ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC - Quarter Report: 2007 September (Form 10-Q)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. There are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements, including those factors discussed or incorporated by reference in (a) Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Form 10-K, (b) Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis in the Form 10-K and in this report, and (c) the following factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this combined report and in subsequent securities filings):

• resolution of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including various performance-based rate discussions and implementation of Texas restructuring legislation, and other regulatory proceedings, including those related to Entergy's System Agreement, Entergy's utility supply plan, recovery of storm costs, and recovery of fuel and purchased power costs
• Entergy's and its subsidiaries' ability to manage their operation and maintenance costs
• 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 operations of the independent coordinator of transmission that includes Entergy's utility service territory, and the application of market power criteria by the FERC
• the economic climate, and particularly growth in Entergy's service territory
• variations in weather and the occurrence of hurricanes and other storms and disasters, including uncertainties associated with efforts to remediate the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and recovery of costs associated with restoration including Entergy's ability to obtain financial assistance from governmental authorities in connection with these storms
• the performance of Entergy's generating plants, and particularly the capacity factors at its nuclear generating facilities
• 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, changes in general corporate ratings, and changes in the rating agencies' ratings criteria
• changes in inflation and interest rates
• Entergy's ability to develop and execute on a point of view regarding future prices of electricity, natural gas, and other energy-related commodities
• Entergy's ability to purchase and sell assets at attractive prices and on other attractive terms
• 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, and the prices and availability of fuel and power Entergy must purchase for its utility customers, and Entergy's ability to meet credit support requirements for fuel and power supply contracts
• volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, uranium, and other energy-related commodities
• changes in regulation of nuclear generating facilities and nuclear materials and fuel, including possible shutdown of nuclear generating facilities, particularly those in the Non-Utility Nuclear business
• 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 federal energy legislation, including the effects of PUHCA repeal and the adoption of the FERC reliability requirements
• changes in environmental, tax, and other laws, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, mercury, and other substances
• 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 and corporate governance
• Entergy's ability to attract and retain talented management and directors
• And the following transactional factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this and in subsequent securities filings): (i) risks inherent in the contemplated Non-Utility Nuclear spin-off, joint venture and related transactions (including the level of debt incurred by SpinCo and the terms and costs related thereto); (ii) legislative and regulatory actions; and (iii) conditions of the capital markets during the periods covered by the forward-looking statements.  Entergy Corporation cannot provide any assurances that the spin-off or any of the proposed transactions related thereto will be completed, nor can it give assurances as to the terms on which such transactions will be consummated. The transaction is subject to certain conditions precedent, including regulatory approvals and the final approval by the Board.

1

DEFINITIONS (Continued)

2

DEFINITIONS (Concluded)

3

Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Non-Utility Nuclear.

• Utility generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electric power in a four-state service territory that includes portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans; and operates a small natural gas distribution business.
• Non-Utility Nuclear owns and operates six nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and sells the electric power produced by those plants primarily to wholesale customers. This business also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners.

In addition to its two primary, reportable, operating segments, Entergy also operates the non-nuclear wholesale assets business. The non-nuclear wholesale assets business sells to wholesale customers the electric power produced by power plants that it owns while it focuses on improving performance and exploring sales or restructuring opportunities for its power plants.

In November 2007, the Board approved a plan to pursue a separation of the Non-Utility Nuclear business from Entergy through a tax-free spin-off of Non-Utility Nuclear to Entergy shareholders. SpinCo, the term used to identify the new company that is yet to be named, will be a new, independent company with publicly-traded common equity. In addition, under the plan, SpinCo and Entergy are expected to enter into a nuclear services joint venture, with 50% ownership by SpinCo and 50% ownership by Entergy. The joint venture board of directors will be comprised of equal membership from both Entergy and SpinCo.

