since the original effective date of SFAS 123. There is no pro forma effect for the second quarter 2005 and the six months ended June 30, 2005 because all non-vested awards are accounted for at fair value. Stock-based compensation expense included in earnings applicable to common stock, net of related tax effects, for the second quarter 2005 and six months ended June 30, 2005 is $2.0 million and $3.8 million, respectively. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share for 2004 if Entergy would have historically applied the fair value based method of accounting to stock-based employee compensation.

   

Three Months
Ended June 30, 2004

 

Six Months
Ended June 30,
2004

 
           

Earnings applicable to common stock

 

$265,182

 

$472,343

 

Add: Stock-based compensation expense included
in earnings applicable to common stock, net of
related tax effects

 



1,389

 



2,362

 

Deduct: Total stock-based employee
compensation expense determined under fair value
method for all awards, net of related tax effects

 



4,271

 



8,126

 
           

Pro forma earnings applicable to common stock

 

$262,300

 

$466,579

 
           

Earnings per average common share:

         
 

Basic

 

$1.16

 

$2.06

 
 

Basic - pro forma

 

$1.15

 

$2.03

 
             
 

Diluted

 

$1.14

 

$2.02

 
 

Diluted - pro forma

 

$1.13

 

$1.99

 

 

NOTE 7. RETIREMENT AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS

Components of Net Pension Cost

Entergy's pension cost, including amounts capitalized, for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Service cost - benefits earned during the period

 

$21,447 

 

$18,527 

Interest cost on projected benefit obligation

 

38,632 

 

35,979 

Expected return on assets

 

(39,513)

 

(38,580)

Amortization of transition asset

 

(165)

 

(190)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

1,362 

 

1,413 

Amortization of loss

 

7,457 

 

4,407 

Net pension costs

 

$29,220 

 

$21,556 

Entergy's pension cost, including amounts capitalized, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Service cost - benefits earned during the period

 

$42,894 

 

$37,262 

Interest cost on projected benefit obligation

 

77,264 

 

71,994 

Expected return on assets

 

(79,026)

 

(77,304)

Amortization of transition asset

 

(330)

 

(382)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

2,724 

 

2,826 

Amortization of loss

 

14,914 

 

8,808 

Net pension costs

 

$58,440 

 

$43,204 

Components of Net Other Postretirement Benefit Cost

Entergy's other postretirement benefit cost, including amounts capitalized, for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Service cost - benefits earned during the period

 

$9,400 

 

$8,145 

Interest cost on APBO

 

14,290 

 

13,436 

Expected return on assets

 

(4,942)

 

(4,625)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

175 

 

205 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

(1,979)

 

(609)

Amortization of loss

 

7,083 

 

5,474 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$24,027 

 

$22,026 

Entergy's other postretirement benefit cost, including amounts capitalized, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Service cost - benefits earned during the period

 

$18,800 

 

$17,853 

Interest cost on APBO

 

28,580 

 

27,733 

Expected return on assets

 

(9,884)

 

(9,327)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

350 

 

1,447 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

(3,958)

 

(1,498)

Amortization of loss

 

14,166 

 

11,427 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$48,054 

 

$47,635 

Employer Contributions

Entergy previously disclosed in the Form 10-K that it expected to contribute $185.9 million to its pension plans in 2005. Entergy has elected to make additional contributions of $67.4 million to the plan for a total of $253.3 million in 2005. As of June 30, 2005, Entergy contributed $117.7 million to its pension plans. The July 2005 contribution was $28.5 million. Therefore, Entergy presently anticipates contributing an additional $107.1 million to fund its pension plans in 2005.

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Act)

Based on actuarial analysis, the estimated impact of future Medicare subsidies reduced the December 31, 2004 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation by $161 million, and reduced the second quarter 2005 and 2004 other postretirement benefit cost by $6.8 million and $4.5 million, respectively. It reduced the six months ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004 other postretirement benefit cost by $13.6 million and $7 million, respectively. Refer to Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion.

NOTE 8. BUSINESS SEGMENT INFORMATION

Entergy's reportable segments as of June 30, 2005 are U.S. Utility and Non-Utility Nuclear. "All Other" includes the parent company, Entergy Corporation, and other business activity, including the Energy Commodity Services segment, the Competitive Retail Services business, and earnings on the proceeds of sales of previously-owned businesses. The Energy Commodity Services segment was presented as a reportable segment prior to 2005, but it did not meet the quantitative thresholds for a reportable segment in 2004 and, with the sale of Entergy-Koch's businesses in 2004, management does not expect the Energy Commodity Services segment to meet the quantitative thresholds in the foreseeable future. The 2004 information in the table below has been restated to include the Energy Commodity Services segment in the All Other column.

Entergy's segment financial information for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 is as follows:

 



U. S. Utility

 


Non-Utility
Nuclear*

 



All Other*

 



Eliminations

 



Consolidated

(In Thousands)

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Revenues

$2,168,122 

 

$347,706 

 

$212,624 

 

($18,933)

 

$2,709,519 

Equity in earnings of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 unconsolidated equity affiliates

 

 

2,158 

 

 

2,158 

Income Taxes (Benefit)

138,136 

 

34,978 

 

(16,724)

 

 

156,390 

Net Income

217,501 

 

58,277 

 

16,984 

 

27 

 

292,789 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Revenues

$1,990,644 

 

$338,745

 

$173,114 

 

($17,406)

 

$2,485,097

Equity in earnings of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 unconsolidated equity affiliates

 

-

 

20,288 

 

 

20,288

Income Taxes

123,852 

 

40,638

 

1,705 

 

 

166,195

Net Income

200,793 

 

62,994

 

7,224 

 

 

271,011

Entergy's segment financial information for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 is as follows:

 



U. S. Utility

 


Non-Utility
Nuclear*

 



All Other*

 



Eliminations

 



Consolidated

(In Thousands)

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Revenues

$3,999,922 

 

$691,281 

 

$377,722 

 

($35,993)

 

$5,032,932 

Equity in earnings (loss) of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 unconsolidated equity affiliates

 

 

(35)

 

 

(35)

Income Taxes (Benefit)

187,185 

 

86,146 

 

(21,906)

 

 

251,425 

Net Income

313,769 

 

136,242 

 

21,444 

 

(46)

 

471,409 

Total Assets

23,099,834 

 

4,733,230 

 

3,260,502 

 

(2,512,415)

 

28,581,151 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Revenues

$3,776,162 

 

$683,593

 

$309,667 

 

($32,776)

 

$4,736,646

Equity in earnings of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 unconsolidated equity affiliates

 

-

 

40,107 

 

 

40,107

Income Taxes (Benefit)

196,530 

 

84,333

 

(8,671)

 

 

272,192

Net Income

322,306 

 

131,828

 

29,894 

 

 

484,028

Total Assets

22,578,669 

 

4,402,482

 

3,370,325 

 

(1,481,908)

 

28,869,568

Businesses marked with * are sometimes referred to as the "competitive businesses," with the exception of the parent company, Entergy Corporation. Eliminations are primarily intersegment activity.

NOTE 9. OTHER TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS

The consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004 reflects a reclassification from cash and cash equivalents to other temporary investments of $188 million of instruments used in Entergy's cash management program. A corresponding change was made to the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2004 resulting in reductions of $27 million and $185 million in the amounts presented as cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. This reclassification is to present certain highly-liquid auction rate securities as short-term investments rather than as cash equivalents due to the stated tenor of the maturities of these investments. Entergy actively invests its available cash balance in financial instruments, which prior to June 2005 included auction rate securities that have stated maturities of 20 years or more. The auction rate securities provided a high degree of liquidity through features such as 7 and 28 day auctions that allow for the redemption of the securities at their face amount plus earned interest. Because Entergy intended to sell these instruments within one year or less, typically within 28 days of the balance sheet date, they are classified as current assets. As of June 30, 2005, Entergy no longer holds any of these auction rate securities.

__________________________________

In the opinion of the management of Entergy Corporation, the accompanying unaudited financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting primarily of normal recurring accruals and reclassification of previously reported amounts to conform to current classifications) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods presented. The business of the U.S. Utility segment, however, is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter. The results for the interim periods presented should not be used as a basis for estimating results of operations for a full year.

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Results of Operations

Net Income

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net income increased $5.0 million primarily due to higher net revenue and other income, partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses and a higher effective income tax rate.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net income increased $17.7 million primarily due to higher net revenue and other income, partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Arkansas' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$248.2 

Volume/weather

 

8.9 

Net wholesale revenue

 

4.8 

Late payment charges

 

1.8 

Other

 

2.5 

2005 net revenue

 

$266.2 

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to increased usage during the unbilled sales period and a total increase of 74 GWh in weather-adjusted usage, primarily in the residential and commercial sectors. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily due to higher wholesale market prices and improved results related to co-owner contracts.

The late payment charges variance is primarily due to late payment charges which Entergy Arkansas began collecting from customers in July 2004.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to an increase of $15.7 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to an increase in the energy cost recovery rider effective April 2005. The increases in volume/weather, wholesale revenue, and late payment charges, as discussed above, also contributed to the increase.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to an increase in the market price of purchased power and increased deferred fuel expense resulting primarily from higher fuel revenue as a result of an increase in the energy cost recovery rider effective April 2005.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Arkansas' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$455.0 

Deferred fuel cost revisions

 

15.5 

Net wholesale revenue

 

11.0 

Volume/weather

 

7.9 

Late payment charges

 

3.6 

Other

 

(3.1)

2005 net revenue

 

$489.9 

The deferred fuel cost revisions variance is primarily due to a revised estimate of fuel costs filed for recovery at Entergy Arkansas in the March 2004 energy cost recovery rider, which reduced net revenue in the first quarter of 2004 by $11.5 million. The remainder of the variance is due to the 2004 energy cost recovery true-up, made in the first quarter of 2005, which increased net revenue by $4.0 million.

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily due to higher wholesale market prices and improved results related to co-owner contracts.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a total increase of 195 GWh in weather-adjusted usage, primarily in the residential and commercial sectors, and increased usage during the unbilled sales period, partially offset by milder weather in 2005. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The late payment charges variance is primarily due to late payment charges which Entergy Arkansas began collecting from customers in July 2004.

Gross operating revenues

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to an increase of $23 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to an increase in the energy cost recovery rider effective April 2005. The increases in volume/weather, wholesale revenue, and late payment charges, as discussed above, also contributed to the increase.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to higher payroll and benefits costs.

Other income increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $1.2 million in interest earned on temporary cash investments and money pool investments;
  • an increase of $1 million in the allowance for equity funds used during construction related to increased construction expenditures for projects including the steam generator and reactor vessel head replacement at ANO 1; and
  • an increase of $0.5 million in interest earned on decommissioning trust funds.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to higher payroll and benefits costs.

Other income increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $2.8 million in the allowance for equity funds used during construction related to increased construction expenditures for projects including the steam generator and reactor vessel head replacement at ANO 1;
  • an increase of $2.5 million in interest earned on temporary cash investments and money pool investments;
  • interest of $0.6 million earned on bond proceeds; and
  • an increase of $0.5 million in interest earned on decommissioning trust funds.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 37.0% and 34.4%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction, partially offset by state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items.

The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 36.3% and 36.4%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by a downward revision in the estimate of federal income tax expense related to tax depreciation, the amortization of investment tax credits, and book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$89,744 

 

$8,834 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

101,516 

 

78,212 

 

Investing activities

 

(137,478)

 

(115,838)

 

Financing activities

 

57,634 

 

65,412 

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents

 

21,672 

 

27,786 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$111,416 

 

$36,620 

Operating Activities

Cash flow from operations increased $23.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the timing of the collection of receivables from customers and an increase in net income. The increase was partially offset by money pool activity and higher income tax payments.

Entergy Arkansas' receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$132,315

 

$23,561

 

$23,370

 

($69,153)

Money pool activity used $108.8 million of Entergy Arkansas' operating cash flows in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and used $92.5 million in the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $21.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to $16.1 million used for other regulatory investments as a result of fuel cost under-recovery and increased construction expenditures of $7.8 million resulting from the steam generator and reactor vessel head replacement at ANO 1.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $7.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to an $85 million borrowing made on Entergy Arkansas' 364-day credit facility during the six months ended June 30, 2004, which provided cash in 2004, and the payment of $15.7 million more in common stock dividends. The decrease was almost entirely offset by the net issuance of $92.9 million of long-term debt in 2005. See Note 3 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements for details of Entergy Arkansas' long-term debt activity in 2005.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Arkansas' uses and sources of capital. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

In April 2005, Entergy Arkansas renewed its 364-day credit facility through April 30, 2006. In May 2005, Entergy Louisiana entered into a separate credit facility with the same lender. Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana can each borrow up to $85 million under their respective credit facilities, but at no time can the total amount borrowed under these facilities by the two companies combined exceed $85 million. There were no outstanding borrowings under either credit facility as of June 30, 2005.

Entergy Arkansas issued long-term debt in 2005 as follows:

Issue Date

 

Description

 

Maturity

 

Amount

           

(In Thousands)

             

January 2005

 

5.66% Series

 

February 2025

 

$175,000

March 2005

 

5.00% Series

 

January 2021

 

$45,000

May 2005

 

4.50% Series

 

June 2010

 

$100,000

Entergy Arkansas redeemed long-term debt in 2005 as follows:

Retirement Date

 


Description

 


Maturity

 


Amount

           

(In Thousands)

             

February 2005

 

7.00% Series

 

October 2023

 

$175,000

April 2005

 

6.25% Series

 

January 2021

 

$45,000

July 2005

 

6.125% Series

 

July 2005

 

$100,000

The March 2005 issuance and the April 2005 retirement are not shown on the cash flow statement because the proceeds from the issuance were placed in a trust and never held as cash by Entergy Arkansas.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of utility restructuring, federal regulation and proceedings, market and credit risks, state and local rate regulatory risks, nuclear matters, and environmental risks. Following are updates to the information presented in the Form 10-K.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before the APSC and Entergy's other retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC, APSC, and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy Arkansas does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceeding

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Central States Compact Claim

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 holds each state responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste originating in that state, but allows states to participate in regional compacts to fulfill their responsibilities jointly.  Arkansas and Louisiana participate in the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (Central States Compact or Compact).  Commencing in 1998, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana made a series of contributions to the Central States Compact to fund the Central States Compact's development of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to be located in Boyd County, Nebraska.  In December 1998, Nebraska, the host state for the proposed Central States Compact disposal facility, denied the compact's license application for the proposed disposal facility.  Several parties, including the commission that governs the compact (the Compact Commission), filed a lawsuit against Nebraska seeking damages resulting from Nebraska's denial of the proposed facility's license.  After a trial, the U.S. District Court concluded that Nebraska violated its good faith obligations regarding the proposed waste disposal facility and rendered a judgment against Nebraska in the amount of $151 million.  In August 2004, Nebraska agreed to pay the Compact $141 million in settlement of the judgment. In July 2005, the Compact Commission decided to distribute a substantial portion of the proceeds from the settlement to the nuclear power generators that had contributed funding for the Boyd County facility, including Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana. On August 1, 2005, Nebraska paid the full amount of the settlement to the Compact, and the Compact distributed from the settlement proceeds $23.6 million to Entergy Arkansas, $19.9 million to Entergy Gulf States, and $18.4 million to Entergy Louisiana.  Management is still analyzing the accounting treatment of the  receipts, but expects that some portion of the receipts could result in income for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy Arkansas' accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, unbilled revenue, and pension and other postretirement benefits.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
         
    Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $450,097    $405,509    $817,457    $768,969 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   46,612    35,316    83,415    95,103 
  Purchased power   139,899    127,828    247,531    230,156 
  Nuclear refueling outage expenses   7,019    5,453    13,336    11,790 
  Other operation and maintenance   105,727    94,215    191,556    178,656 
Decommissioning   8,246    7,725    16,359    17,069 
Taxes other than income taxes   10,051    9,898    19,888    18,294 
Depreciation and amortization   48,023    50,269    99,800    99,937 
Other regulatory credits - net   (2,589)   (5,864)   (3,384)   (11,270)
TOTAL   362,988    324,840    668,501    639,735 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   87,109    80,669    148,956    129,234 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   3,491    2,454    7,450    4,647 
Interest and dividend income   5,078    2,989    9,370    5,011 
Miscellaneous - net   (47)   (497)   (679)   (1,547)
TOTAL   8,522    4,946    16,141    8,111 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES  
Interest on long-term debt   19,968    19,769    40,750    39,517 
Other interest - net   798    1,166    2,224    2,049 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (1,725)   (1,279)   (3,736)   (2,580)
TOTAL   19,041    19,656    39,238    38,986 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   76,590    65,959    125,859    98,359 
                 
Income taxes   28,300    22,682    45,638    35,807 
                 
NET INCOME   48,290    43,277    80,221    62,552 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   1,944    1,944    3,888    3,888 
                 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $46,346    $41,333    $76,333    $58,664 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                
                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $80,221    $62,552 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Other regulatory credits - net   (3,384)   (11,270)
  Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning   116,159    117,006 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   17,049    54,552 
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (75,186)   (47,755)
    Fuel inventory   (773)   (2,586)
    Accounts payable   (13,773)   (64,605)
    Taxes accrued   11,418    (12,123)
    Interest accrued   1,196    (357)
    Deferred fuel costs   (720)   (1,794)
    Other working capital accounts   (10,700)   (7,342)
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   (3,645)   (6,517)
  Changes in other regulatory assets   25,435    7,634 
  Other   (41,781)   (9,183)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   101,516    78,212 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (123,690)   (115,882)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   7,450    4,647 
Nuclear fuel purchases   (62,307)   (8,101)
Proceeds from sale/leaseback of nuclear fuel   62,248    8,101 
Decommissioning trust contributions and realized        
 change in trust assets   (5,085)   (4,603)
Other regulatory investments   (16,094)  
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (137,478)   (115,838)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt   272,817   
Retirement of long-term debt   (179,895)  
Changes in short-term borrowings     85,000 
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (31,400)   (15,700)
  Preferred stock   (3,888)   (3,888)
Net cash flow provided by financing activities   57,634    65,412 
         
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents   21,672    27,786 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   89,744    8,834 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $111,416    $36,620 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid/(received) during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $37,395    $38,999 
  Income taxes   $19,450    ($5,400)
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT ASSETS        
Cash and cash equivalents:        
  Cash   $1,956    $7,133 
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,        
   which approximates market   109,460    82,611 
     Total cash and cash equivalents   111,416    89,744 
Accounts receivable:        
  Customer   74,227    87,131 
  Allowance for doubtful accounts   (11,225)   (11,039)
  Associated companies   155,179    72,472 
  Other   58,737    72,425 
  Accrued unbilled revenues   90,900    71,643 
     Total accounts receivable   367,818    292,632 
Deferred fuel costs   24,182    7,368 
Accumulated deferred income taxes   13,408    27,306 
Fuel inventory - at average cost   5,071    4,298 
Materials and supplies - at average cost   85,391    85,076 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs   28,485    16,485 
Prepayments and other   6,509    6,154 
TOTAL   642,280    529,063 
         
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Investment in affiliates - at equity   11,208    11,208 
Decommissioning trust funds   393,482    383,784 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)   1,452    1,453 
Other   2,976    2,976 
TOTAL   409,118    399,421 
         
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric   6,165,950    6,124,359 
Property under capital lease   15,664    17,500 
Construction work in progress   253,268    226,172 
Nuclear fuel under capital lease   102,586    93,855 
Nuclear fuel   20,259    12,201 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT   6,557,727    6,474,087 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization   2,823,727    2,753,525 
UTILITY PLANT - NET   3,734,000    3,720,562 
         
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:        
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net   87,774    101,658 
  Other regulatory assets   433,374    400,174 
Other   46,611    42,514 
TOTAL   567,759    544,346 
         
TOTAL ASSETS   $5,353,157    $5,193,392 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
 
 
 
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt   $147,000   $147,000
Accounts payable:        
  Associated companies   50,366   68,829
  Other   94,586   89,896
Customer deposits   44,449   41,639
Taxes accrued   32,580   35,874
Interest accrued   22,572   21,376
Obligations under capital leases   51,232   49,816
Other   18,808   19,648
TOTAL   461,593   474,078
         
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued   1,127,155   1,121,623
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits   66,226   68,452
Obligations under capital leases   66,960   61,538
Other regulatory liabilities   71,975   67,362
Decommissioning   509,103   492,745
Accumulated provisions   31,332   34,977
Long-term debt   1,296,071   1,191,763
Other   234,403   237,447
TOTAL   3,403,225   3,275,907
         
Commitments and Contingencies        
         
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Preferred stock without sinking fund   116,350   116,350
Common stock, $0.01 par value, authorized 325,000,000        
 shares; issued and outstanding 46,980,196 shares in 2005        
 and 2004   470   470
Paid-in capital   591,126   591,127
Retained earnings   780,393   735,460
TOTAL   1,488,339   1,443,407
         
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY   $5,353,157   $5,193,392
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $ 124   $ 115   $ 9    8 
  Commercial   80   73   7    10 
  Industrial   84   77   7    9 
  Governmental   4   4   -    - 
     Total retail   292   269   23    9 
  Sales for resale                 
    Associated companies   64   55   9    16 
    Non-associated companies   50   47   3    6 
  Other   44   35   9    26 
     Total   $ 450   $ 406   $ 44    11 
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   1,481   1,431   50    3 
  Commercial   1,305   1,273   32    3 
  Industrial   1,720   1,714   6    - 
  Governmental   66   67   (1)   (1)
     Total retail   4,572   4,485   87    2 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   1,622   1,513   109    7 
    Non-associated companies   1,065   1,248   (183)   (15)
     Total   7,259   7,246   13    - 
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $ 259   $ 246   $ 13    5 
  Commercial   149   138   11    8 
  Industrial   156   145   11    8 
  Governmental   9   8   1    13 
     Total retail   573   537   36    7 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   105   109   (4)   (4)
    Non-associated companies   100   92   8    9 
  Other   39   31   8    26 
     Total   $ 817   $ 769   $ 48    6 
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   3,371   3,320   51    2 
  Commercial   2,554   2,486   68    3 
  Industrial   3,384   3,361   23    1 
  Governmental   134   131   3    2 
     Total retail   9,443   9,298   145    2 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   2,977   3,185   (208)   (7)
    Non-associated companies   2,172   2,533   (361)   (14)
     Total   14,592   15,016   (424)   (3)
                 
                 

 

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Results of Operations

Net Income

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net income decreased $11.3 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses and lower miscellaneous income, partially offset by higher net revenue.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net income decreased $29.7 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses, lower net revenue, and lower miscellaneous income, partially offset by lower interest expense and a lower effective income tax rate.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Gulf States' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$296.4 

Price applied to unbilled electric sales

 

14.2 

Fuel recovery revenues

 

(9.5)

Other

 

1.7 

2005 net revenue

 

$302.8 

The price applied to unbilled electric sales variance is due to an increase in the fuel cost component of the price applied to unbilled sales in 2005. The fuel cost component is higher because of an increase in natural gas costs and nuclear maintenance outages at River Bend. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

Fuel recovery revenues represent an under-recovery of fuel charges that are recovered in base rates.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $40.3 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to higher fuel rates;
  • an increase of $14.2 million in the price applied to unbilled electric sales; and
  • an increase of $10 million in gross wholesale revenue due to increased sales to municipals and co-op customers.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to an increase in the market prices of natural gas and purchased power.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Gulf States' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$559.1 

Fuel recovery revenues

 

(7.9)

Volume/weather

 

(7.8)

Net wholesale revenue

 

(4.9)

Rate refund provisions

 

6.8 

Other

 

(0.8)

2005 net revenue

 

$544.5 

Fuel recovery revenues represent an under-recovery of fuel charges that are recovered in base rates.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased usage during the unbilled sales period. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The net wholesale revenue variance resulted from an increase in the average price of energy allocated to municipal and co-op customers.

The rate refund provisions variance is due to additional provisions recorded in 2004 for potential rate actions and refunds.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to an increase of $97.5 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to higher fuel rates and an increase in wholesale revenue of $12.7 million due to an increase in sales volume to municipal and co-op customers.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to an increase in the market prices of natural gas and purchased power.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased $12.6 million primarily due to increases of:

  • $6.6 million in generation expenses primarily due to both planned off-peak and unplanned maintenance outages at nuclear and fossil plants;
  • $3.9 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • $1.5 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Miscellaneous income - net decreased primarily due to a reduction in 2004 in the loss provision of $10.1 million for an environmental clean-up site.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased $29.5 million primarily due to increases of:

  • $11.4 million in generation expenses primarily due to both planned off-peak and unplanned maintenance outages at nuclear and fossil plants;
  • $6.4 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • $1.5 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased $5 million primarily due to an increase in plant in service as well as an adjustment in 2004 to the salvage value of certain depreciable assets.

Miscellaneous income - net decreased primarily due to a reduction in 2004 in the loss provision of $10.1 million for an environmental clean-up site.

Interest and other charges decreased $8.2 million primarily due to the retirement of $292 million of First Mortgage Bonds in 2004.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 38% and 38.2%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance of funds used during construction. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35% is primarily due to state income taxes partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits.

The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 32.7% and 35.6%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35% is primarily due to amortization of investment tax credits, book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction, and a downward revision in the estimate of federal income tax expense related to tax depreciation, partially offset by state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$6,974 

 

$206,030 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

186,084 

 

291,317 

 

Investing activities

 

(175,285)

 

(152,709)

 

Financing activities

 

(15,446)

 

(327,410)

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

 

(4,647)

 

(188,802)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$2,327 

 

$17,228 

Operating Activities

Cash flow from operations decreased $105.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the refund of $76 million to retail electricity customers per the March 2005 settlement approved by the LPSC, a decrease of $18.8 million in the recovery of fuel costs, increased pension contributions of $12.4 million, and tax payments of $14.5 million.

Entergy Gulf States' receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

($149,447)

 

($59,720)

 

($27,126)

 

$69,354

See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities increased $22.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the maturity in 2004 of $23.6 million of other investments that provided cash in 2004.

Financing Activities

Net cash used in financing activities decreased $312 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the retirement of $292 million of First Mortgage Bonds in 2004.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Gulf States' uses and sources of capital. Following is an update to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

The following table lists First Mortgage Bonds issued by Entergy Gulf States in 2005:

Issue Date

Description

Maturity

Amount

(In Thousands)

February 2005

6.18% Series

March 2035

$85,000 

May 2005

5.7% Series

June 2015

200,000 

July 2005

5.12% Series

August 2010

100,000 

The following table lists long-term debt retired by Entergy Gulf States thus far in 2005:

Retirement Date

Description

Maturity

Amount

(In Thousands)

March 2005

8.75% Series Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debentures

March 2046

$87,629 

May 2005

9.0% West Feliciana Parish bonds

May 2015

45,000 

May 2005

7.5% West Feliciana Parish bonds

May 2015

41,600 

June 2005

7.7% West Feliciana Parish bonds

December 2014

94,000 

August 2005

6.77% Series First Mortgage Bonds

August 2005

98,000 

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of transition to retail competition, federal regulation and proceedings, state and local rate regulatory risk, industrial, commercial, and wholesale customers, market and credit risks, nuclear matters, environmental risks, and litigation risks. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

State and Local Rate Regulation

In March 2005, the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a range of issues for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement resulted in credits of $76 million to retail electricity customers in Entergy Gulf States' Louisiana service territory. The settlement dismissed Entergy Gulf States' fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth annual earnings reviews, Entergy Gulf States' ninth post-merger earnings review and revenue requirement analysis, the continuation of a fuel review for Entergy Gulf States, dockets established to consider issues concerning power purchases for the summers of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, all prudence issues associated with decisions made through May 2005 related to the nuclear plant uprates at issue in these cases, and an LPSC docket concerning retail issues arising under the System Agreement. The settlement does not include the System Agreement case at FERC. In addition, Entergy Gulf States agreed not to seek recovery from customers of $2 million of excess refund amounts associated with the fourth through the eighth annual earnings reviews. The credits were issued in connection with April 2005 billings. Entergy Gulf States previously reserved for the approximate refund amounts.

The settlement includes the establishment of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Gulf States that, among other provisions, establishes an ROE mid-point of 10.65% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permits Entergy Gulf States to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside the allowed range of 9.9% to 11.4% will be allocated 60% to the customers and 40% to Entergy Gulf States. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Gulf States. Under the settlement, there was no change to Entergy Gulf States' retail rates at that time.

In June 2005, the Alliance for Affordable Energy and an individual plaintiff filed an appeal in the 19th Judicial District Court for the parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The plaintiffs allege that neither Entergy Gulf States nor the LPSC published notice that a formula rate plan was to be considered as part of the settlement and that the LPSC order should be set aside as null and void and without effect because the Louisiana Constitution requires that notice be published when a utility files a proposed rate schedule that would result in a change in rates. Management believes the plaintiffs' claim is without merit and expects to intervene in the proceeding to oppose the appeal.

In June 2005, Entergy Gulf States made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the test year ending December 31, 2004. The filing shows a net revenue deficiency of $2.58 million indicating that no refund liability exists. The filing also indicates that a prospective rate increase of $23.8 million is required in order for Entergy Gulf States to earn the authorized ROE mid-point of 10.65%. Subject to the consideration of comments expected to be filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in the third quarter 2005, rate changes associated with the formula rate plan are scheduled to take effect with the first billing cycle in October 2005.  Any disputed issues will be subject to further investigation by the LPSC, with any resolution of such issues being made effective October 2005.

Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT in July 2005 a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider, consistent with the recently passed Texas legislation discussed below under "Transition to Retail Competition." The rider requests $23.1 million annually in incremental revenues on a Texas retail basis which represents the incremental purchased capacity costs, including Entergy Gulf States' obligation to purchase power from Entergy Louisiana's recently acquired Perryville plant, over what is already in Entergy Gulf States' base rates. Entergy Gulf States has reached an agreement with parties with respect to the date upon which cost recovery and cost reconciliation would begin.  The parties have agreed that Entergy Gulf States will implement the rider after approval by the PUCT which could be up to 185 days from the date of filing but will reconcile and recover incremental purchased capacity costs incurred beginning September 1, 2005. The September 1, 2005 agreed upon date for the beginning of the cost recovery and cost reconciliation as well as the requested amount and the processes for implementing the rider are subject to PUCT action and approval. If approved by the PUCT, the rider would be subject to semi-annual modifications and reconciliation in conjunction with Entergy Gulf States' fuel reconciliation proceedings. Also see "Transition to Retail Competition" below for discussion of the provisions in the Texas legislation regarding Entergy Gulf States' ability to file a general rate case and for recovery of transition to competition costs.

In July 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the LPSC an application for a change in its rates and charges seeking an increase of $9.1 million in gas base rates in order to allow Entergy Gulf States an opportunity to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return. In June 2005, the LPSC unanimously approved Entergy Gulf States' proposed settlement that includes a $5.8 million gas base rate increase effective the first billing cycle of July 2005 and a rate stabilization plan with an ROE mid-point of 10.5%.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before Entergy's retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy Gulf States does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the proceeding that the LPSC commenced before itself regarding the System Agreement. As noted above in "State and Local Rate Regulation", the settlement of various issues involving Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana that was approved by the LPSC has resolved the System Agreement proceeding before the LPSC, which has been dismissed without prejudice.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Transition to Retail Competition

Texas

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the status of retail open access in Entergy Gulf States' Texas service territory and Entergy Gulf States' independent organization request.

In June 2005, a Texas law was enacted which provides that:

  • Entergy Gulf States is authorized by the legislation to proceed with a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utilities, one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the LPSC and one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the PUCT;
  • the portions of all prior PUCT orders requiring Entergy Gulf States to comply with any provisions of Texas law governing transition to retail competition are void;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a plan by January 1, 2006, identifying the power region(s) to be considered for certification and the steps and schedule to achieve certification;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a transition to competition plan no later than January 1, 2007, that would address how Entergy Gulf States intends to mitigate market power and achieve full customer choice, including potential construction of additional transmission facilities, generation auctions, generation capacity divestiture, reinstatement of a customer choice pilot project, establishment of a price to beat, and other measures;
  • Entergy Gulf States' rates are subject to cost-of-service regulation until retail customer choice is implemented;
  • Entergy Gulf States may not file a general base rate case in Texas before June 30, 2007, with rates effective no earlier than June 30, 2008, but may seek before then the annual recovery of certain incremental purchased power capacity costs, adjusted for load growth, not in excess of five percent of its annual base rate revenues (as discussed above in "State and Local Rate Regulation, " in July 2005, Entergy Gulf States filed a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider); and
  • Entergy Gulf States may recover over a period not to exceed 15 years reasonable and necessary transition to competition costs incurred before the effective date of the legislation and not previously recovered, with appropriate carrying charges.

Jurisdictional Separation Plan

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the LPSC proceedings regarding the proposed separation of Entergy Gulf States business into a Louisiana-based vertically integrated utility company and a Texas-based vertically integrated utility company. The hearing before the LPSC scheduled for late June 2005 has been postponed.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Central States Compact Claim

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 holds each state responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste originating in that state, but allows states to participate in regional compacts to fulfill their responsibilities jointly.  Arkansas and Louisiana participate in the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (Central States Compact or Compact).  Commencing in 1998, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana made a series of contributions to the Central States Compact to fund the Central States Compact's development of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to be located in Boyd County, Nebraska.  In December 1998, Nebraska, the host state for the proposed Central States Compact disposal facility, denied the compact's license application for the proposed disposal facility.  Several parties, including the commission that governs the compact (the Compact Commission), filed a lawsuit against Nebraska seeking damages resulting from Nebraska's denial of the proposed facility's license.  After a trial, the U.S. District Court concluded that Nebraska violated its good faith obligations regarding the proposed waste disposal facility and rendered a judgment against Nebraska in the amount of $151 million.  In August 2004, Nebraska agreed to pay the Compact $141 million in settlement of the judgment. In July 2005, the Compact Commission decided to distribute a substantial portion of the proceeds from the settlement to the nuclear power generators that had contributed funding for the Boyd County facility, including Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana. On August 1, 2005, Nebraska paid the full amount of the settlement to the Compact, and the Compact distributed from the settlement proceeds $23.6 million to Entergy Arkansas, $19.9 million to Entergy Gulf States, and $18.4 million to Entergy Louisiana.  Management is still analyzing the accounting treatment of the  receipts, but expects that some portion of the receipts could result in income for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy Gulf States' accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, SFAS 143, the application of SFAS 71, unbilled revenue, and pension and other postretirement benefits.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
  Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $746,987    $674,283    $1,399,383    $1,286,654 
Natural gas   12,532    11,030    39,387    37,655 
TOTAL   759,519    685,313    1,438,770    1,324,309 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   147,889    131,961    367,845    309,674 
  Purchased power   314,372    260,402    532,108    462,056 
  Nuclear refueling outage expenses   4,525    3,172    8,596    6,365 
  Other operation and maintenance   124,428    111,805    233,121    203,634 
Decommissioning   2,346    3,798    4,644    7,528 
Taxes other than income taxes   28,937    27,335    59,475    57,057 
Depreciation and amortization   50,605    48,461    99,341    94,329 
Other regulatory credits - net   (5,581)   (3,453)   (5,702)   (6,477)
TOTAL   667,521    583,481    1,299,428    1,134,166 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   91,998    101,832    139,342    190,143 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   4,207    2,526    9,006    5,047 
Interest and dividend income   3,415    3,172    6,850    7,021 
Miscellaneous - net   (24)   10,614    624    12,495 
TOTAL   7,598    16,312    16,480    24,563 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES  
Interest on long-term debt   28,214    29,152    56,438    64,539 
Other interest - net   2,397    906    4,382    2,720 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (2,499)   (1,853)   (5,505)   (3,768)
TOTAL   28,112    28,205    55,315    63,491 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   71,484    89,939    100,507    151,215 
                 
Income taxes   27,197    34,348    32,871    53,896 
                 
NET INCOME   44,287    55,591    67,636    97,319 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   1,063    1,123    2,126    2,273 
                  
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $43,224    $54,468    $65,510    $95,046 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                
                 

 

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $67,636    $97,319 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Reserve for regulatory adjustments   (62,423)   7,236 
  Other regulatory credits - net   (5,702)   (6,477)
  Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning   103,985    101,857 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   25,014    20,490 
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (28,123)   19,209 
    Fuel inventory   (259)   (442)
    Accounts payable   89,218    18,459 
    Taxes accrued   3,395    52,369 
    Interest accrued   266    (6,144)
    Deferred fuel costs   (3,267)   15,505 
    Other working capital accounts   5,914    8,057 
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   345    (11,298)
  Changes in other regulatory assets   (7,960)   (849)
  Other   (1,955)   (23,974)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   186,084    291,317 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (153,136)   (144,767)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   9,006    5,047 
Nuclear fuel purchases   (371)   (6,672)
Proceeds from sale/leaseback of nuclear fuel   438    6,672 
Decommissioning trust contributions and realized        
 change in trust assets   (5,945)   (5,872)
Changes in other investments - net   2,629    23,579 
Other regulatory investments   (27,906)   (30,696)
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (175,285)   (152,709)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt   282,772    - 
Retirement of long-term debt   (268,229)   (292,000)
Redemption of preferred stock   (2,250)   (2,250)
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (25,600)   (30,900)
  Preferred stock   (2,139)   (2,260)
Net cash flow used in financing activities   (15,446)   (327,410)
         
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents   (4,647)   (188,802)
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   6,974    206,030 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $2,327    $17,228 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $56,788    $69,897 
  Income taxes   $14,450    - 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        

 

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
         
    2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
       
CURRENT ASSETS            
Cash and cash equivalents:            
  Cash       $2,244   $5,627
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,            
   which approximates market       83   1,347
     Total cash and cash equivalents       2,327   6,974
Accounts receivable:            
  Customer       114,496   124,801
  Allowance for doubtful accounts       (1,791)   (2,687)
  Associated companies       24,182   13,980
  Other       49,092   40,697
  Accrued unbilled revenues       156,654   137,719
     Total accounts receivable       342,633   314,510
Deferred fuel costs       118,265   90,124
Accumulated deferred income taxes       1,301   14,339
Fuel inventory - at average cost       49,917   49,658
Materials and supplies - at average cost       104,156   101,922
Prepayments and other       17,128   20,556
TOTAL       635,727   598,083
             
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Decommissioning trust funds       301,271   290,952
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)       94,203   94,052
Other       20,616   22,012
TOTAL       416,090   407,016
             
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric       8,593,692   8,418,119
Natural gas       83,684   78,627
Construction work in progress       272,345   331,703
Nuclear fuel under capital lease       60,703   71,279
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT       9,010,424   8,899,728
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization       4,115,750   4,047,182
UTILITY PLANT - NET       4,894,674   4,852,546
             
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:            
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net       457,090   444,799
  Other regulatory assets       285,935   285,017
Long-term receivables       18,651   23,228
Other       33,082   44,713
TOTAL       794,758   797,757
             
TOTAL ASSETS       $6,741,249   $6,655,402
             
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.            
 