At the time that the transaction is consummated under the current plan, Entergy Corporation's shareholders will own 100 percent of the common equity in both SpinCo and Entergy. Entergy expects that SpinCo's business will be comprised of Non-Utility Nuclear's assets, including its six nuclear power plants, and Non-Utility Nuclear's power marketing operation. Entergy Corporation's remaining business will primarily be comprised of the Utility business. Entergy expects to treat the results of Non-Utility Nuclear as discontinued operations after the spin-off is consummated. The nuclear services joint venture is expected to operate the nuclear assets owned by SpinCo. The joint venture is also expected to offer nuclear services to third parties, including decommissioning, plant relicensing, and plant operation administrative support services, including the services currently provided for the Cooper Nuclear Station in Nebraska.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. will supplement its application filed in July 2007 with the NRC, which seeks indirect transfer of control of the operating licenses for the six Non-Utility Nuclear power plants, to incorporate the planned business separation. Entergy Nuclear Operations, the current NRC-licensed operator of the Non-Utility Nuclear plants, will remain the operator of those plants after the separation.  Entergy Operations, Inc., the current NRC-licensed operator of Entergy's five Utility nuclear plants, will remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy and will continue to be the operator of the Utility nuclear plants.

Subject to market terms and conditions, pursuant to the plan it is expected that approximately $4.5 billion of debt financing would be incurred by SpinCo in connection with the separation. Potential uses of the proceeds could include repayment of Entergy Corporation indebtedness, share repurchases, additional investments, or other corporate purposes.

Entergy is targeting third quarter 2008 as the effective date for the spin-off and joint venture transactions to be completed. Entergy expects the transactions to qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes for both Entergy and its shareholders. The transactions are subject to various approvals.  Final terms of the transactions and spin-off completion will be subject to the subsequent approval of the Board. As

4

Entergy pursues completion of the separation and establishment of the joint venture, Entergy will continue to consider possible modifications to and variations upon the transaction structure, including a sponsored spin-off, a partial initial public offering preceding the spin-off, or the addition of a third-party joint venture partner.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which in August and September 2005 caused catastrophic damage to portions of the Utility's service territory in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area. See Note 2 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of updates in Entergy Gulf States', Entergy Louisiana's, and Entergy Mississippi's storm cost recovery proceedings.

Entergy has received a total of $134.5 million as of September 30, 2007 on its Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita insurance claims, including $69.5 million that Entergy received in the second quarter 2007 in settlement of its Hurricane Katrina claim with one of its excess insurers. Of the $134.5 million received, $70.7 million was allocated to Entergy New Orleans, $33.2 million to Entergy Gulf States, and $24.8 million to Entergy Louisiana. In the third quarter 2007, Entergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against its other excess insurer on the Hurricane Katrina claim. At issue in the lawsuit is whether any policy exclusions limit the extent of coverage provided by that insurer. Refer to Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a further description of Entergy's Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita insurance claims and the non-nuclear property insurance coverage in place at the time the claims occurred.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the Katrina Relief Bill, a hurricane aid package that includes $11.5 billion in Community Development Block Grants (for the states affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) that allows state and local leaders to fund individual recovery priorities.

In March 2007, the City Council certified that Entergy New Orleans has incurred $205 million in storm-related costs through December 2006 that are eligible for CDBG funding under the state action plan, and certified Entergy New Orleans' estimated costs of $465 million for its gas system rebuild. In April 2007, Entergy New Orleans executed an agreement with the Louisiana Office of Community Development under which $200 million of CDBG funds are being made available to Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans submitted the agreement to the bankruptcy court, which approved it on April 25, 2007. Entergy New Orleans has received $180.8 million of the funds as of September 30, 2007, and the remainder will be paid to Entergy New Orleans as it incurs and submits additional eligible costs.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the Entergy New Orleans bankruptcy proceeding. On May 7, 2007, the bankruptcy judge entered an order confirming Entergy New Orleans' plan of reorganization. With the receipt of CDBG funds, and the agreement on insurance recovery with one of its excess insurers, Entergy New Orleans waived the conditions precedent in its plan of reorganization, and the plan became effective on May 8, 2007. See Note 9 to the financial statements for a description of the significant terms in Entergy New Orleans' plan of reorganization.

With confirmation of the plan of reorganization, Entergy reconsolidated Entergy New Orleans in the second quarter 2007, retroactive to January 1, 2007. Because Entergy owns all of the common stock of Entergy New Orleans, reconsolidation does not affect the amount of net income that Entergy recorded from Entergy New Orleans' operations for the current or prior period, but does result in Entergy New Orleans' financial results being included in each individual income statement line item in 2007, rather than only its net income being presented as "Equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated equity affiliates," as will remain the case for 2005 and 2006.

5

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Non-Utility Nuclear, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing the third quarter 2007 to the third quarter 2006 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period:

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

6

As discussed above, Entergy New Orleans has been reconsolidated retroactive to January 1, 2007 and its results are included in each individual income statement line item for 2007. The variance explanations for the Utility for the third quarter 2007 compared to the third quarter 2006 in "Results of Operations" below reflect the 2006 results of operations of Entergy New Orleans as if it were reconsolidated in 2006, consistent with the 2007 presentation including the results in each individual income statement line item. Entergy's as-reported results for the three months ended September 30, 2006, which had Entergy New Orleans deconsolidated, and the amounts needed to reconsolidate Entergy New Orleans, which include inter-company items, are set forth in the table below.

Utility

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the third quarter 2007 to the third quarter 2006.

The fuel recovery variance is due to increased recovery in the third quarter 2007 of fuel costs from retail and special rate customers in addition to purchased power costs deferred at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans as a result of the re-pricing, retroactive to 2003, of purchased power agreements among Entergy system companies as directed by the FERC.

The base revenues variance resulted from rate increases primarily at Entergy Louisiana effective September 2006 for the 2005 formula rate plan filing to recover LPSC-approved incremental deferred and ongoing purchased power capacity costs. The formula rate plan filing is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K.

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily a result of lower wholesale revenues in the third quarter 2006 due to an October 2006 FERC order requiring Entergy Arkansas to make a refund to a coal plant co-owner resulting from a contract dispute.

The pass-through rider revenue variance is primarily due to a change effective in the third quarter 2006 in the accounting for city franchise tax revenues in Arkansas as directed by the APSC. The change resulted in an increase in rider revenue in 2006 with a corresponding increase in taxes other than income taxes, resulting in no effect on net income.

The purchased power capacity variance is due to higher capacity charges. A portion of the variance is due to the amortization of deferred capacity costs and is offset in base revenues due to base rate increases implemented to recover incremental deferred and ongoing purchased power capacity charges at Entergy Louisiana, as discussed above.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $364 million for the third quarter 2006 to $506 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to higher pricing in its contracts to sell power and additional production available resulting from the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007. Amortization of the Palisades purchased power agreement liability, which is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements, also contributed to the increase. The increase was partially offset by the effect on revenues of a scheduled refueling outage and an unplanned outage during the third quarter 2007. Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the third quarters of 2007 and 2006:

Utility

Taxes other than income taxes decreased for the Utility from $127 million for the third quarter 2006 to $107 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to an increase in city franchise taxes in Arkansas in 2006 as a result of a change effective in August 2006 in the accounting for city franchise tax revenues as directed by the APSC. The change resulted in an increase in taxes other than income taxes in 2006 with a corresponding increase in rider revenue, resulting in no effect on net income.

8

Other income increased for Utility from $19 million for the third quarter 2006 to $46 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to carrying charges on storm restoration costs.

Interest and other charges increased for Utility from $100 million for the third quarter 2006 to $121 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to the following:

• interest on first mortgage bonds primarily at Entergy New Orleans. On September 23, 2006, when the one-year interest moratorium agreed to by the bondholders expired, Entergy New Orleans resumed interest accruals on its outstanding first mortgage bonds;
• interest on securitization bonds issued during the second quarter 2007 at Entergy Gulf States;
• interest on Entergy New Orleans' third-party accounts payable pursuant to its plan of reorganization, as discussed above under "Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita - Entergy New Orleans Bankruptcy" and
• interest recorded on advances from independent power producers.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $163 million for the third quarter 2006 to $198 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007.

Other income decreased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $46 million for the third quarter 2006 to $19 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to miscellaneous income of $27 million ($16.6 million net-of-tax) recorded in the third quarter 2006 resulting from a reduction in the decommissioning liability for a plant as a result of revised decommissioning costs and changes in assumptions regarding the timing of when decommissioning of the plant will begin.

Parent & Other

Interest charges increased for Parent & Other from $32 million for the third quarter 2006 to $58 million for the third quarter 2007 primarily due to additional borrowings on Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facilities.