 
 
ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
    2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt       $98,000   $98,000
Accounts payable:            
  Associated companies       261,800   153,069
  Other       127,824   147,337
Customer deposits       56,476   53,229
Taxes accrued       31,020   22,882
Nuclear refueling outage costs       6,021   -
Interest accrued       33,008   32,742
Obligations under capital leases       33,516   33,518
Other       18,513   19,912
TOTAL       666,178   560,689
             
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued       1,555,524   1,533,804
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits       135,762   138,616
Obligations under capital leases       27,187   37,711
Other regulatory liabilities       36,947   34,009
Decommissioning and retirement cost liabilities       158,859   152,095
Transition to competition       79,098   79,098
Regulatory reserves       15,871   81,455
Accumulated provisions       69,645   66,875
Long-term debt       1,908,013   1,891,478
Preferred stock with sinking fund       15,150   17,400
Other       200,269   229,408
TOTAL       4,202,325   4,261,949
             
Commitments and Contingencies            
             
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Preferred stock without sinking fund       47,327   47,327
Common stock, no par value, authorized 200,000,000            
 shares; issued and outstanding 100 shares in 2005 and 2004       114,055   114,055
Paid-in capital       1,157,486   1,157,486
Retained earnings       553,092   513,182
Accumulated other comprehensive income       786   714
TOTAL       1,872,746   1,832,764
             
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY       $6,741,249   $6,655,402
             
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.            
             

 

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF RETAINED EARNINGS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
         
        Three Months Ended
        2005   2004
        (In Thousands)
RETAINED EARNINGS                    
Retained Earnings - Beginning of period       $531,068       $453,368    
                     
  Add: Net Income       44,287   $44,287   55,591   $55,591
                     
  Deduct:                    
    Dividends declared on common stock       21,200       24,000    
    Preferred dividend requirements and other       1,063   1,063   1,123   1,123
        22,263       25,123    
                     
Retained Earnings - End of period       $553,092       $483,836    
                     
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE                    
INCOME (Net of Taxes):                    
Balance at beginning of period:                    
 Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       $722       $3,369    
                     
Net derivative instrument fair value changes                    
 arising during the period       64   64   799   799
                     
Balance at end of period:                    
 Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       $786       $4,168    
Comprehensive Income           $43,288       $55,267
                     
                     
        Six Months Ended
        2005   2004
        (In Thousands)
RETAINED EARNINGS                    
Retained Earnings - Beginning of period       $513,182       $419,690    
                     
  Add: Net Income       67,636   $67,636   97,319   $97,319
                     
  Deduct:                    
    Dividends declared on common stock       25,600       30,900    
    Preferred dividend requirements and other       2,126   2,126   2,273   2,273
        27,726       33,173    
                     
Retained Earnings - End of period       $553,092       $483,836    
                     
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE                    
INCOME (Net of Taxes):                    
Balance at beginning of period:                    
 Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       $714       $3,912    
                     
Net derivative instrument fair value changes                    
 arising during the period       72   72   256   256
                     
Balance at end of period:                    
 Accumulated derivative instrument fair value changes       $786       $4,168    
Comprehensive Income           $65,582       $95,302
                     
                     
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                    
                     

 

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
                 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $174   $185   ($11)   (6)
  Commercial   146   155   (9)   (6)
  Industrial   223   233   (10)   (4)
  Governmental   9   9    
     Total retail   552   582   (30)   (5)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   21   8   13    163 
    Non-associated companies   43   47   (4)   (9)
  Other   131   37   94    254 
     Total   $747   $674   $73    11 
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   2,124   2,068   56   
  Commercial   2,013   1,985   28   
  Industrial   3,879   4,049   (170)   (4)
  Governmental   109   103    
     Total retail   8,125   8,205   (80)   (1)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   729   239   490    205 
    Non-associated companies   726   984   (258)   (26)
     Total   9,580   9,428   152   
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $370   $369   $1   
  Commercial   305   297    
  Industrial   467   445   22   
  Governmental   19   18    
     Total retail   1,161   1,129   32   
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   47   21   26    124 
    Non-associated companies   75   92   (17)   (18)
  Other   116   45   71    158 
     Total   $1,399   $1,287   $112   
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   4,279   4,256   23   
  Commercial   3,927   3,847   80   
  Industrial   7,860   7,972   (112)   (1)
  Governmental   214   214    
     Total retail   16,280   16,289   (9)  
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   1,294   550   744    135 
    Non-associated companies   1,265   2,006   (741)   (37)
     Total   18,839   18,845   (6)  
                 
                 

 

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Results of Operations

Net Income

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net income increased $30.5 million primarily due to higher net revenue and lower depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses and lower other income.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net income increased $11.0 million primarily due to higher net revenue partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2005

Net revenue, which is Entergy Louisiana's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$253.1 

Price applied to unbilled sales

 

56.6 

Other

 

1.1 

2005 net revenue

 

$310.8 

The price applied to unbilled sales variance is due to an increase in the fuel cost component of the price applied to unbilled sales in 2005. The fuel cost component is higher because of an increase in natural gas costs and a Waterford 3 refueling outage. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

Gross operating revenues, fuel and purchased power expenses, and other regulatory credits

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $34.6 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to higher fuel rates; and
  • an increase in the price applied to unbilled sales, as discussed above.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to a shift to higher priced gas and purchased power generation from lower priced nuclear generation due to a refueling outage. The increase was also due to an increase in the market price of natural gas.

Other regulatory credits increased primarily due to the deferral as allowed by the LPSC of capacity charges related to generation resource planning.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Louisiana's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

 

 

Amount

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

2004 net revenue

 

$450.4 

Price applied to unbilled sales

 

55.9 

Volume/weather

 

(12.6)

Rate refund provisions

 

(8.4)

Other

 

10.2 

2005 net revenue

 

$495.5 

The price applied to unbilled sales variance is due to an increase in the fuel cost component of the price applied to unbilled sales in 2005. The fuel cost component is higher because of an increase in natural gas costs and a Waterford 3 refueling outage. #9; See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The volume/weather variance is due to decreased usage primarily during the unbilled sales period.

The rate refund provisions variance is primarily due to additional provisions recorded in 2005 related to LPSC-approved settlements in March 2005 and May 2005.

Gross operating revenues, fuel and purchased power expenses, and other regulatory credits

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to:

  • an increase in the price applied to unbilled sales, as discussed above;
  • an increase of $36.6 million in fuel cost recovery revenues due to higher fuel rates; and
  • an increase of $7.4 million in gross wholesale revenue due to increased sales to affiliated systems.

The increase was partially offset by the volume/weather variance and the rate refund provisions variance discussed above.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to a shift from lower priced nuclear generation to higher priced gas and purchased power generation as a result of a refueling outage. The increase was partially offset by a decrease in the recovery from customers of deferred fuel costs.

Other regulatory credits increased primarily due to the deferral as allowed by the LPSC of capacity charges related to generation resource planning.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $4.1 million in contract costs as a result of maintenance outages at fossil plants in 2004.

Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased primarily due to a change in the depreciation rate for Waterford 3 as approved by the LPSC effective April 2005.

Other income decreased primarily due to the write-off of $7.1 million in June 2005 of a portion of the customer care system investment and the related allowance for equity funds used during construction pursuant to an LPSC-approved settlement. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $2.1 million in interest income earned primarily on deferred fuel and capacity charges.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $5.9 million in payroll and benefits costs;
  • an increase of $5.0 million in nuclear expenses due to the timing of contract and material costs; and
  • an increase of $1.8 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

Other income decreased primarily due to the write-off of $7.1 million in June 2005 of a portion of the customer care system investment and the related allowance for equity funds used during construction pursuant to an LPSC-approved settlement. The decrease was substantially offset by the following:

  • an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to an increase in construction expenditures; and
  • an increase in interest and dividend income primarily due to interest earned on deferred capacity charges and on temporary cash investments.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 40.0% and 38.5%, respectively. The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 39.8% and 38.1%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes, book and tax differences related to utility plant items, and a federal tax reserve estimate revision necessary to appropriately provide for prior tax periods. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance for funds used during construction. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter 2004 and the six months ended June 30, 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to book and tax differences related to utility plant items and state income taxes, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$146,049 

 

$8,787 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

220,270 

 

89,012 

 

Investing activities

 

(335,554)

 

(98,594)

 

Financing activities

 

(28,246)

 

53,144 

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

(143,530)

 

43,562 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$2,519 

 

$52,349 

Operating Activities

Cash flow from operations increased $131.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to money pool activity, which provided $151.2 million of Entergy Louisiana's operating cash flows in the first six months of 2005 and used $84.9 million in the first six months of 2004. The increase was partially offset by decreased recovery of deferred fuel costs. Entergy Louisiana's receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

($110,658)

 

$40,549

 

$43,577

 

($41,317)

See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Investing Activities

The increase of $237.0 million in net cash used in investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 is primarily due to:

  • Entergy Louisiana purchasing the Perryville plant in June 2005 for $162.5 million. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of this acquisition. In April 2005, the LPSC approved the acquisition and the long-term cost-of-service purchased power agreement under which Entergy Gulf States will purchase 75 percent of the plant's output.
  • An increase in spending on transmission and nuclear projects, including the Waterford 3 uprate project completed in June 2005.
  • An increase of $19.8 million in capacity costs that have been deferred and are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Financing Activities

Entergy Louisiana used $28.2 million of cash for financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to providing $53.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to the issuance of $100 million of 5.5% Series First Mortgage Bonds in March 2004, partially offset by a principal payment of $14.8 million in 2004 on the Waterford 3 Lease Obligation. See Note 3 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements for the details of Entergy Louisiana's long-term debt activity in 2005.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana's uses and sources of capital. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

In May 2005, Entergy Louisiana entered into a credit facility for $85 million and Entergy Arkansas renewed its $85 million credit facility with the same lender. Either company can borrow up to the full amount on its respective facility, but at no time can the combined amount of outstanding borrowings on the two facilities exceed $85 million. There were no outstanding borrowings under either credit facility as of June 30, 2005.

In July 2005, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans renewed their 364-day credit facilities with the same lender through May 2006. Entergy New Orleans increased the amount of its credit facility to $15 million, the same amount as Entergy Louisiana's facility. Either company can borrow up to the full amount on its respective facility, but at no time can the combined amount of outstanding borrowings on the two facilities exceed $15 million. There were no outstanding borrowings under either credit facility as of June 30, 2005.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of utility restructuring, state rate regulation, federal regulation and proceedings, industrial and commercial customers, market and credit risks, nuclear matters, environmental risks, and litigation risks. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

State and Local Rate Regulation

In March 2005, the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a range of issues for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement resulted in credits of $14 million for retail electricity customers of Entergy Louisiana. The settlement dismissed, among other dockets, dockets established to consider issues concerning power purchases for Entergy Louisiana for the summers of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, all prudence issues associated with decisions made through May 2005 related to the nuclear plant uprates at issue in these cases, and an LPSC docket concerning retail issues arising under the System Agreement. The settlement does not include the System Agreement case at FERC. In addition, Entergy Louisiana agreed to forgo recovery of $3.5 million of deferred 2003 capacity costs associated with certain power purchase agreements. The credits were issued in connection with April 2005 billings. Entergy Louisiana reserved for the approximate refund amounts.

Refer to "State Rate Regulation" in the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Louisiana's rate filing with the LPSC requesting a base rate increase. In March 2005, the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a proposed settlement that included an annual base rate increase of approximately $18.3 million which was implemented, subject to refund, effective with May 2005 billings. In May 2005, the LPSC approved a modified settlement which, among other things, reduces depreciation and decommissioning expense due to assuming a life extension of Waterford 3 and results in no change in rates. Subsequently, in June 2005, Entergy Louisiana made a revised compliance filing with the LPSC supporting a revised depreciation rate for Waterford 3, which reflects the removal of interim additions, and a rate increase from the purchase of the Perryville power plant, which results in a net $0.8 million annual rate reduction. Entergy Louisiana reduced rates effective with the first billing cycle in June 2005 and expects to refund excess revenue collected during May 2005, including interest, in the third quarter of 2005.

The May 2005 rate settlement includes the adoption of a three-year formula rate plan, the terms of which include an ROE mid-point of 10.25% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permit Entergy Louisiana to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed regulatory earnings range of 9.45% to 11.05% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Louisiana. The initial formula rate plan filing will be in May 2006 based on a 2005 test year with rates effective September 2006. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before Entergy's retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy Louisiana does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the proceeding that the LPSC commenced before itself regarding the System Agreement. As noted above in "State and Local Rate Regulation," the settlement of various issues involving Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana that was approved by the LPSC has resolved the System Agreement proceeding before the LPSC, which has been dismissed without prejudice.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

Interconnection Orders

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ALJ Initial Decision and FERC order directing Entergy Louisiana to refund, in the form of transmission credits, approximately $15 million in expenses and tax obligations previously paid by a generator. Entergy's request for rehearing was denied by the FERC.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Central States Compact Claim

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 holds each state responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste originating in that state, but allows states to participate in regional compacts to fulfill their responsibilities jointly.  Arkansas and Louisiana participate in the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (Central States Compact or Compact).  Commencing in 1998, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana made a series of contributions to the Central States Compact to fund the Central States Compact's development of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to be located in Boyd County, Nebraska.  In December 1998, Nebraska, the host state for the proposed Central States Compact disposal facility, denied the compact's license application for the proposed disposal facility.  Several parties, including the commission that governs the compact (the Compact Commission), filed a lawsuit against Nebraska seeking damages resulting from Nebraska's denial of the proposed facility's license.  After a trial, the U.S. District Court concluded that Nebraska violated its good faith obligations regarding the proposed waste disposal facility and rendered a judgment against Nebraska in the amount of $151 million.  In August 2004, Nebraska agreed to pay the Compact $141 million in settlement of the judgment. In July 2005, the Compact Commission decided to distribute a substantial portion of the proceeds from the settlement to the nuclear power generators that had contributed funding for the Boyd County facility, including Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana. On August 1, 2005, Nebraska paid the full amount of the settlement to the Compact, and the Compact distributed from the settlement proceeds $23.6 million to Entergy Arkansas, $19.9 million to Entergy Gulf States, and $18.4 million to Entergy Louisiana.  Management is still analyzing the accounting treatment of the  receipts, but expects that some portion of the receipts could result in income for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, and Entergy Louisiana.

Entergy Louisiana Corporate Restructuring

On July 13, 2005, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC an application for authorization to implement a plan of internal restructuring that would, in effect, result in the conversion of its form of business organization from a corporation to a limited liability company. The proposed restructuring is intended to reduce Entergy Louisiana's corporate franchise taxes. The proposed restructuring implements a recommendation from the LPSC staff and, if successfully completed, will result in a decrease in Entergy Louisiana's rates to Louisiana retail customers.

In accordance with the terms of the proposed restructuring, Entergy Louisiana will be converted to a Texas corporation and will hold all the common membership interests in Entergy Louisiana, LLC ("ELL"), a newly organized Texas limited liability company that will be allocated substantially all the assets and liabilities, including debt and lease obligations, of Entergy Louisiana immediately prior to the proposed restructuring. ELL's utility operations would remain subject to the jurisdiction of the LPSC and the FERC to the same extent that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the LPSC and the FERC when they were held by Entergy Louisiana. The proposed restructuring may not be implemented without various authorizations by certain governmental regulatory agencies, including the LPSC, the SEC, the FERC, and the NRC.

In its application to the LPSC, Entergy Louisiana noted that it may redeem a portion of the Entergy Louisiana preferred stock prior to the proposed restructuring and that, if the proposed restructuring is implemented, it anticipates redeeming any remaining Entergy Louisiana preferred stock within three to six months following the implementation of the proposed restructuring.

Any redemption of Entergy Louisiana preferred stock by Entergy Louisiana in connection with the proposed restructuring will be made at the following respective redemption prices as provided in the Entergy Louisiana amended and restated articles of incorporation, whether the redemption occurs before or after the implementation of the proposed restructuring:

Series of Entergy Louisiana Preferred Stock

Redemption Price Per Share

   

4.96% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$104.25

4.16% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$104.21

4.44% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$104.06

5.16% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$104.18

5.40% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$103.00

6.44% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$102.92

7.84% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$103.78

7.36% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100.00 par value

$103.36

8% Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $25.00 par value

$ 25.00

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy Louisiana's accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, unbilled revenue, and pension and other postretirement costs. The following is an update to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

In the second quarter of 2005, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability in accordance with a new decommissioning cost study for Waterford 3 that assumes a life extension for the plant. The revised estimate resulted in a $153.6 million reduction in its decommissioning liability, along with a $49.2 million reduction in utility plant and a $104.4 million reduction in the related regulatory asset.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

 

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
  Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $647,748    $555,511    $1,128,421    $1,043,557 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   127,564    129,885    265,341    267,664 
  Purchased power   226,690    178,102    397,996    335,832 
  Nuclear refueling outage expenses   3,397    3,455    6,821    6,632 
  Other operation and maintenance   99,518    93,671    188,156    171,369 
Decommissioning   5,155    5,443    10,872    10,799 
Taxes other than income taxes   18,300    18,259    36,657    34,333 
Depreciation and amortization   43,645    47,951    95,453    94,537 
Other regulatory credits - net   (17,323)   (5,612)   (30,407)   (10,284)
TOTAL   506,946    471,154    970,889    910,882 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   140,802    84,357    157,532    132,675 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   1,840    1,519    4,377    2,869 
Interest and dividend income   5,074    1,931    8,140    3,658 
Miscellaneous - net   (6,481)   1,282    (6,848)   144 
TOTAL   433    4,732    5,669    6,671 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES  
Interest on long-term debt   16,852    17,878    34,691    34,336 
Other interest - net   1,804    1,074    4,823    2,058 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (990)   (905)   (2,489)   (1,881)
TOTAL   17,666    18,047    37,025    34,513 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   123,569    71,042    126,176    104,833 
                 
Income taxes   49,406    27,329    50,242    39,908 
                 
NET INCOME   74,163    43,713    75,934    64,925 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   1,678    1,678    3,357    3,357 
                 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $72,485    $42,035    $72,577    $61,568 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

 

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $75,934    $64,925 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Reserve for regulatory adjustments   (11,724)   - 
  Other regulatory credits - net   (30,407)   (10,284)
  Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning   106,325    105,336 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   38,961    30,803 
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (52,011)   (50,835)
    Accounts payable   119,141    (58,301)
    Taxes accrued   23,337    32,834 
    Interest accrued   (715)   (3,503)
    Deferred fuel costs   (80,330)   (17,039)
    Other working capital accounts   (22,957)   (6,575)
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   2,179    2,953 
  Changes in other regulatory assets   17,229    (11,137)
  Other   35,308    9,835 
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   220,270    89,012 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (151,902)   (93,864)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   4,377    2,869 
Nuclear fuel purchases   (54,158)   - 
Proceeds from the sale/leaseback of nuclear fuel   54,158    - 
Payment for purchase of plant   (162,075)   - 
Decommissioning trust contributions and realized        
 change in trust assets   (6,153)   (7,599)
Other regulatory investments   (19,801)   - 
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (335,554)   (98,594)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt   54,611    99,210 
Retirement of long-term debt   (55,000)   (14,809)
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (24,500)   (27,900)
  Preferred stock   (3,357)   (3,357)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities   (28,246)   53,144 
         
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   (143,530)   43,562 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   146,049    8,787 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $2,519    $52,349 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $38,574    $38,446 
  Income taxes   $11,114    - 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT ASSETS        
Cash and cash equivalents:        
  Cash   $2,519    $3,875 
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,        
   which approximates market   -    142,174 
     Total cash and cash equivalents   2,519    146,049 
Accounts receivable:        
  Customer   102,973    88,154 
  Allowance for doubtful accounts   (2,486)   (3,135)
  Associated companies   10,425    43,121 
  Other   13,684    13,070 
  Accrued unbilled revenues   212,078    143,453 
     Total accounts receivable   336,674    284,663 
Deferred fuel costs   88,984    8,654 
Accumulated deferred income taxes   -    12,712 
Materials and supplies - at average cost   74,501    77,665 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs   23,246    5,605 
Prepayments and other   12,497    6,861 
TOTAL   538,421    542,209 
         
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Investment in affiliates - at equity   14,230    14,230 
Decommissioning trust funds   180,999    172,083 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)   21,110    21,176 
Other   4    4 
TOTAL   216,343    207,493 
         
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric   6,264,851    5,985,889 
Property under capital lease   246,853    250,964 
Construction work in progress   111,383    188,848 
Nuclear fuel under capital lease   75,353    31,655 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT   6,698,440    6,457,356 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization   2,829,721    2,799,936 
UTILITY PLANT - NET   3,868,719    3,657,420 
         
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:        
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net   124,252    132,686 
  Other regulatory assets   215,051    302,456 
Long-term receivables   8,222    10,736 
Other   27,267    25,994 
TOTAL   374,792    471,872 
         
TOTAL ASSETS   $4,998,275    $4,878,994 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
 
 
 
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt   $ -    $55,000 
Accounts payable:        
  Associated companies   174,522    57,681 
  Other   130,823    128,523 
Customer deposits   67,558    66,963 
Taxes accrued   34,718    7,268 
Accumulated deferred income taxes   24,967    - 
Interest accrued   17,723    18,438 
Obligations under capital leases   22,753    22,753 
Other   10,827    10,428 
TOTAL   483,891    367,054 
         
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued   1,795,528    1,805,410 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits   94,081    96,130 
Obligations under capital leases   52,600    8,903 
Other regulatory liabilities   59,702    51,260 
Decommissioning   204,497    347,255 
Accumulated provisions   94,832    92,653 
Long-term debt   985,707    930,695 
Other   106,541    106,815 
TOTAL   3,393,488    3,439,121 
         
Commitments and Contingencies        
         
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Preferred stock without sinking fund   100,500    100,500 
Common stock, no par value, authorized 250,000,000        
 shares; issued 165,173,180 shares in 2005        
 and 2004   1,088,900    1,088,900 
Capital stock expense and other   (1,718)   (1,718)
Retained earnings   53,214    5,137 
Less - treasury stock, at cost (18,202,573 shares in 2005 and 2004)   120,000    120,000 
TOTAL   1,120,896    1,072,819 
         
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY   $4,998,275    $4,878,994 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        

 

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
                 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $172   $162   $10     6  
  Commercial   122   116   6     5  
  Industrial   198   191   7     4  
  Governmental   10   9   1     11  
     Total retail   502   478   24     5  
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   32   28   4     14  
    Non-associated companies   3   3   -     -  
  Other   111   47   64     136  
     Total   $648   $556   $92     17  
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   1,894   1,888   6     -  
  Commercial   1,361   1,357   4     -  
  Industrial   3,341   3,274   67     2  
  Governmental   108   104   4     4  
      Total retail   6,704   6,623   81     1  
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   285   316   (31)   (10)
    Non-associated companies   31   28   3     11  
     Total   7,020   6,967   53     1  
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $337   $332   $5    2 
  Commercial   237   230   7    3 
  Industrial   387   377   10    3 
  Governmental   20   18   2    11 
     Total retail   981   957   24    3 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   47   38   9    24 
    Non-associated companies   5   7   (2)   (29)
  Other   95   42   53    126 
     Total   $1,128   $1,044   $84    8 
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   3,823   3,895   (72)   (2)
  Commercial   2,647   2,640   7    - 
  Industrial   6,457   6,406   51    1 
  Governmental   226   213   13    6 
     Total retail   13,153   13,154   (1)   - 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   430   422   8    2 
    Non-associated companies   45   122   (77)   (63)
     Total   13,628   13,698   (70)   (1)
                 
                 

 

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Results of Operations

Net Income

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net income decreased $3.1 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses, higher depreciation and amortization expense, and higher taxes other than income taxes, partially offset by lower interest expense.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net income decreased $4.5 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses, higher depreciation and amortization expense, and higher taxes other than income taxes, partially offset by higher net revenue and lower interest expense.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Mississippi's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Net revenue was relatively unchanged comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

   

Amount

   

(In Millions)

     

2004 net revenue

 

$116.5 

Miscellaneous items

 

(0.1)

2005 net revenue

 

$116.4 

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy Mississippi's measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

   

Amount

   

(In Millions)

     

2004 net revenue

 

$204.0 

Reserve equalization

 

3.8 

Other

 

0.1 

2005 net revenue

 

$207.9 

The reserve equalization variance is primarily due to purchase power agreement contracts during 2005 which were not in place during 2004.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $1.7 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • an increase of $0.9 million in estimated loss provisions recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $1.1 million in customer service support costs.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased primarily due to an increase in plant in service.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to higher assessment of ad valorem and franchise taxes.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to net redemption of $35 million of First Mortgage Bonds during 2004.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

  • an increase of $2.9 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • an increase of $2.5 million in fossil plant planned off-peak maintenance outage costs; and
  • an increase of $0.9 million in reserves recorded for the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $1.0 million in customer service support costs.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased primarily due to an increase in plant in service.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to higher assessment of ad valorem and franchise taxes.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to net redemption of $35 million of First Mortgage Bonds during 2004.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 34.9% and 37.0%, respectively. The difference in the effective tax rate for the second quarter of 2004 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by the amortization of investment tax credits and book and tax differences related to the allowance of equity funds used during construction. The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 33.5% and 35.8%, respectively. The difference in the effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2005 versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% is primarily due to book and tax differences related to the allowance of equity funds used during construction and the amortization of investment tax credits, partially offset by state income taxes.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$80,396 

 

$63,838 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

16,495 

 

51,564 

 

Investing activities

 

(67,416)

 

(69,180)

 

Financing activities

 

16,255 

 

(28,296)

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents

 

(34,666)

 

(45,912)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$45,730 

 

$17,926 

Operating Activities

Cash flow from operations decreased $35.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to money pool activity.

Entergy Mississippi's receivables from the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$53,488

 

$21,584

 

$12,000

 

$22,076

Money pool activity used $31.9 million of Entergy Mississippi's operating cash flow for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and provided $10.1 million of Entergy Mississippi's operating cash flow for the six months ended June 30, 2004. See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities decreased $1.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004. Decreased capital expenditures as a result of decreased spending on transmission and fossil plant projects was offset by the maturity in 2004 of $7.5 million of other temporary investments that had been made in 2003, which provided cash in 2004.

Financing Activities

Financing activities provided $16.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to using $28.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to a $30 million issuance of preferred stock in 2005 and the net retirement of $39.5 million of long-term debt during 2004, partially offset by cash provided by a $25 million draw on Entergy Mississippi's short term bank credit facility in 2004. See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements for the details of Entergy Mississippi's preferred stock activity in 2005.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy Mississippi's uses and sources of capital. Following are updates to the information presented in the Form 10-K.

See the table in the Form 10-K under "Uses of Capital" which sets forth the amounts of Entergy Mississippi's planned construction and other capital investments for 2005 through 2007. In March 2005, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement to purchase for $88 million the Attala power plant, a 480 MW natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating facility owned by Central Mississippi Generating Company (CMGC). Entergy Mississippi plans to invest approximately $20 million in facility upgrades at the Attala plant plus $3 million in other costs, bringing the total capital cost of the project to approximately $111 million. The Attala plant will be 100 percent owned by Entergy Mississippi, and the acquisition is expected to close in late 2005 or early 2006. The purchase of the plant is contingent upon obtaining necessary approvals from various federal agencies, state permitting agencies, and the MPSC, including MPSC approval of investment cost recovery. In May and June 2005, Entergy Mississippi made filings at the MPSC to commence proceedings for MPSC approval both of the acquisition and of the investment cost recovery for the plant. Entergy Mississippi and CMGC had previously executed a purchased power agreement in July 2004 for 100 percent of the plant's output, and this agreement will expire upon the close of the acquisition or in March 2008, whichever occurs earlier. The planned construction and other capital investments line in the table in the Form 10-K includes the estimated cost of the Attala acquisition as a 2006 capital commitment.

In June 2005, Entergy Mississippi issued 1,200,000 shares of $25 par value 6.25% Series Preferred Stock, all of which are outstanding as of June 30, 2005. The dividends are cumulative and will be payable quarterly beginning November 1, 2005. The preferred stock is redeemable on or after July 1, 2010, at Entergy Mississippi's option, at the call price of $25 per share. The proceeds from this issuance were used in the third quarter of 2005 to redeem $20 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 8.36% Series Preferred Stock and $10 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 7.44% Series Preferred Stock.

In April 2005, Entergy Mississippi renewed its 364-day credit facility through May 31, 2006. The amount available under the credit facility is $25 million, of which none was drawn at June 30, 2005.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of utility restructuring, state and local rate regulation, federal regulation and proceedings, market and credit risks, state and local regulatory risks, and litigation risks. The following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

State and Local Rate Regulation

In May 2005, the MPSC approved a joint stipulation entered into between the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi regarding Entergy Mississippi's annual formula rate plan filing that provides for no change in rates based on a performance-adjusted ROE mid-point of 10.50%, establishing an allowed regulatory earnings range of 9.1% to 11.9%.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before Entergy's retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy Mississippi does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy Mississippi's accounting for pension and other retirement costs.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $288,244    $289,573    $539,490    $526,402 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   29,924    73,171    73,291    132,345 
  Purchased power   144,226    100,591    260,284    193,293 
  Other operation and maintenance   47,750    44,835    88,731    81,883 
Taxes other than income taxes   14,900    13,764    28,666    26,562 
Depreciation and amortization   17,982    15,716    35,919    30,625 
Other regulatory credits - net   (2,331)   (661)   (1,966)   (3,188)
TOTAL   252,451    247,416    484,925    461,520 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   35,793    42,157    54,565    64,882 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   1,060    867    2,061    1,634 
Interest and dividend income   690    830    1,328    1,546 
Miscellaneous - net   (322)   162    (691)   (478)
TOTAL   1,428    1,859    2,698    2,702 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES      
Interest on long-term debt   9,839    11,047    19,673    21,976 
Other interest - net   828    540    1,445    940 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (681)   (596)   (1,344)   (1,203)
TOTAL   9,986    10,991    19,774    21,713 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   27,235    33,025    37,489    45,871 
                 
Income taxes   9,516    12,217    12,548    16,425 
                 
NET INCOME   17,719    20,808    24,941    29,446 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   858    842    1,700    1,685 
                 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $16,861    $19,966    $23,241    $27,761 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                
                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $24,941    $29,446 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Other regulatory credits - net   (1,966)   (3,188)
  Depreciation and amortization   35,919    30,625 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   (499)   61,417 
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (30,332)   (8,986)
    Fuel inventory   (776)   1,072 
    Accounts payable   (8,553)   486 
    Taxes accrued   (8,091)   (60,754)
    Interest accrued   525    (1,528)
    Deferred fuel costs   8,056    15,042 
    Other working capital accounts   (9)   3,427 
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   319    (771)
  Changes in other regulatory assets   (4,326)   (3,448)
  Other   1,287    (11,276)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   16,495    51,564 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (69,477)   (78,320)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   2,061    1,634 
Changes in other temporary investments - net   -    7,506 
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (67,416)   (69,180)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt   -    178,625 
Proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock   29,340    - 
Retirement of long-term debt   -    (218,136)
Changes in short-term borrowings   -    25,000 
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (11,400)   (12,100)
  Preferred stock   (1,685)   (1,685)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities   16,255    (28,296)
         
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents   (34,666)   (45,912)
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   80,396    63,838 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $45,730    $17,926 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $19,549    $21,843 
  Income taxes   $4,446    $2,950 
         
         

 

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
     
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT ASSETS        
Cash and cash equivalents:        
  Cash   $1,482    $4,716 
  Temporary cash investment - at cost,        
   which approximates market   44,248    75,680 
     Total cash and cash equivalents   45,730    80,396 
Accounts receivable:        
  Customer   59,790    68,821 
  Allowance for doubtful accounts   (761)   (1,126)
  Associated companies   57,323    22,616 
  Other   8,121    12,133 
  Accrued unbilled revenues   42,651    34,348 
     Total accounts receivable   167,124    136,792 
Accumulated deferred income taxes   27,438    27,924 
Fuel inventory - at average cost   4,913    4,137 
Materials and supplies - at average cost   18,444    18,414 
Prepayments and other   11,246    15,413 
TOTAL   274,895    283,076 
         
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Investment in affiliates - at equity   5,531    5,531 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)   6,259    6,465 
TOTAL   11,790    11,996 
         
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric   2,431,311    2,385,465 
Property under capital lease   73    95 
Construction work in progress   97,967    89,921 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT   2,529,351    2,475,481 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization   893,450    870,188 
UTILITY PLANT - NET   1,635,901    1,605,293 
         
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:        
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net   19,009    17,628 
  Other regulatory assets   88,529    82,674 
Long-term receivable   3,270    4,510 
Other   31,813    31,009 
TOTAL   142,621    135,821 
         
TOTAL ASSETS   $2,065,207    $2,036,186 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
 
 
 
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
     
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accounts payable:        
  Associated companies   $ 42,469    $ 65,806 
  Other   40,327    25,543 
Customer deposits   40,232    37,333 
Taxes accrued   28,261    40,106 
Interest accrued   13,012    12,487 
Deferred fuel costs   30,849    22,793 
Obligations under capital leases   46    43 
Other   2,001    8,341 
TOTAL   197,197    212,452 
         
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued   443,158    438,321 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits   13,023    13,687 
Obligations under capital leases   27    52 
Accumulated provisions   13,037    12,718 
Long-term debt   695,109    695,073 
Other   74,663    76,071 
TOTAL   1,239,017    1,235,922 
         
Commitments and Contingencies        
         
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Preferred stock without sinking fund   80,381    50,381 
Common stock, no par value, authorized 12,000,000        
 shares in 2005 and 15,000,000 shares in 2004;        
 issued and outstanding 8,666,357 shares in 2005 and 2004   199,326    199,326 
Capital stock expense and other   (719)   (59)
Retained earnings   350,005    338,164 
TOTAL   628,993    587,812 
         
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY   $2,065,207    $2,036,186 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        

 

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
                 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $ 99   $ 102   ($ 3)   (3)
  Commercial   91   92   (1)   (1)
  Industrial   46   49   (3)   (6)
  Governmental   9   9   -    - 
    Total retail   245   252   (7)   (3)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   12   8   4    50 
    Non-associated companies   8   8   -    - 
  Other   23   22   1    5 
     Total   $ 288   $ 290   ($ 2)   (1)
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   1,060   1,074   (14)   (1)
  Commercial   1,057   1,060   (3)   - 
  Industrial   708   746   (38)   (5)
  Governmental   94   91   3    3 
     Total retail   2,919   2,971   (52)   (2)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   104   65   39    60 
    Non-associated companies   109   101   8    8 
     Total   3,132   3,137   (5)   - 
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)    
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $ 195   $ 196   ($ 1)   (1)
  Commercial   176   173   3    2 
  Industrial   90   91   (1)   (1)
  Governmental   18   17   1    6 
    Total retail   479   477   2    - 
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   18   11   7    64 
    Non-associated companies   17   13   4    31 
  Other   25   25   -    - 
     Total   $ 539   $ 526   $ 13    2 
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   2,256   2,299   (43)   (2)
  Commercial   2,078   2,064   14    1 
  Industrial   1,400   1,422   (22)   (2)
  Governmental   186   182   4    2 
    Total retail   5,920   5,967   (47)   (1)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   121   78   43    55 
    Non-associated companies   177   167   10    6 
     Total   6,218   6,212   6    - 
                 
                 

 

 

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Results of Operations

Net Income

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net income decreased $3.9 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses and higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net income decreased $5.3 million primarily due to higher other operation and maintenance expenses and higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Net Revenue

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy New Orleans' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory charges. Net revenue was relatively unchanged comparing the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2004.

   

Amount

   

(In Millions)

     

2004 net revenue

 

$67.2

Miscellaneous items

 

0.6

2005 net revenue

 

$67.8

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Net revenue, which is Entergy New Orleans' measure of gross margin, consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related, and purchased power expenses and 2) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the changes in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2005 to the six months ended June 30, 2004.

   

Amount

   

(In Millions)

     

2004 net revenue

 

$120.8 

Volume/weather

 

(2.3)

Price applied to unbilled electric sales

 

(2.3)

Rate refund provisions

 

4.0 

Other

 

(0.2)

2005 net revenue

 

$120.0 

The volume/weather variance is due to a decrease in electricity usage in the service territory primarily during the unbilled sales period. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The price applied to unbilled electric sales variance is due to a decrease in the fuel cost component of the price applied to unbilled sales. See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K and Note 1 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The rate refund provisions variance is due to provisions recorded in the first quarter of 2004 primarily as a result of a resolution adopted by the City Council in February 2004.

Gross operating revenues and fuel and purchased power expenses

Gross operating revenues increased primarily due to an increase of $24.3 million in gross wholesale revenue as a result of increased sales to affiliates. The increase is due to increased generation resulting in more energy available for resale.

Fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to an increase in electricity generated in addition to an increase in the price of natural gas.

Other Income Statement Variances

Second Quarter 2005 Compared to Second Quarter 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to the following:

  • an increase of $1.3 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • an increase of $1.2 million in regulatory commission expense as a result of higher consultant costs.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased primarily due to an increase in plant in service.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to the following:

  • an increase of $1.9 million in payroll and benefits costs; and
  • an increase of $1.4 million in regulatory commission expense as a result of higher consultant costs.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased primarily due to an increase in plant in service.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004 were 41.9% and 38.9%, respectively. The effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were 40.4% and 38.6%, respectively. The differences in the effective income tax rates for the periods presented versus the federal statutory rate of 35.0% are primarily due to state income taxes and book and tax differences related to utility plant items.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$7,954 

 

$4,669 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

(4,481)

 

20,014 

 

Investing activities

 

(23,119)

 

(22,258)

 

Financing activities

 

27,704 

 

(1,524)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

104 

 

(3,768)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$8,058 

 

$901 

Operating Activities

Operating activities used $4.5 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to providing $20.0 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to a pension fund contribution of $12.0 million made in April 2005, money pool activity, and an income tax refund of $5.0 million received in the first quarter of 2004. Money pool activity used $6.3 million of Entergy New Orleans' operating cash flow for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to providing $3.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004.

Entergy New Orleans' receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$7,758

 

$1,413

 

($1,805)

 

$1,783

See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Financing Activities

Financing activities provided $27.7 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to using $1.5 million of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily because in June 2005, Entergy New Orleans issued $30 million of 4.98% Series First Mortgage Bonds due July 2010. The proceeds were used to retire, at maturity, $30 million of 8.125% Series First Mortgage Bonds due July 2005.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans' uses and sources of capital.

In July 2005, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans renewed their 364-day credit facilities with the same lender through May 2006. Entergy New Orleans increased the amount of its credit facility to $15 million, the same amount as Entergy Louisiana's facility. Either company can borrow up to the full amount on its respective facility, but at no time can the combined amount of outstanding borrowings on the two facilities exceed $15 million. There were no borrowings outstanding on either facility as of June 30, 2005. In July 2005, Entergy New Orleans granted the lender a security interest in its customer accounts receivables to secure its borrowings under this facility. Under the terms of the security agreement, Entergy New Orleans has the option to withdraw the security interest at any time.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of state and local rate regulation, federal regulation and proceedings, market and credit risks, environmental risks, and litigation risks. Following are updates to the information presented in the Form 10-K.

State and Local Rate Regulation

In April 2005, Entergy New Orleans made its annual scheduled formula rate plan filings with the City Council.  The filings show that a decrease of $0.2 million in electric revenues is warranted and an increase of $3.9 million in gas revenues is warranted. The prescribed period for review by the City Council's Advisors and other parties has now commenced, and rate adjustments, if any, could be implemented as soon as September 2005.

In May 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council a request for continuation of the formula rate plan and generation performance-based rate plan for an additional three years. The filing requests a target equity component of the capital structure of 45%, an increase from the current target of 42%.

Federal Regulation

System Agreement Litigation

On June 1, 2005, the FERC issued a decision in the System Agreement litigation. The domestic utility companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which has been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement litigation proceedings are described in the Form 10-K.

The FERC decision concluded, among other things, that:

  • The System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes production costs among the domestic utility companies.
  • In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC will impose a bandwidth remedy allowing for a maximum spread of 22 percent (expressed by the FERC as +/- 11%) between the total annual production costs of the highest cost and lowest cost domestic utility companies.
  • When calculating the production costs for this purpose, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for that year but will be priced at that year's average MSS-3 price, reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the domestic utility companies' total production costs.
  • The remedy ordered by FERC calls for no refunds and would be effective based on the calendar year 2006 production costs with the first potential reallocation payments, if required, expected to be made in 2007.

The FERC's June 2005 order would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production costs to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production costs. An assessment of the potential effects of the FERC's June 2005 order requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation.  Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies.  Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004.  Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. During the 12 month period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 forward gas contracts for each of the next four years based on daily NYMEX close averaged $6.68/mmBtu (2006), $6.25/mmBtu (2007), $5.88/mmBtu (2008) and $5.58/mmBtu (2009). If the FERC's June 2005 order becomes final and if these gas prices occur as assumed, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result during the 2007-2010 period:

 

Range of Annual Payments
or (Receipts)

 

Average Annual
Payment or (Receipt)

 

(In Millions)

       

Entergy Arkansas

$143 to $210 

 

$166 

Entergy Gulf States

($134) to ($87)

 

($113)

Entergy Louisiana

($71) to ($10)

 

($38)

Entergy Mississippi

($28) to $0 

 

($11)

Entergy New Orleans

($10) to $0 

 

($4)

If natural gas prices deviate by $1/mmBtu up or down, it is expected that Entergy Arkansas' annual payments will change in the same direction by approximately $60 to $70 million.

Various pending motions for rehearing and clarification of the FERC's June 2005 order were filed by parties to the proceeding, including the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council, and by Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the domestic utility companies. Among other things, the LPSC's motion urged the FERC to "clarify" that the FERC's order requires the payments and receipts, to the extent any are required, to be made in 2006 based on production costs incurred in 2004 and 2005. Entergy does not believe that this request for "clarification" is consistent with the FERC order and submitted a response urging the FERC to reject this interpretation and instead find that the annual remedy order by the FERC would be evaluated based on calendar year 2006 production costs, with the first potential payments/receipts, if any were required, made in 2007.

Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC's June 2005 order and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings before Entergy's retail regulators. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy New Orleans does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

See the Form 10-K for discussion of the City Council resolution directing Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana to notify the City Council and obtain prior approval for any action that would materially modify, amend, or terminate the System Agreement for one or more of the domestic utility companies, and the state court decision dismissing the City Council's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The City Council has appealed that decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit.

Transmission

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the petition for declaratory order that Entergy filed with the FERC in January 2005 regarding Entergy's Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) proposal. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued a declaratory order concluding that: (1) because the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was the only entity identified as potentially being selected as the ICT and because the SPP is already a "public utility" there was no need to rule on the question of whether the functions of the ICT, alone, would serve to make the ICT a "public utility" (2) Entergy will continue to be the "transmission provider" for transmission service across its system and that "the presence of SPP as the ICT will not change the existing balance of jurisdiction between [the FERC] and Entergy's retail regulators" and (3) the FERC "is prepared to grant Entergy's proposed transmission pricing proposal on a two-year experimental basis, subject to certain enhancement and monitoring and reporting conditions." The enhancements referred to by the FERC involve more fully specifying the responsibilities and duties of the ICT, including defining the ICT's role in the preparation of various transmission expansion plans and the performance of studies related to the granting of transmission or interconnection service. Before Entergy's ICT proposal can be implemented, however, Entergy is required to submit further filings with the FERC regarding the modifications and clarifications to the ICT proposal.

On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed an Emergency Request for Clarification and Request for Expedited Commission Action seeking to have the FERC: (1) clarify the ICT's role in administering the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology; (2) clarify the ICT's role in developing the transmission base plan; (3) clarify what the FERC meant when it required Entergy to provide firm transmission rights to customers that pay for supplemental transmission upgrades; and (4) clarify and confirm following Entergy's filing that the FERC will assess SPP's status as being independent of Entergy.

On April 21, 2005 Entergy filed a request for clarification or rehearing of the FERC's March 22 declaratory order requesting that the FERC clarify the respective role of Entergy and the ICT in developing the inputs or criteria used to create the base plan and in preparing certain studies regarding system expansion. The request for clarification further requests that the FERC clarify that the initial two-year period will commence with the actual start date of ICT operations. In the event that the FERC denies Entergy's request for clarification, then Entergy will seek rehearing on these issues. However, in its request, Entergy requested that FERC not rule on these issues at this time but, instead, that the FERC wait to evaluate these issues until such time as Entergy has filed the more detailed tariff sheets and protocols in its subsequent filing to implement the ICT. Separately, Entergy submitted a letter advising the FERC that it intended to submit on or about May 27, 2005 the filing to implement the ICT proposal. A joint request for rehearing of the ICT declaratory order was also filed by the City Council, the LPSC, and the MPSC in which the retail regulators expressed their concerns that the findings reached in the declaratory order may result in an expansion of authority of the ICT "that is unnecessary to achieve the [FERC's] goals and is very likely to result in significant increases in the start-up and operational costs of the ICT." The retail regulators request that the FERC not act on their request for rehearing until Entergy has submitted its filing to implement the ICT. The intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing on April 21, 2005 urging the FERC to impose additional conditions on the approval of the ICT and also re-urging the FERC to reject the pricing proposal contained in the ICT proposal.

On May 12, 2005 the FERC issued an order clarifying certain aspects of its March 22 order. In the May 12 order, the FERC indicated that (1) Entergy is to work with the ICT and Entergy's stakeholders to develop procedures by which the ICT will calculate AFCs; (2) Entergy must specifically define the transmission rights that a customer that pays for supplemental upgrades will receive for such payments; (3) the FERC will review the ICT's contract to ensure that the ICT can perform its functions in an independent manner even if SPP is chosen as the ICT; and (4) the initial two-year period will start once the ICT becomes operational.

On May 27, 2005, the domestic utility companies filed the enhanced ICT proposal with the FERC. Entergy believes that the filing is consistent with the FERC guidance received in both the FERC's March 22 and May 12 orders on the ICT. Among other things, the enhanced ICT filing states that the ICT will (1) grant or deny transmission service on the domestic utility companies' transmission system; (2) administer the domestic utility companies' OASIS node for purposes of processing and evaluating transmission service requests and ensuring compliance with the domestic utility companies' obligation to post transmission-related information; (3) develop a base plan for the domestic utility companies' transmission system that will result in the ICT making the determination on whether something should be rolled into the domestic utility companies' transmission rates or directly assigned to the customer requesting or causing an upgrade to be constructed; (4) serve as the reliability coordinator for the Entergy transmission system; and (5) oversee the operation of the weekly procurement process. The enhanced ICT proposal clarifies the rights that customers receive when they fund a supplemental upgrade and also contains a detailed methodology describing the process by which the ICT will evaluate interconnection-related investments already made on the Entergy System for purposes of determining the future allocation of the uncredited portion of these investments.

On June 3, 2005 a group of generators filed with the FERC a request that the FERC schedule a technical conference on the enhanced ICT proposal in order for Entergy to provide additional information on the enhanced ICT proposal. In response, a stakeholder meeting was held in New Orleans on June 30, 2005. Interventions and comments on the filing are due by August 5, 2005.

In addition, as discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States have filed an application with the LPSC requesting that the LPSC find that the ICT proposal is a prudent and appropriate course of action. An LPSC hearing on the ICT proposal is currently scheduled for August 2005, however certain intervenors have recently requested that the hearing be delayed until mid-September 2005.

Available Flowgate Capacity Proceedings

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of proceedings at the FERC involving Entergy's Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC) methodology. On March 22, 2005, the FERC issued an order contemporaneously with the ICT declaratory order discussed above that holds the AFC hearing in abeyance pending action on Entergy's upcoming ICT filing. The order holding the hearing in abeyance further indicated that it would cancel the hearing when the ICT begins to perform its functions. On April 8, 2005 several intervenors filed Emergency Motions for Interim Relief and Expedited Commission Action requesting that, during the interim period before the implementation of the ICT, the FERC (1) institute an audit process to examine and modify Entergy's current AFC process; and (2) require SPP to become involved in the AFC stakeholder process and order certain modifications to Entergy's stakeholder process. The audit process being proposed by the intervenors would not involve an independent auditor, but instead would be an investigation performed by a representative from the intervenors, Entergy, and possibly SPP.  On April 25, 2005, Entergy filed its response to the emergency motion urging the FERC to reject the intervenors' request for the "audit" because the type of investigation proposed by the intervenors would be neither independent nor fair and would only distract from the implementation of the ICT.  Instead, Entergy has proposed that the ICT conduct an independent review of the AFC process and procedures as part of its transition to assuming the identified ICT responsibilities, including the calculation of the AFCs.  Entergy further indicated that it would welcome SPP's participation in the current stakeholder process. On April 21, 2005, the intervenors filed a separate request for rehearing arguing that the FERC must allow the AFC hearing to proceed in parallel with the establishment of the ICT. See "Transmission" above for further discussion of AFC.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy New Orleans' accounting for unbilled revenue and pension and other retirement costs.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In the first quarter 2005, FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143" (FIN 47). FIN 47 requires companies to recognize at fair value a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation when incurred, which is generally upon an asset's acquisition, construction, development, or through its normal operation. A conditional asset retirement obligation is generally a legal obligation to incur costs to remove an asset or part of an asset, such as an obligation to comply with environmental regulations and requirements. The obligation is conditional because there is currently no legal requirement to retire or remove the facility that the affected asset is a part of. FIN 47 requires that uncertainty about the timing or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information becomes available. FIN 47 will be effective for Entergy no later than December 31, 2005. Entergy does not believe that the adoption of FIN 47 will be material to its financial position or results of operations because it estimates that any conditional asset retirement obligations required to be recognized under FIN 47 would be offset by a regulatory asset because of the expected recovery of these future costs in rates.

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
                 
  Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $158,799    $159,221    $289,971    $271,797 
Natural gas   31,128    27,116    91,223    84,307 
TOTAL   189,927    186,337    381,194    356,104 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   54,843    53,078    135,939    109,589 
  Purchased power   66,001    65,398    122,783    124,317 
  Other operation and maintenance   30,143    27,235    50,990    48,551 
Taxes other than income taxes   10,693    10,069    21,373    20,064 
Depreciation and amortization   9,059    6,969    17,145    13,800 
Other regulatory charges - net   1,254    708    2,509    1,416 
TOTAL   171,993    163,457    350,739    317,737 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   17,934    22,880    30,455    38,367 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   246    197    528    415 
Interest and dividend income   308    157    526    327 
Miscellaneous - net   (254)   1,106    (377)   812 
TOTAL   300    1,460    677    1,554 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES          
Interest on long-term debt   3,518    3,844    7,004    7,710 
Other interest - net   484    539    868    955 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (185)   (190)   (417)   (412)
TOTAL   3,817    4,193    7,455    8,253 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   14,417    20,147    23,677    31,668 
                 
Income taxes   6,043    7,828    9,567    12,235 
                 
NET INCOME   8,374    12,319    14,110    19,433 
                 
Preferred dividend requirements and other   241    241    482    482 
                 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO                
COMMON STOCK   $8,133    $12,078    $13,628    $18,951 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                
                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $14,110    $19,433 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Other regulatory charges - net   2,509    1,416 
  Depreciation and amortization   17,145    13,800 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   3,407    19,510 
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (2,215)   (2,936)
    Fuel inventory   4,181    5,580 
    Accounts payable   (13,223)   (16,799)
    Taxes accrued   6,045    (1,637)
    Interest accrued   (403)   (413)
    Deferred fuel costs   (20,837)   (9,802)
    Other working capital accounts   (5,334)   6,138 
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   (317)   (269)
  Changes in pension liability   (9,955)   850 
  Changes in other regulatory assets   3,936    698 
  Other   (3,530)   (15,555)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) operating activities   (4,481)   20,014 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (23,647)   (23,279)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   528    415 
Changes in other temporary investments - net   -    606 
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (23,119)   (22,258)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt   29,791    - 
Retirement of long-term debt   (5)   - 
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (1,600)   (800)
  Preferred stock   (482)   (724)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities   27,704    (1,524)
         
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   104    (3,768)
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   7,954    4,669 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $8,058    $901 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid/(received) during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $7,882    $8,782 
  Income taxes     ($5,010)
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
         
CURRENT ASSETS        
Cash and cash equivalents:        
  Cash   $1,640    $2,998 
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,        
   which approximates market   6,418    4,956 
     Total cash and cash equivalents   8,058    7,954 
Accounts receivable:        
  Customer   40,156    47,356 
  Allowance for doubtful accounts   (3,444)   (3,492)
  Associated companies   9,355    12,223 
  Other   5,691    7,329 
  Accrued unbilled revenues   38,721    24,848 
     Total accounts receivable   90,479    88,264 
Deferred fuel costs   23,396    2,559 
Fuel inventory - at average cost     4,181 
Materials and supplies - at average cost   9,468    9,150 
Prepayments and other   8,685    3,467 
TOTAL   140,086    115,575 
         
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Investment in affiliates - at equity   3,259    3,259 
         
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric   717,279    699,072 
Natural gas   192,759    183,728 
Construction work in progress   25,315    33,273 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT   935,353    916,073 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization   448,562    435,519 
UTILITY PLANT - NET   486,791    480,554 
         
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:        
  Other regulatory assets   37,101    40,354 
Long term receivables   1,812    2,492 
Other   21,629    20,540 
TOTAL   60,542    63,386 
         
TOTAL ASSETS   $690,678    $662,774 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
 
 
 
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
   
  2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
 
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt   $30,000   $30,000
Accounts payable:        
  Associated companies   30,807   30,563
  Other   30,682   44,149
Customer deposits   18,005   17,187
Taxes accrued   2,219   2,592
Accumulated deferred income taxes   7,546   1,906
Interest accrued   4,354   4,757
Energy Efficiency Program provision   6,776   6,611
Other   2,696   3,477
TOTAL   133,085   141,242
         
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued   52,582   47,062
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits   3,782   3,997
SFAS 109 regulatory liability - net   45,300   46,406
Accumulated provisions   9,006   9,323
Pension liability   26,890   36,845
Long-term debt   229,910   199,902
Other   3,853   3,755
TOTAL   371,323   347,290
         
Commitments and Contingencies        
         
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY        
Preferred stock without sinking fund   19,780   19,780
Common stock, $4 par value, authorized 10,000,000        
  shares; issued and outstanding 8,435,900 shares in 2005        
  and 2004   33,744   33,744
Paid-in capital   36,294   36,294
Retained earnings   96,452   84,424
TOTAL   186,270   174,242
         
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY   $690,678   $662,774
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
                 
    Three Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
    (Dollars In Millions)        
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $38   $41   ($3)   (7)
  Commercial   40   42   (2)   (5)
  Industrial   9   8     13 
  Governmental   17   18   (1)   (6)
    Total retail   104   109   (5)   (5)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   35   30     17 
  Other   20   20    
     Total   $159   $159   $ -   
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   447   450   (3)   (1)
  Commercial   552   545    
  Industrial   162   138   24    17 
  Governmental   243   245   (2)   (1)
     Total retail   1,404   1,378   26   
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   400   390   10   
    Non-associated companies   6   5     20 
     Total   1,810   1,773   37   
                 
                 
    Six Months Ended   Increase/    
Description   2005   2004   (Decrease)   %
     (Dollars In Millions)        
Electric Operating Revenues:                
  Residential   $67   $71   ($4)   (6)
  Commercial   74   76   (2)   (3)
  Industrial   16   14     14 
  Governmental   29   31   (2)   (6)
     Total retail   186   192   (6)   (3)
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   81   57   24    42 
    Non-associated companies   1   1    
  Other   22   22    
     Total   $290   $272   $18   
                 
Billed Electric Energy                
 Sales (GWh):                
  Residential   847   867   (20)   (2)
  Commercial   1,071   1,070    
  Industrial   306   250   56    22 
  Governmental   468   470   (2)  
     Total retail   2,692   2,657   35   
  Sales for resale                
    Associated companies   1,006   750   256    34 
    Non-associated companies   10   15   (5)   (33)
     Total   3,708   3,422   286    8  
                 
                 
                 

 

 

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.

MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Results of Operations

System Energy's principal asset consists of a 90% ownership and leasehold interest in Grand Gulf. The capacity and energy from its 90% interest is sold under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to its only four customers, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. System Energy's operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% interest in Grand Gulf pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy's only source of operating revenues. Net income remained relatively unchanged for the second quarter, increasing $0.4 million, and increased slightly by $2.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the same respective periods in 2004. The increase for the six months ended is primarily due to higher interest income earned on temporary cash investments.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

 

$216,355 

 

$52,536 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash flow provided by (used in):

 

 

 

 

 

Operating activities

 

18,468 

 

98,371 

 

Investing activities

 

(18,035)

 

(24,944)

 

Financing activities

 

(81,590)

 

(69,943)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

(81,157)

 

3,484 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

 

$135,198 

 

$56,020 

Operating Activities

Cash flow from operations decreased $79.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily due to money pool activity. Money pool activity used $101.8 million of System Energy's operating cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and used $29.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. System Energy's receivables from the money pool were as follows:

June 30,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

 

June 30,
2004

 

December 31,
2003

(In Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$163,416

 

$61,592

 

$48,082

 

$19,064

See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a description of the money pool.

Investing Activities

The decrease of $6.9 million in net cash used in investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was primarily due to a decrease of $14.0 million in construction expenditures resulting from the reclassification of inventory items to capital in 2004. The decrease was partially offset by the maturity of $6.5 million of other temporary investments, which provided cash in 2004.

Financing Activities

The increase of $11.6 million in net cash used in financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was primarily due to an increase of $22.4 million in the January 2005 principal payment made on the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback compared to the January 2004 principal payment. The increase was partially offset by $13.2 million in bond refunding premiums and costs paid in 2004 related to System Energy refunding the bonds in May 2004 associated with its Grand Gulf Lease Obligation.

Uses and Sources of Capital

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of System Energy's uses and sources of capital.

Significant Factors and Known Trends

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of market risks, nuclear matters, litigation risks, and environmental risks.

Federal Legislation

In late July 2005 the U.S. Congress passed broad new energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation contains electricity provisions that, among other things:

  • Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), effective six months after enactment of the Energy Policy Act. As a registered holding company system, Entergy is subject to PUHCA. Some of the more significant effects of PUHCA are that it limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system; regulates transactions among affiliates within a holding company system; governs the issuance, acquisition, and disposition of securities and assets by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries; limits the entry by registered holding companies and their subsidiaries into businesses other than electric or gas utility businesses; and requires SEC approval for certain utility mergers and acquisitions. Certain consumer protection authorities were transferred to the FERC, including new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and to the state or local regulatory commissions.
  • Codifies the concept of participant funding, a form of cost allocation for transmission interconnections and upgrades, and allows FERC to apply participant funding in all regions of the country. Participant funding helps ensure that a utility's native load customers only bear the costs that are necessary to provide reliable transmission service to them and not bear costs required by generators who seek to deliver power to other regions.
  • Provides financing benefits, including loan guarantees and production tax credits, for new nuclear plant construction, and reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act, the law that provides an umbrella of insurance protection for the payment of public liability claims in the event of a major nuclear power plant incident.
  • Revises current tax law treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust funds by allowing regulated and nonregulated taxpayers to make deductible contributions to fund the entire amount of estimated future decommissioning costs.
  • Provides a more rapid tax depreciation schedule for transmission assets to encourage investment.
  • Creates mandatory electricity reliability guidelines with enforceable penalties to help ensure that the nation's power transmission grid is kept in good repair and that disruptions in the electricity system are minimized.  Entergy already voluntarily complies with National Electricity Reliability Council standards, which are similar.
  • Establishes conditions for the elimination of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act's (PURPA) mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities.

The President is expected to sign the Energy Policy Act in August 2005. The Energy Power Act requires several rulemakings by the FERC and other government agencies in order to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be some time before a full assessment of its effect on Entergy and the energy industry can be completed.

Critical Accounting Estimates

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in System Energy's accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs and pension and other retirement benefits.

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
 
  Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
    2005   2004   2005   2004
    (In Thousands)   (In Thousands)
                 
OPERATING REVENUES                
Domestic electric   $126,364    $132,720    $251,154    $259,888 
                 
OPERATING EXPENSES                
Operation and Maintenance:                
  Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and                
   gas purchased for resale   10,139    10,278    19,858    17,524 
  Nuclear refueling outage expenses   3,026    2,891    6,019    6,518 
  Other operation and maintenance   27,346    23,127    50,482    44,638 
Decommissioning   6,240    5,805    12,368    11,505 
Taxes other than income taxes   6,322    6,211    12,371    12,156 
Depreciation and amortization   24,158    25,829    50,702    52,370 
Other regulatory credits - net   (4,126)   (1,006)   (8,511)   (2,175)
TOTAL   73,105    73,135    143,289    142,536 
                 
OPERATING INCOME   53,259    59,585    107,865    117,352 
                 
OTHER INCOME                
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   321    453    627    867 
Interest and dividend income   3,672    1,569    6,517    2,925 
Miscellaneous - net   (108)   (151)   (221)   (372)
TOTAL   3,885    1,871    6,923    3,420 
                 
INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES          
Interest on long-term debt   12,812    15,949    25,668    31,189 
Other interest - net     146      356 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction   (102)   (146)   (199)   (281)
TOTAL   12,716    15,949    25,477    31,264 
                 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   44,428    45,507    89,311    89,508 
                 
Income taxes   18,503    19,975    37,154    39,309 
                 
NET INCOME   $25,925    $25,532    $52,157    $50,199 
                 
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.                
                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page left blank intentionally)

 

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
(Unaudited)
     
    2005   2004
    (In Thousands)
         
OPERATING ACTIVITIES        
Net income   $52,157    $50,199 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:        
  Other regulatory credits - net   (8,511)   (2,175)
  Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning   63,070    63,875 
  Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits   (12,140)   (166,003)
  Changes in working capital:        
    Receivables   (95,645)   (18,986)
    Accounts payable   (4,750)   (6,032)
    Taxes accrued   28,065    194,383 
    Interest accrued   (27,831)   (17,109)
    Other working capital accounts   153    (3,605)
  Provision for estimated losses and reserves   50    (1,886)
  Changes in other regulatory assets   (9,080)   11,319 
  Other   32,930    (5,609)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities   18,468    98,371 
         
INVESTING ACTIVITIES        
Construction expenditures   (7,982)   (22,011)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction   627    867 
Nuclear fuel purchases   -    (45,460)
Proceeds from sale/leaseback of nuclear fuel   -    45,640 
Decommissioning trust contributions and realized        
 change in trust assets   (10,680)   (10,462)
Changes in other temporary investments - net   -    6,482 
Net cash flow used in investing activities   (18,035)   (24,944)
         
FINANCING ACTIVITIES        
Retirement of long-term debt   (28,790)   (6,348)
Other financing activities   -    (13,195)
Dividends paid:        
  Common stock   (52,800)   (50,400)
Net cash flow used in financing activities   (81,590)   (69,943)
         
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents   (81,157)   3,484 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period   216,355    52,536 
         
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period   $135,198    $56,020 
         
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:        
Cash paid during the period for:        
  Interest - net of amount capitalized   $50,605    $46,318 
  Income taxes   $14,522    - 
         
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.        
         

 

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
             
    2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
             
CURRENT ASSETS            
Cash and cash equivalents:            
  Cash       $10   $399
  Temporary cash investments - at cost,            
   which approximates market       135,188   215,956
     Total cash and cash equivalents       135,198   216,355
Accounts receivable:            
  Associated companies       208,818   111,588
  Other       2,148   3,733
     Total accounts receivable       210,966   115,321
Materials and supplies - at average cost       55,591   53,427
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs       3,982   9,510
Prepayments and other       4,378   1,007
TOTAL       410,115   395,620
             
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS        
Decommissioning trust funds       220,696   205,083
             
UTILITY PLANT        
Electric       3,238,587   3,232,314
Property under capital lease       469,993   469,993
Construction work in progress       29,345   28,743
Nuclear fuel under capital lease       51,265   65,572
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT       3,789,190   3,796,622
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization       1,834,908   1,780,450
UTILITY PLANT - NET       1,954,282   2,016,172
             
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS        
Regulatory assets:            
  SFAS 109 regulatory asset - net       95,081   96,047
  Other regulatory assets       307,354   296,305
Other       19,223   19,578
TOTAL       421,658   411,930
             
TOTAL ASSETS       $3,006,751   $3,028,805
             
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.            
 
 
 
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER'S EQUITY
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(Unaudited)
             
    2005   2004
  (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Currently maturing long-term debt       $22,989   $25,266
Accounts payable:            
  Associated companies       3,071   3,880
  Other       17,110   21,051
Taxes accrued       113,840   46,468
Accumulated deferred income taxes       1,330   3,477
Interest accrued       15,167   42,998
Obligations under capital leases       27,716   27,716
Other       1,781   1,621
TOTAL       203,004   172,477
             
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES        
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued       367,694   421,466
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits       73,874   75,612
Obligations under capital leases       23,548   37,855
Other regulatory liabilities       246,722   210,863
Decommissioning       348,261   335,893
Accumulated provisions       2,428   2,378
Long-term debt       823,123   849,593
Other       24,156   28,084
TOTAL       1,909,806   1,961,744
             
Commitments and Contingencies            
             
SHAREHOLDER'S EQUITY        
Common stock, no par value, authorized 1,000,000 shares;            
  issued and outstanding 789,350 shares in 2005 and 2004       789,350   789,350
Retained earnings       104,591   105,234
TOTAL       893,941   894,584
             
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER'S EQUITY       $3,006,751   $3,028,805
             
See Notes to Respective Financial Statements.            
             
             
             
             
             
             
             

 

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, ENTERGY GULF STATES, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, AND SYSTEM ENERGY

NOTES TO RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

NOTE 1. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property and replacement power insurance associated with Entergy Arkansas', Entergy Gulf States', Entergy Louisiana's, and System Energy's nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Decommissioning and Other Retirement Costs (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear decommissioning costs. In the second quarter of 2005, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability in accordance with a new decommissioning cost study for Waterford 3 that reflected an expected life extension for the plant. The revised estimate resulted in a $153.6 million reduction in its decommissioning liability, along with a $49.2 million reduction in utility plant and a $104.4 million reduction in the related regulatory asset.

Income Taxes (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding certain material income tax audit matters involving the domestic utility companies and System Energy. Following is an update to that disclosure.

Mark to Market of Certain Power Contracts

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in 2001, Entergy Louisiana changed its method of accounting for income tax purposes related to its wholesale electric power contracts. The most significant of these is the contract to purchase power from the Vidalia hydroelectric project. On audit of Entergy Louisiana's 2001 tax return, the IRS made an adjustment reducing the amount of the deduction associated with this method change. The adjustment had no material impact on Entergy Louisiana's earnings and required no additional cash payment of 2001 income tax. The Vidalia contract method change has resulted in cumulative cash flow benefits of approximately $790 million through June 30, 2005. This benefit is expected to reverse in the years 2005 through 2031. The tax accounting election has had no effect on book income tax expense. The timing of the reversal of this benefit depends on several variables, including the price of power.

CashPoint Bankruptcy (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans)

See Note 8 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding the bankruptcy of CashPoint, which managed a network of payment agents for the domestic utility companies.

City Franchise Ordinances (Entergy New Orleans)

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to franchise ordinances. These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans' electric and gas utility properties.

Employment Litigation (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy are defendants in numerous lawsuits filed by former employees asserting that they were wrongfully terminated and/or discriminated against on the basis of age, race, sex, or other protected characteristics. The defendant companies deny any liability to the plaintiffs.

Asbestos and Hazardous Material Litigation (Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans)

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi primarily by contractor employees in the 1950-1980 timeframe against Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Mississippi as premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Presently, there are approximately 480 lawsuits involving approximately 10,000 claims. Management believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover more reimbursement, while new coverage is being secured to minimize anticipated future potential exposures. Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled successfully so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position or results of operation of the domestic utility companies involved in these lawsuits.

 

NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Retail Rate Proceedings

See Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the domestic utility companies. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

Filings with the LPSC

Global Settlement (Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana)

In March 2005, the LPSC approved a settlement proposal to resolve various dockets covering a range of issues for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana. The settlement resulted in credits totaling $76 million for retail electricity customers in Entergy Gulf States' Louisiana service territory and credits totaling $14 million for retail electricity customers of Entergy Louisiana. The settlement dismissed Entergy Gulf States' fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth annual earnings reviews, Entergy Gulf States' ninth post-merger earnings review and revenue requirement analysis, the continuation of a fuel review for Entergy Gulf States, dockets established to consider issues concerning power purchases for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana for the summers of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, all prudence issues associated with decisions made through May 2005 related to the nuclear plant uprates at issue in these cases, and an LPSC docket concerning retail issues arising under the System Agreement. The settlement does not include the System Agreement case at FERC. In addition, Entergy Gulf States agreed not to seek recovery from customers of $2 million of excess refund amounts associated with the fourth through the eighth annual earnings reviews and Entergy Louisiana agreed to forgo recovery of $3.5 million of deferred 2003 capacity costs associated with certain power purchase agreements. The credits were issued in connection with April 2005 billings. Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana reserved for the approximate refund amounts.

The settlement includes the establishment of a three-year formula rate plan for Entergy Gulf States that, among other provisions, establishes an ROE mid-point of 10.65% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permits Entergy Gulf States to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed range of 9.9% to 11.4% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Gulf States. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Gulf States. Under the settlement, there was no change to Entergy Gulf States' retail rates at that time.

Retail Rates - Electric

(Entergy Louisiana)

Entergy Louisiana made a rate filing with the LPSC requesting a base rate increase in January 2004. In March 2005, the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a proposed settlement that included an annual base rate increase of approximately $18.3 million which was implemented, subject to refund, effective with May 2005 billings. In May 2005, the LPSC approved a modified settlement which, among other things, reduces depreciation and decommissioning expense due to assuming a life extension of Waterford 3 and results in no change in rates. Subsequently, in June 2005, Entergy Louisiana made a revised compliance filing with the LPSC supporting a revised depreciation rate for Waterford 3, which reflects the removal of interim additions, and a rate increase from the purchase of the Perryville power plant, which results in a net $0.8 million annual rate reduction. Entergy Louisiana reduced rates effective with the first billing cycle in June 2005 and expects to refund excess revenue collected during May 2005, including interest, in the third quarter of 2005.

The May 2005 rate settlement includes the adoption of a three-year formula rate plan, the terms of which include an ROE mid-point of 10.25% for the initial three-year term of the plan and permit Entergy Louisiana to recover incremental capacity costs outside of a traditional base rate proceeding. Under the formula rate plan, over- and under-earnings outside an allowed regulatory range of 9.45% to 11.05% will be allocated 60% to customers and 40% to Entergy Louisiana. The initial formula rate plan filing will be in May 2006 based on a 2005 test year with rates effective September 2006. In addition, there is the potential to extend the formula rate plan beyond the initial three-year effective period by mutual agreement of the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana.

(Entergy Gulf States)

In June 2005, Entergy Gulf States made its formula rate plan filing with the LPSC for the test year ending December 31, 2004. The filing shows a net revenue deficiency of $2.58 million indicating that no refund liability exists. The filing also indicates that a prospective rate increase of $23.8 million is required in order for Entergy Gulf States to earn the authorized ROE mid-point of 10.65%. Subject to the consideration of comments expected to be filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in the third quarter 2005, rate changes associated with the formula rate plan are scheduled to take effect with the first billing cycle in October 2005.  Any disputed issues will be subject to further investigation by the LPSC, with any resolution of such issues being made effective October 2005.

Retail Rates - Gas (Entergy Gulf States)

In July 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the LPSC an application for a change in its rates and charges seeking an increase of $9.1 million in gas base rates in order to allow Entergy Gulf States an opportunity to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return. In June 2005, the LPSC unanimously approved Entergy Gulf States' proposed settlement that includes a $5.8 million gas base rate increase effective the first billing cycle of July 2005 and a rate stabilization plan with an ROE mid-point of 10.5%.

Filings with the PUCT (Entergy Gulf States)

Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT in July 2005 a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider, consistent with the recently passed Texas legislation discussed below under "Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71." The rider requests $23.1 million annually in incremental revenues on a Texas retail basis which represents the incremental purchased capacity costs, including Entergy Gulf States' obligation to purchase power from Entergy Louisiana's recently acquired Perryville plant, over what is already in Entergy Gulf States' base rates. Entergy Gulf States has reached an agreement with parties with respect to the date upon which cost recovery and cost reconciliation would begin.  The parties have agreed that Entergy Gulf States will implement the rider after approval by the PUCT which could be up to 185 days from the date of filing but will reconcile and recover incremental purchased capacity costs incurred beginning September 1, 2005. The September 1, 2005 agreed upon date for the beginning of the cost recovery and cost reconciliation as well as the requested amount and the processes for implementing the rider are subject to PUCT action and approval. If approved by the PUCT, the rider would be subject to semi-annual modifications and reconciliation in conjunction with Entergy Gulf States' fuel reconciliation proceedings. Also see "Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71" below for discussion of the provisions in the Texas legislation regarding Entergy Gulf States' ability to file a general rate case and for recovery of transition to competition costs.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

In April 2005, Entergy New Orleans made its annual scheduled formula rate plan filings with the City Council.  The filings show that a decrease of $0.2 million in electric revenues is warranted and an increase of $3.9 million in gas revenues is warranted. The prescribed period for review by the City Council's Advisors and other parties has now commenced, and rate adjustments, if any, could be implemented as soon as September 2005.

In May 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council a request for continuation of the formula rate plan and generation performance-based rate plan for an additional three years. The filing requests a target equity component of the capital structure of 45%, an increase from the current target of 42%.

Deferred Fuel Costs

See Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding fuel proceedings involving the domestic utility companies. The following are updates to the Form 10-K.

(Entergy Arkansas)

In March 2005, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its energy cost recovery rider for the period April 2005 through March 2006. The filed energy cost rate, which accounts for 15 percent of a typical residential customer's bill using 1,000 kWh per month, increased 31 percent primarily attributable to a true-up adjustment for an under-recovery balance of $11.2 million and a nuclear refueling adjustment resulting from outages scheduled in 2005 at ANO 1 and 2.

(Entergy Gulf States)

In March 2004, Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT a fuel reconciliation case covering the period September 2000 through August 2003. Entergy Gulf States is reconciling $1.43 billion of fuel and purchased power costs on a Texas retail basis. This amount includes $8.6 million of under-recovered costs that Entergy Gulf States is asking to reconcile and roll into its fuel over/under-recovery balance to be addressed in the next appropriate fuel proceeding. This case involves imputed capacity and River Bend payment issues similar to those decided adversely in a January 2001 proceeding that is now on appeal. On January 31, 2005, the ALJ issued a Proposal for Decision that recommended disallowing $10.7 million (excluding interest) related to these two issues. In April 2005, the PUCT issued an order reversing in part the ALJ's Proposal for Decision and allowing Entergy Gulf States to recover a part of its request related to the imputed capacity and River Bend payment issues. The PUCT's order reduced the disallowance in the case to $8.3 million. Both Entergy Gulf States and certain cities served by Entergy Gulf States filed motions for rehearing on these issues which were denied by the PUCT. Entergy Gulf States and certain Cities filed appeals to the Travis County District Court. The appeals are pending. Any disallowance will be netted against Entergy Gulf States' under-recovered costs and will be included in its deferred fuel costs balance.

In January 2001, Entergy Gulf States filed with the PUCT a fuel reconciliation case covering the period from March 1999 through August 2000. Entergy Gulf States was reconciling approximately $583 million of fuel and purchased power costs. As part of this filing, Entergy Gulf States requested authority to collect $28 million, plus interest, of under-recovered fuel and purchased power costs. In August 2002, the PUCT reduced Entergy Gulf States' request to approximately $6.3 million, including interest through July 31, 2002. Approximately $4.7 million of the total reduction to the requested surcharge relates to nuclear fuel costs that the PUCT deferred ruling on at that time. In October 2002, Entergy Gulf States appealed the PUCT's final order in Texas District Court. In its appeal, Entergy Gulf States is challenging the PUCT's disallowance of approximately $4.2 million related to imputed capacity costs and its disallowance related to costs for energy delivered from the 30% non-regulated share of River Bend. The case was argued before the Travis County Texas District Court in August 2003 and the Travis County District Court judge affirmed the PUCT's order. In October 2003, Entergy Gulf States appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the appellate court occurred in September 2004 and in May 2005, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision affirming the PUCT's disallowance. Entergy Gulf States has filed a motion for rehearing with the appellate court in this case.

In January 2003, the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States and its affiliates pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The audit will include a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States through its fuel adjustment clause in Louisiana for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2002. Discovery is underway, but a detailed procedural schedule extending beyond the discovery stage has not yet been established, and the LPSC staff has not yet issued its audit report. In June 2005, the LPSC expanded the audit to include the years through 2004.

(Entergy Louisiana)

In August 2000, the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a November 1997 LPSC general order. The time period that is the subject of the audit is January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001. In September 2003, the LPSC staff issued its audit report and recommended a disallowance with regard to one item. The issue relates to the alleged failure to uprate Waterford 3 in a timely manner, a claim that also has been raised in the summer 2001, 2002, and 2003 purchased power proceedings. The settlement approved by the LPSC in March 2005, discussed above, resolves the uprate imprudence disallowance and is no longer at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the issuance of the audit report, the scope of this docket was expanded to include a review of annual reports on fuel and purchased power transactions with affiliates and a prudence review of transmission planning issues. Also, in July 2005, the LPSC expanded the audit to include the years 2002 through 2004. A procedural schedule has been established and LPSC staff and intervenor testimony is due in November 2005.

(Entergy Mississippi)

In January 2005, the MPSC approved a change in Entergy Mississippi's energy cost recovery rider. Entergy Mississippi's fuel over-recoveries for the third quarter of 2004 of $21.3 million will be deferred from the first quarter 2005 energy cost recovery rider adjustment calculation. The deferred amount of $21.3 million plus carrying charges is being refunded through the energy cost recovery rider in the second and third quarters of 2005 at a rate of 45% and 55%, respectively.

(Entergy New Orleans)

As discussed in Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K, the City Council passed resolutions implementing a package of measures developed by Entergy New Orleans and the Council Advisors to protect customers from potential gas price spikes during the 2004 - 2005 winter heating season including the deferral of collection of up to $6.2 million of gas costs associated with a cap on the purchased gas adjustment in November and December 2004 and in the event that the average residential customer's gas bill were to exceed a threshold level. The deferrals of $1.7 million resulting from these caps will receive accelerated recovery over a seven-month period that began in April 2005.

In November 2004, the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to confer with the City Council Advisors regarding possible modification of the current gas cost collection mechanism in order to address concerns regarding its fluctuations particularly during the winter heating season. In June 2005, Entergy New Orleans filed a new purchased gas adjustment tariff with the City Council. If approved by the City Council, the tariff would be effective in the fourth quarter of 2005.

Fuel Adjustment Clause Litigation

See Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the complaint filed by a group of ratepayers with the City Council alleging that Entergy New Orleans and certain affiliates engaged in fuel procurement and power purchasing practices and included certain costs in its fuel adjustment charges that could have resulted in its customers being overcharged by more than $100 million over a period of years. On May 26, 2005, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans affirmed the City Council resolution that resulted in a refund to customers of $11.3 million, including interest, during the months of June through September 2004, finding no support for the plaintiff's claim that the refund amount should be higher. In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Civil District Court decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Electric Industry Restructuring and the Continued Application of SFAS 71

Previous developments and information related to electric industry restructuring are presented in Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K.

Louisiana (Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana)

In November 2001, the LPSC decided not to move forward with retail open access for any customers at this time. The LPSC instead directed its staff to hold collaborative group meetings concerning open access from time to time, and to have the LPSC staff monitor developments in neighboring states and to report to the LPSC regarding the progress of retail access developments in those states. In September 2004, in response to a study performed by the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies that evaluated a limited industrial-only retail choice program, the LPSC asked the LPSC staff to solicit comments and obtain information from utilities, customers, and other interested parties concerning the potential costs and benefits of a limited choice program, the impact of such a program on other customers, as well as issues such as stranded costs and transmission service.  Comments from interested parties were filed with the LPSC in January 2005. A technical conference was held in April 2005 and in May 2005 interested parties filed reply comments to arguments made at the technical conference. Entergy stated that it believes that there is no new information or credible evidence that would justify altering the LPSC's previous conclusion that retail access is not in the public interest.

Texas (Entergy Gulf States)

See Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the status of retail open access in Entergy Gulf States' Texas service territory and Entergy Gulf States' independent organization request.

In June 2005, a Texas law was enacted which provides that:

  • Entergy Gulf States is authorized by the legislation to proceed with a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utilities, one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the LPSC and one subject solely to the retail jurisdiction of the PUCT;
  • the portions of all prior PUCT orders requiring Entergy Gulf States to comply with any provisions of Texas law governing transition to retail competition are void;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a plan by January 1, 2006, identifying the power region(s) to be considered for certification and the steps and schedule to achieve certification;
  • Entergy Gulf States must file a transition to competition plan no later than January 1, 2007, that would address how Entergy Gulf States intends to mitigate market power and achieve full customer choice, including potential construction of additional transmission facilities, generation auctions, generation capacity divestiture, reinstatement of a customer choice pilot project, establishment of a price to beat, and other measures;
  • Entergy Gulf States' rates are subject to cost-of-service regulation until retail customer choice is implemented;
  • Entergy Gulf States may not file a general base rate case in Texas before June 30, 2007, with rates effective no earlier than June 30, 2008, but may seek before then the recovery of certain incremental purchased power capacity costs, adjusted for load growth, not in excess of five percent of its annual base rate revenues (as discussed above in "Filings with the PUCT," in July 2005 Entergy Gulf States filed a request for implementation of an incremental purchased capacity recovery rider); and
  • Entergy Gulf States may recover over a period not to exceed 15 years reasonable and necessary transition to competition costs incurred before the effective date of the legislation and not previously recovered, with appropriate carrying charges.

NOTE 3. LINES OF CREDIT, RELATED SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS, AND LONG-TERM DEBT

The short-term borrowings of the domestic utility companies and System Energy are limited to amounts authorized by the SEC. The current limits authorized are effective through November 30, 2007. In addition to borrowing from commercial banks, the domestic utility companies and System Energy are authorized to borrow from Entergy's money pool. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the domestic utility companies' dependence on external short-term borrowings. Borrowings from the money pool and external borrowings combined may not exceed the SEC authorized limits. The following are the short-term borrowings from the money pool and the SEC-authorized limits for short-term borrowings for the domestic utility companies and System Energy as of June 30, 2005:

 

 

Authorized

 

Borrowings

 

 

(In Millions)

 

 

 

 

 

Entergy Arkansas

 

$235

 

-

Entergy Gulf States

 

$340

 

$149.4

Entergy Louisiana

 

$225

 

$110.7

Entergy Mississippi

 

$160

 

-

Entergy New Orleans

 

$100

 

-

System Energy

 

$140

 

-

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans each have 364-day credit facilities available as follows:


Company

 


Expiration Date

 

Amount of
Facility

 

Amount Drawn as of
June 30, 2005

             

Entergy Arkansas

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

April 2006

 

$85 million (a)

 

-

Entergy Louisiana

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

Entergy Mississippi

 

May 2006

 

$25 million

 

-

Entergy New Orleans

 

May 2006

 

$15 million (b)

 

-

(a)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $85 million.

(b)

The combined amount borrowed by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans under these facilities at any one time cannot exceed $15 million.

The 364-day credit facilities have variable interest rates and the average commitment fee is 0.13%. The $85 million Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana credit facilities each require the respective company to maintain total shareholders' equity of at least 25% of its total assets. In July 2005, Entergy New Orleans granted the lender a security interest in its customer accounts receivables to secure its borrowings under its facility. Under the terms of the security agreement, Entergy New Orleans has the option to withdraw the security interest at any time.

The following long-term debt has been issued by the domestic utility companies and System Energy in 2005:

 

Issue Date

 

Amount

 

 

 

(In Thousands)

Mortgage Bonds:

 

 

 

5.66% Series due February 2025 - Entergy Arkansas

January 2005

 

$175,000

6.18% Series due March 2035 - Entergy Gulf States

February 2005

$85,000

5.70% Series due June 2015 - Entergy Gulf States

May 2005

$200,000

4.50% Series due June 2010 - Entergy Arkansas

May 2005

 

$100,000

4.67% Series due June 2010 - Entergy Louisiana

May 2005

 

$55,000

4.98% Series due July 2010 - Entergy New Orleans

June 2005

 

$30,000

Issuances after balance sheet date:

5.12% Series due August 2010 - Entergy Gulf States

July 2005

$100,000

Other Long-Term Debt:
5.00% Series due January 2021, Independence County - Arkansas
(Entergy Arkansas)


March 2005

$45,000

The following long-term debt was retired by the domestic utility companies and System Energy thus far in 2005:

 

Retirement Date

 

Amount

 

 

 

(In Thousands)

Mortgage Bonds:

 

 

 

7.00% Series due October 2023 - Entergy Arkansas

February 2005

$175,000

Retirements after balance sheet date:
6.125% Series due July 2005 - Entergy Arkansas

July 2005 

$100,000

8.125% Series due July 2005 - Entergy New Orleans

July 2005 

$30,000

6.77% Series due August 2005 - Entergy Gulf States

August 2005 

$98,000

Other Long-Term Debt:
Grand Gulf Lease Obligation payment, (System Energy)

N/A

$28,790

8.75% Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debentures
due 2046 (Entergy Gulf States)


March 2005


$87,629

6.25% Series due January 2021, Independence County - Arkansas
(Entergy Arkansas)


April 2005


$45,000

9.0% Series due May 2015, West Feliciana Parish - Louisiana
(Entergy Gulf States)


May 2005


$45,000

7.5% Series due May 2015, West Feliciana Parish - Louisiana
(Entergy Gulf States)


May 2005


$41,600

7.7% Series due December 2014, West Feliciana Parish -
Louisiana (Entergy Gulf States)


June 2005


$94,000

Entergy Arkansas used the proceeds from the March 2005 issuance to redeem, prior to maturity, $45 million of 6.25% Series of Independence County bonds in April 2005. The issuance and retirement do not appear on the cash flow statement because the proceeds were placed in a trust and never held as cash by Entergy Arkansas.

In June 2005, Entergy Louisiana purchased its $55 million of 4.9% Series St. Charles Parish bonds from the holders, pursuant to a mandatory tender provision, and has not remarketed the bonds at this time.

Tax Exempt Bond Audit (Entergy Louisiana)

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is auditing certain Tax Exempt Bonds (Bonds) issued by St. Charles Parish, State of Louisiana (the Issuer). The Bonds were issued to finance previously unfinanced acquisition costs expended by Entergy Louisiana to acquire certain radioactive solid waste disposal facilities (the Facilities) at the Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station. In March and April 2005, the IRS issued proposed adverse determinations that the Issuer's 7.0% Series bonds due 2022, 7.5% Series bonds due 2021, and 7.05% Series bonds due 2022 are not tax exempt. The stated basis for these determinations was that radioactive waste did not constitute "solid waste" within the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore the Facilities did not qualify as solid waste disposal facilities. The Issuer has requested administrative appeals of the proposed adverse determinations with respect to the Bonds to the IRS Office of Appeals. The Issuer and Entergy Louisiana intend to continue to contest vigorously these matters. The three series of Bonds are the only series of bonds issued by the Issuer for the benefit of Entergy Louisiana that are the subject of audits by the IRS.

 

NOTE 4. PREFERRED STOCK

(Entergy Mississippi)

In June 2005, Entergy Mississippi issued 1,200,000 shares of $25 par value 6.25% Series Preferred Stock, all of which are outstanding as of June 30, 2005. The dividends are cumulative and will be payable quarterly beginning November 1, 2005. The preferred stock is redeemable on or after July 1, 2010, at Entergy Mississippi's option, at the call price of $25 per share. The proceeds from this issuance were used in the third quarter of 2005 to redeem all $20 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 8.36% Series Preferred Stock and all $10 million of Entergy Mississippi's $100 par value 7.44% Series Preferred Stock.

 

NOTE 5. RETIREMENT AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS

Components of Net Pension Cost

The domestic utility companies' and System Energy's pension cost, including amounts capitalized, for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2005

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$3,329 

 

$2,704 

 

$1,957 

 

$1,005 

 

$436 

 

$944 

Interest cost on projected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 benefit obligation

 

9,115 

 

7,235 

 

5,525 

 

2,998 

 

1,148 

 

1,413 

Expected return on assets

 

(9,009)

 

(9,709)

 

(6,666)

 

(3,566)

 

(731)

 

(1,324)

Amortization of transition asset

 

 

 

 

 

 

(69)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

415 

 

378 

 

163 

 

128 

 

57 

 

17 

Amortization of loss

 

1,613 

 

1,213 

 

730 

 

527 

 

151 

 

229 

Net pension cost

 

$5,463 

 

$1,821 

 

$1,709 

 

$1,092 

 

$1,061 

 

$1,210 

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2004

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$2,923 

 

$2,416 

 

$1,715 

 

$946 

 

$424 

 

$824 

Interest cost on projected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 benefit obligation

 

8,616 

 

7,108 

 

5,178 

 

2,890 

 

1,041 

 

1,231 

Expected return on assets

 

(9,288)

 

(9,931)

 

(6,937)

 

(3,694)

 

(625)

 

(1,053)

Amortization of transition asset

 

 

 

 

 

 

(79)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

417 

 

465 

 

189 

 

141 

 

57 

 

18 

Amortization of loss

 

762 

 

32 

 

82 

 

132 

 

151 

 

193 

Net pension cost

 

$3,430 

 

$90 

 

$227 

 

$415 

 

$1,048 

 

$1,134 

The domestic utility companies' and System Energy's pension cost, including amounts capitalized, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2005

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$6,658 

 

$5,408 

 

$3,914 

 

$2,010 

 

$872 

 

$1,888 

Interest cost on projected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 benefit obligation

 

18,230 

 

14,470 

 

11,050 

 

5,996 

 

2,296 

 

2,826 

Expected return on assets

 

(18,018)

 

(19,418)

 

(13,332)

 

(7,132)

 

(1,462)

 

(2,648)

Amortization of transition asset

 

 

 

 

 

 

(138)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

830 

 

756 

 

326 

 

256 

 

114 

 

34 

Amortization of loss

 

3,226 

 

2,426 

 

1,460 

 

1,054 

 

302 

 

458 

Net pension cost

 

$10,926 

 

$3,642 

 

$3,418 

 

$2,184 

 

$2,122 

 

$2,420 

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2004

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$5,926 

 

$4,870 

 

$3,440 

 

$1,900 

 

$850 

 

$1,670 

Interest cost on projected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 benefit obligation

 

17,232 

 

14,218 

 

10,362 

 

5,782 

 

2,082 

 

2,464 

Expected return on assets

 

(18,534)

 

(19,822)

 

(13,732)

 

(7,384)

 

(1,552)

 

(2,088)

Amortization of transition asset

 

 

 

 

 

 

(160)

Amortization of prior service cost

 

834 

 

930 

 

378 

 

282 

 

114 

 

36 

Amortization of loss

 

1,632 

 

674 

 

376 

 

414 

 

208 

 

304 

Net pension cost

 

$7,090 

 

$870 

 

$824 

 

$994 

 

$1,702 

 

$2,226 

Components of Net Other Postretirement Benefit Cost

The domestic utility companies' and System Energy's other postretirement benefit cost, including amounts capitalized, for the second quarters of 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2005

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$1,157 

 

$1,634 

 

$689 

 

$363 

 

$192 

 

$415 

Interest cost on APBO

 

2,589 

 

2,924 

 

1,673 

 

833 

 

789 

 

394 

Expected return on assets

 

(1,637)

 

(1,366)

 

 

(669)

 

(579)

 

(387)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

205 

 

947 

 

95 

 

88 

 

435 

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

(173) 

 

 

18 

 

(46)

 

10 

 

(139)

Amortization of loss

 

1,276 

 

770 

 

691 

 

471 

 

211 

 

146 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$3,417 

 

$4,909 

 

$3,166 

 

$1,040 

 

$1,058 

 

$433 

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2004

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$827 

 

$1,415 

 

$614 

 

$245 

 

$178 

 

$341 

Interest cost on APBO

 

2,394 

 

2,871 

 

1,644 

 

703 

 

810 

 

371 

Expected return on assets

 

(1,529)

 

(1,256)

 

 

(631)

 

(558)

 

(316)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

(132)

 

1,147 

 

300 

 

(43)

 

529 

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

63 

 

 

56 

 

26 

 

20 

 

(83)

Amortization of loss

 

1,112 

 

514 

 

457 

 

349 

 

99 

 

99 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$2,735 

 

$4,691 

 

$3,071 

 

$649 

 

$1,078 

 

$416 

The domestic utility companies' and System Energy's other postretirement benefit cost, including amounts capitalized, for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, included the following components:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2005

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$2,314 

 

$3,268 

 

$1,378 

 

$726 

 

$384 

 

$830 

Interest cost on APBO

 

5,178 

 

5,848 

 

3,346 

 

1,666 

 

1,578 

 

788 

Expected return on assets

 

(3,274)

 

(2,732)

 

 

(1,338)

 

(1,158)

 

(774)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

410 

 

1,894 

 

190 

 

176 

 

870 

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

(346)

 

 

36 

 

(92)

 

20 

 

(278)

Amortization of loss

 

2,552 

 

1,540 

 

1,382 

 

942 

 

422 

 

292 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$6,834 

 

$9,818 

 

$6,332 

 

$2,080 

 

$2,116 

 

$866 

 

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

2004

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Service cost - benefits earned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 during the period

 

$2,459 

 

$2,944 

 

$1,333 

 

$721 

 

$382 

 

$729 

Interest cost on APBO

 

5,227 

 

5,812 

 

3,344 

 

1,581 

 

1,637 

 

759 

Expected return on assets

 

(3,131)

 

(2,491)

 

 

(1,284)

 

(1,124)

 

(626)

Amortization of transition obligation

 

477 

 

2,295 

 

600 

 

211 

 

1,058 

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

63 

 

 

56 

 

26 

 

20 

 

(175)

Amortization of loss

 

2,185 

 

1,163 

 

1,020 

 

697 

 

256 

 

231 

Net other postretirement benefit cost

 

$7,280 

 

$9,723 

 

$6,353 

 

$1,952 

 

$2,229 

 

$925 

Employer Contributions

The domestic utility companies and System Energy expect to contribute the following to pension plans in 2005:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

 

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Expected 2005 pension contributions
disclosed in Form 10-K

 


$20,560

 


$18,948

 


$2,622

 


$3,416

 


$15,667

 


$9,266

Revised expected 2005 pension contributions

 

$13,802

$21,893

$3,416

$21,281

$12,305

Pension contributions made through July 2005

 

$4,003

$14,818

$1,025

$14,404

$7,694

Remaining estimated pension contributions to be made in 2005

 

$9,799

$7,075

$2,391

$6,877

$4,611

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Act)

Based on actuarial analysis, the estimated impact of future Medicare subsidies reduced the December 31, 2004 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation (APBO), the second quarter 2005 and 2004 other postretirement benefit cost, and the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 other postretirement benefit cost for the domestic utility companies and System Energy as follows:

 

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

Entergy

 

System

 

 

Arkansas

 

Gulf States

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

New Orleans

 

Energy

 

 

(In Thousands)

Reduction in 12/31/2004 APBO

 

($35,928)

 

($31,846)

 

($20,085)

 

($12,227)

 

($9,742)

 

($4,982)

Reduction in second quarter 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 other postretirement benefit cost

 

($1,446)

 

($1,269)

 

($790)

 

($476)

 

($350)

 

($245)

Reduction in second quarter 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 other postretirement benefit cost

 

($777)

 

($821)

 

($605)

 

($250)

 

($261)

 

($161)

Reduction in six months ended
 June 30, 2005 other
 postretirement benefit cost

 



($2,892)

 



($2,538)

 



($1,580)

 



($952)

 



($700)

 



($490)

Reduction in six months ended
 June 30, 2004 other
 postretirement benefit cost

 



($1,275)

 



($1,375)

 



($837)

 



($406)

 



($405)

 



($214)

For further information on the Medicare Act refer to Note 10 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy's financial statements in the Form 10-K.

__________________________________

In the opinion of the management of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy, the accompanying unaudited financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting primarily of normal recurring accruals and reclassification of previously reported amounts to conform to current classifications) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods presented. The business of the domestic utility companies and System Energy is subject to seasonal fluctuations, however, with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter. The results for the interim periods presented should not be used as a basis for estimating results of operations for a full year.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

As of June 30, 2005, evaluations were performed under the supervision and with the participation of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy Resources (individually "Registrant" and collectively the "Registrants") management, including their respective Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and Chief Financial Officers (CFO). The evaluations assessed the effectiveness of the Registrants' disclosure controls and procedures. Based on the evaluations, each CEO and CFO has concluded that, as to the Registrant or Registrants for which they serve as CEO or CFO, the Registrants' disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by each Registrant in reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms.

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

See "PART I, Item 1, Litigation" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of legal proceedings affecting Entergy. Following is an update to that discussion.

Entergy New Orleans Fuel Clause Lawsuit

See "Entergy New Orleans Fuel Clause Lawsuit" in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the complaint filed with the City Council by a group of ratepayers alleging that Entergy New Orleans and certain affiliates engaged in fuel procurement and power purchasing practices and included certain costs in its fuel adjustment charges that could have resulted in its customers being overcharged by more than $100 million over a period of years. On May 26, 2005, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans affirmed the City Council resolution that resulted in a refund to customers of $11.3 million, including interest, during the months of June through September 2004, finding no support for the plaintiff's claim that the refund amount should be higher. In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Civil District Court decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Entergy New Orleans Rate of Return Lawsuit

See "Entergy New Orleans Rate of Return Lawsuit" in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the hearing set before the City Council regarding the effect of the provision of the 1922 Ordinance in setting lawful rates. The hearing concluded in June 2005.

Texas Power Price Lawsuit

See "Texas Power Price Lawsuit" in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the lawsuit filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994 to the present. The plaintiff's appeal of the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit has been briefed and oral arguments are expected to be heard by the Court of Appeals this year.

Entergy Louisiana Formula Ratemaking Plan Lawsuit

See "Entergy Louisiana Formula Ratemaking Plan Lawsuit" in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the complaint filed against Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC in state court in East Baton Rouge Parish on behalf of a group of Entergy Louisiana ratepayers. This case has been abandoned by operation of law.

Fiber Optic Cable Litigation

See "Fiber Optic Cable Litigation" in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K for a discussion of the litigation filed by several property owners in state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana against Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Services, Entergy Technology Holding Company (ETHC), and Entergy Technology Company (ETC) purportedly on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana who have conveyed easements to the defendants. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has denied Entergy's appeal of the trial court's order certifying a class. Entergy is seeking appellate review before the Louisiana Supreme Court.

With respect to the separate lawsuits filed by several property owners against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Services, ETHC, and ETC in state court in various counties in Mississippi alleging that Entergy Mississippi installed fiber optic cable across their properties without obtaining appropriate easements, plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits have agreed to dismiss the lawsuits based on evidence that there was no fiber optic cable running across their property.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities (1)

Period

 

Total Number of
Shares Purchased

 

Average Price Paid
per Share

 

Total Number of
Shares Purchased
as Part of a Publicly
Announced Plan

 

Maximum $ Amount
of Shares that May
Yet be Purchased
Under a Plan (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4/01/2005-4/30/2005

 

1,082,100

 

$71.56

 

1,082,100

 

$668,580,091

5/01/2005-5/31/2005

 

2,039,400

 

$72.14

 

2,039,400

 

$531,610,303

6/01/2005-6/30/2005

 

432,900

 

$75.36

 

432,900

 

$520,169,627

Total

 

3,554,400

 

$72.35

 

3,554,400

 

 

(1)

In accordance with Entergy's stock-based compensation plans, Entergy periodically grants stock options to its employees, which may be exercised to obtain shares of Entergy's common stock. According to the plans, these shares can be newly issued shares, treasury stock, or shares purchased on the open market. See Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in the Form 10-K for additional discussion of the stock-based compensation plans. Entergy's management has been authorized to repurchase on the open market shares up to an amount sufficient to fund the exercise of grants under the plans, and this authorization does not have an expiration date. In August 2004, Entergy announced a program under which Entergy Corporation will repurchase up to $1.5 billion of its common stock. The program extends through the end of 2006. This repurchase program is incremental to the existing authority to repurchase shares to fund the exercise of employee stock options. The amount of repurchases under the program may vary as a result of material changes in business results or capital spending, or as a result of material new investment opportunities.

(2)

Maximum amount of shares that may yet be repurchased relates only to the $1.5 billion plan and does not include an estimate of the amount of shares that may be purchased to fund the exercise of grants under the stock-based compensation plans.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

Election of Board of Directors

Entergy Corporation

The annual meeting of stockholders of Entergy Corporation was held on May 13, 2005. The following matters were voted on and received the specified number of votes for, abstentions, votes withheld (against), and broker non-votes:

  1. Election of Directors:

  2. Name of Nominee

     


    Votes For

     


    Votes Withheld

     

     

     

     

     

    Maureen S. Bateman

     

    189,249,148

     

    2,266,155

    W. Frank Blount

     

    185,747,483

     

    5,767,820

    Simon D. deBree

     

    189,220,546

     

    2,294,757

    Claiborne P. Deming

     

    189,372,818

     

    2,142,485

    Alexis M. Herman

     

    189,015,162

     

    2,500,141

    Donald C. Hintz

     

    187,510,762

     

    4,004,541

    J. Wayne Leonard

     

    187,755,699

     

    3,759,604

    Robert v.d. Luft

     

    187,644,635

     

    3,870,668

    Kathleen A. Murphy

     

    189,219,495

     

    2,295,808

    James R. Nichols

     

    187,612,722

     

    3,902,581

    William A. Percy, II

     

    189,167,248

     

    2,348,055

    Dennis H. Reilley*

     

    189,064,868

     

    2,450,435

    Steven V. Wilkinson

     

    189,221,507

     

    2,293,796

    * Mr. Reilley resigned from the Board effective May 20, 2005.

  3. Ratify the appointment of independent public accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP for the year 2005: 189,485,156 votes for; 558,689 votes against; 1,471,459 abstentions; and 1 broker non-vote.
  4. Stockholder proposal regarding Independent Chairman of the Board: 65,527,431 votes for; 105,745,046 votes against; 2,279,345 abstentions; and 17,963,481 broker non-votes.
  5. Stockholder proposal regarding Majority Election of Directors: 70,538,898 votes for; 100,532,385 votes against; 2,480,539 abstentions; and 17,963,481 broker non-votes.

Entergy Arkansas

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of Entergy Arkansas: Hugh T. McDonald, Chairman, Leo P. Denault, Mark Savoff, and Richard J. Smith.

Entergy Gulf States

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of Entergy Gulf States: Joseph F. Domino, Chairman, E. Renae Conley, Leo P. Denault, Mark Savoff, and Richard J. Smith.

Entergy Louisiana

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of Entergy Louisiana: E. Renae Conley, Chairman, Leo P. Denault, Mark Savoff, and Richard J. Smith.

Entergy Mississippi

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of Entergy Mississippi: Carolyn C. Shanks, Chairman, Leo P. Denault, Mark Savoff, and Richard J. Smith.

Entergy New Orleans

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of Entergy New Orleans: Daniel F. Packer, Chairman, Leo P. Denault, Mark Savoff, and Richard J. Smith.

System Energy

A consent in lieu of a meeting of common stockholders was executed on May 27, 2005. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation, the holder of all issued and outstanding shares of common stock. The common stockholder, by such consent, elected the following individuals to serve as directors constituting the Board of Directors of System Energy: Gary J. Taylor, Chairman, Steven C. McNeal, and Leo P. Denault.

Item 5. Other Information

Property and Other Generation Resources

See "Part I, Item 1" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the affiliate purchased power agreements (PPAs) filed by Entergy with the FERC. On June 30, 2005, the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision finding, among other things, that the PPAs are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory, except for the Entergy Arkansas retained share of Grand Gulf portion (19MW) of the Entergy Arkansas 110MW PPAs with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans. The ALJ therefore removed the 19MW attributable to the Entergy Arkansas retained share from the PPA with Entergy Louisiana. Because the City Council desired to keep the retained share in the PPA with Entergy New Orleans, the ALJ did not remove the 19MW from that PPA. There is no deadline with respect to when a final decision will be issued by the FERC.

On June 28, 2005, a proposed recommendation was issued by an LPSC ALJ regarding the River Bend PPA between Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana and the PPA between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana for capacity from a portion of Entergy Arkansas' coal and nuclear fueled base load resources (EAI WBL).  The ALJ found that once certain transmission issues are resolved, Entergy Louisiana should be encouraged to acquire as much of the 30% share of River Bend as Entergy Gulf States receives authorization to make available. The ALJ further found that the River Bend PPA offers the lowest cost when compared to proposals submitted in response to the Entergy Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 requests for proposal for supply side resources, that it should be dispatchable by the Entergy System, and that it provides Entergy Louisiana with a diverse solid fuel resource that should offer price stability during a time of rising gas prices.  Entergy believes that the transmission issues have been resolved.  With respect to the EAI WBL, the LPSC ALJ found that because there are no transmission issues with respect to this contract and because the pricing of the PPA is to be at the revised MSS-4 price (except for the Grand Gulf related portion of the PPA, which would be priced at $46) the PPA is attractive to ratepayers.  The LPSC ALJ also determined that the FERC is the regulatory body with jurisdiction to determine whether a right of first refusal to the underlying EAI WBL resources exists under the System Agreement and that if the FERC were to determine that such a right of first refusal does exist, the LPSC may want to direct Entergy Louisiana to exercise that right.  In a June 30, 2005 decision, the presiding FERC ALJ determined that such a right of first refusal does not exist.  A final decision from the LPSC is expected in the late third quarter or fourth quarter of 2005.

Federal Regulation

FERC Audits

See "FERC Audits" in Part I, Item 1 in the Form 10-K for a discussion of audits and reviews initiated by the FERC. The FERC is currently reviewing certain wholesale sales and purchases involving EPMC that occurred during the 1998-2001 time period and similar transactions that Entergy-Koch Trading may have undertaken. EPMC was an Entergy subsidiary engaged in non-regulated wholesale marketing and trading activities prior to the formation of Entergy-Koch. Entergy is working with the FERC investigation staff to provide information regarding these transactions.

Other Customer-initiated Proceedings at the FERC

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the complaint filed with the FERC in February 2005 by ExxonMobil Chemical Company and ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) against Entergy Services and the domestic utility companies. On April 18, 2005, the FERC (1) rejected as unfounded ExxonMobil's allegation concerning the netting of its station power needs; and (2) set for hearing the question of whether the facility upgrades and related charges are subject to FERC jurisdiction and, if so, when they became subject to FERC jurisdiction, whether the monthly facility charge violated FERC pricing policy, and whether any refunds are appropriate. The FERC then held the hearing in abeyance in order to provide the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before hearing procedures commence. Settlement discussions are underway.

On January 24, 2005 Cottonwood Energy Company, L.P., an independent generator, filed with the FERC a rate schedule for reactive power that proposes to impose on Entergy Gulf States a rate for reactive supply service allegedly supplied by Cottonwood's electric generating facility. Cottonwood has proposed a fixed monthly charge ($3.4 million annually), which according to Cottonwood represents its revenue requirement for reactive power service. Entergy believes that independent generators should only be compensated for reactive power to the extent that they have an affirmative and continual obligation to provide reactive power support beyond their power factor range when directed to do so by the transmission provider, and is opposing Cottonwood's rate schedule. On March 23, 2005, the FERC accepted Cottonwood's proposed reactive power rate schedule for filing effective on February 1, 2005, subject to refund, and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. A hearing in this proceeding is currently scheduled to commence in January 2006, with an ALJ initial decision scheduled to be issued by April 2006. A similar filing was made by Union Power Partners in May 2005 requesting $4.15 million annually. On July 15, 2005, the FERC accepted Union Power Partners' proposed reactive power rate schedule for filing, effective May 18, subject to refund and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. In the event that Cottonwood and UPP are successful, Entergy anticipates that other merchant plants located on Entergy's transmission system may request similar compensation.

Environmental Regulation

See "PART I, Item 1, Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments, Hazardous Air Pollutants" in the Form 10-K for information related to the hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs. In March 2005, the EPA issued a rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38 tons beginning in 2010. The rule has been challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Unless the rule is stayed, however, the compliance deadlines remain in effect. The rule is also being challenged by various members of the U.S. Senate through a process called the Congressional Review Act. Entergy will continue to monitor these developments.

Entergy owns units that will be subject to the mercury emissions regulations and is studying compliance options in order to determine the best control alternative. Entergy estimates that any necessary capital expenditures for its coal facilities will occur through 2009 and will be approximately $26 million, including $15.4 million at Entergy Arkansas, $4.9 million at Entergy Gulf States, and $5.3 million at Entergy Mississippi. Ongoing operating costs will increase beginning in 2010.

See "PART I, Item 1, Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments, Interstate Air Transport" in the Form 10-K for information related to SO2 and NOX emissions reduction programs. In March 2005, the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which will reduce SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in 29 eastern states. The rule will require a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs. Entergy's capital investment and annual operation and maintenance allowance purchase costs will depend on the economic assessment of NOX and SO2 allowance markets, the cost of control technologies, and unit usage. Entergy estimates that the capital expenditures for its Fossil generation fleet will occur through 2009 and will be approximately $90 million, including $2.9 million at Entergy Arkansas, $17 million at Entergy Gulf States, $36.1 million at Entergy Louisiana, $6.2 million at Entergy Mississippi, and $27.4 million at Entergy New Orleans.

The capital financial impact could be offset by emission markets which allow for purchases or use of allocated credits; however, the allocation of the emission allowances and the set up of the market will determine the ultimate cost to Entergy. Entergy believes that the allocation is unfairly skewed towards states with relatively higher emissions by the use of a fuel-adjustment factor in the final rule that was not included in the draft rule. Entergy will continue to study the final rule's impact to its generation fleet and will work to ensure that all states are treated fairly in the allocation of emission credits. Entergy has filed a Petition for Reconsideration with the EPA and a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning the final rule's use of fuel-adjustment factors.

Election of Directors

On July 29, 2005, the Board elected two new members, Gary W. Edwards and Stuart L. Levenick.  There is no arrangement or understanding between either of the newly-elected directors and any person pursuant to which each was selected as a director.

Earnings Ratios (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)

The domestic utility companies and System Energy have calculated ratios of earnings to fixed charges and ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred dividends pursuant to Item 503 of Regulation S-K of the SEC as follows:

 

Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

 

Twelve Months Ended

 

December 31,

 

June 30,

 

2000

 

2001

 

2002

 

2003

 

2004

 

2005

                       

Entergy Arkansas

3.01

 

3.29

 

2.79

 

3.17

 

3.37

 

3.64

Entergy Gulf States

2.60

 

2.36

 

2.49

 

1.51

 

3.04

 

2.82

Entergy Louisiana

3.33

 

2.76

 

3.14

 

3.93

 

3.60

 

3.80

Entergy Mississippi

2.33

 

2.14

 

2.48

 

3.06

 

3.41

 

3.34

Entergy New Orleans

2.66

 

(a)

 

(b)

 

1.73

 

3.60

 

3.28

System Energy

2.41

 

2.12

 

3.25

 

3.66

 

3.95

 

4.25

 

Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges
and Preferred Dividends

 

Twelve Months Ended

 

December 31,

 

June 30,

 

2000

 

2001

 

2002

 

2003

 

2004

 

2005

                       

Entergy Arkansas

2.70

 

2.99

 

2.53

 

2.79

 

2.98

 

3.22

Entergy Gulf States

2.39

 

2.21

 

2.40

 

1.45

 

2.90

 

2.69

Entergy Louisiana

2.93

 

2.51

 

2.86

 

3.46

 

3.16

 

3.34

Entergy Mississippi

2.09

 

1.96

 

2.27

 

2.77

 

3.07

 

3.00

Entergy New Orleans

2.43

 

(a)

 

(b)

 

1.59

 

3.31

 

2.99

(a)

Earnings for the twelve months ended December 31, 2001, for Entergy New Orleans were not adequate to cover fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred dividends by $6.6 million and $9.5 million, respectively.

(b)

Earnings for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, for Entergy New Orleans were not adequate to cover fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred dividends by $0.7 million and $3.4 million, respectively.

Item 6. Exhibits *

**

4(a)

Sixtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2005, to Entergy Louisiana's Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1944 (A-3(d) to Rule 24 Certificate dated May 18, 2005 in 70-10086).

     

**

4(b)

Seventieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2005, to Entergy Gulf States' Indenture of Mortgage, dated as of September 1, 1926 (A-3(iv) to Rule 24 Certificate dated June 2, 2005 in 70-10158).

     
 

4(c)

Sixty-fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2005, to Entergy Arkansas' Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1944.

     
 

4(d)

Credit Agreement, dated as of May 25, 2005, among Entergy Corporation, the Banks (Citibank, N.A., ABN AMRO Bank N.V., BNP Paribas, J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Barclays Bank PLC, Calyon New York Branch, KeyBank National Association, Morgan Stanley Bank, The Bank of New York, Wachovia Bank, N.A., Credit Suisse First Boston (Cayman Islands Branch), Lehman Brothers Bank (FSB), Regions Bank, Societe Generale, Union Bank of California, N.A., Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG (New York Branch), Mellon Bank, N.A., KBC Bank N.V., Mizuho Corporate Bank Limited, West LB AG, New York Branch, and UFJ Bank Limited, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent and LC Issuing Bank, and ABN AMRO Bank, N.V., as LC Issuing Bank.

     
 

4(e)

Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2005, to Entergy New Orleans' Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of May 1, 1987.

     
 

4(f)

Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2005, among Entergy Corporation, as Borrower, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, New York Branch, as Bank, and Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG, New York Branch, as Administrative Agent.

     
 

4(g)

Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2005, among Entergy Corporation, as Borrower, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, New York Branch, as Bank, and Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG, New York Branch, as Administrative Agent.

     

**

4(h)

Seventy-first Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 1, 2005, to Entergy Gulf States' Indenture of Mortgage, dated as of September 1, 1926 (A-3(v) to Rule 24 Certificate dated July 21, 2005 in 70-10158).

     
 

31(a) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Corporation.

     
 

31(b) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Corporation.

     
 

31(c) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Arkansas.

     
 

31(d) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Gulf States.

     
 

31(e) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana.

     
 

31(f) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Mississippi.

     
 

31(g) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy New Orleans.

     
 

31(h) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for System Energy.

     
 

31(i) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans.

     
 

31(j) -

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification for System Energy.

     
 

32(a) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Corporation.

     
 

32(b) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Corporation.

     
 

32(c) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Arkansas.

     
 

32(d) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Gulf States.

     
 

32(e) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Gulf States and Entergy Louisiana.

     
 

32(f) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Mississippi.

     
 

32(g) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy New Orleans.

     
 

32(h) -

Section 1350 Certification for System Energy.

     
 

32(i) -

Section 1350 Certification for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans.

     
 

32(j) -

Section 1350 Certification for System Energy.

     
 

99(a) -

Entergy Arkansas' Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends, as defined.

     
 

99(b) -

Entergy Gulf States' Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends, as defined.

     
 

99(c) -

Entergy Louisiana's Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends, as defined.

     
 

99(d) -

Entergy Mississippi's Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends, as defined.

     
 

99(e) -

Entergy New Orleans' Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends, as defined.

     
 

99(f) -

System Energy's Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges, as defined.

___________________________

Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Entergy Corporation agrees to furnish to the Commission upon request any instrument with respect to long-term debt that is not registered or listed herein as an Exhibit because the total amount of securities authorized under such agreement does not exceed ten percent of the total assets of Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

*

Reference is made to a duplicate list of exhibits being filed as a part of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, which list, prepared in accordance with Item 102 of Regulation S-T of the SEC, immediately precedes the exhibits being filed with this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005.

**

Incorporated herein by reference as indicated.

SIGNATURE

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. The signature for each undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company or its subsidiaries.

ENTERGY CORPORATION
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.

 

/s/ Nathan E. Langston
Nathan E. Langston
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
(For each Registrant and for each as
Principal Accounting Officer)

 

Date: August 4, 2005