• an adjustment to state income taxes for Non-Utility Nuclear to reflect the effect of a change in the methodology of computing New York state income taxes as required by that state's taxing authority;
• book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction; and
• the amortization of investment tax credits.

These factors were partially offset by book and tax differences for utility plant items and state income taxes at the Utility operating companies.

9

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Non-Utility Nuclear, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to the nine months ended September 30, 2006 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period:

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

10

The variance explanations for the Utility for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2006 in "Results of Operations" below reflect the 2006 results of operations of Entergy New Orleans as if it were reconsolidated in 2006, consistent with the 2007 presentation including the results in each individual income statement line item. Entergy's as-reported results for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, which had Entergy New Orleans deconsolidated, and the amounts needed to reconsolidate Entergy New Orleans, which include inter-company items, are set forth in the table below.

Utility

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to the nine months ended September 30, 2006.

The base revenues variance resulted from rate increases primarily at Entergy Louisiana effective September 2006 for the 2005 formula rate plan filing to recover LPSC-approved incremental deferred and ongoing purchased power capacity costs. The formula rate plan filing is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K.

The volume/weather variance resulted primarily from increased electricity usage, including increased usage during the unbilled sales period. Billed usage increased by a total of 1,110 GWh, an increase of 1.5%. See Note 1 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the accounting for unbilled revenues.

The fuel recovery variance is due to the inclusion of Grand Gulf costs in Entergy New Orleans' fuel recoveries effective July 1, 2006. In June 2006, the City Council approved the recovery of Grand Gulf costs through the fuel adjustment clause, without a corresponding change in base rates (a significant portion of Grand Gulf costs was previously recovered through base rates). The increase is also due to purchased power costs deferred at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans as a result of the re-pricing, retroactive to 2003, of purchased power agreements among Entergy system companies as directed by the FERC.

The transmission revenue variance is due to higher rates and the addition of new transmission customers in late-2006.

The purchased power capacity variance is due to higher capacity charges and new purchased power contracts that began in mid-2006. A portion of the variance is due to the amortization of deferred capacity costs and is offset in base revenues due to base rate increases implemented to recover incremental deferred and ongoing purchased power capacity charges at Entergy Louisiana, as discussed above.

The net wholesale revenue variance is due primarily to 1) more energy available for resale at Entergy New Orleans in 2006 due to the decrease in retail usage caused by customer losses following Hurricane Katrina and 2) the inclusion in 2006 revenue of sales into the wholesale market of Entergy New Orleans' share of the output of Grand Gulf, pursuant to City Council approval of measures proposed by Entergy New Orleans to address the reduction in Entergy New Orleans' retail customer usage caused by Hurricane Katrina and to provide revenue support for the costs of Entergy New Orleans' share of Grand Gulf. The net wholesale revenue variance is partially offset by the effect of lower wholesale revenues in the third quarter 2006 due to an October 2006 FERC order requiring Entergy Arkansas to make a refund to a coal plant co-owner resulting from a contract dispute.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $1,041 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $1,346 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to higher pricing in its contracts to sell power and additional production available resulting from the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007. Amortization of the Palisades purchased power agreement liability, which is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements, also contributed to the increase. The increase was partially offset by the effect on revenues of more refueling outages in 2007 as compared to the same period in 2006. Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006:

Parent & Other

Net revenue decreased for Parent & Other from $99 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $34 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to the $14.1 million gain ($8.6 million net-of-tax) realized on the sale of the non-nuclear wholesale asset business' remaining interest in a power development project in the second quarter 2006. Also contributing to the decrease were higher natural gas prices in 2007 compared to the same period in 2006 as well as lower production as a result of an additional plant outage in 2007 compared to the same period in 2006. A substantial portion of the effect on net income of this decline is offset by a related decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses.

Utility

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $1,238 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $1,328 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to:

• an increase of $31 million in distribution expenses, including higher contract labor costs, increases in vegetation maintenance costs, and the return to normal operations work in 2007 versus storm restoration activities in 2006 as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita;
• an increase of $21 million in transmission expenses, including transmission line and substation maintenance and independent coordinator of transmission expenses;
• an increase of $21 million in nuclear expenses primarily due to non-refueling outages, increased nuclear labor and contract costs, and higher NRC fees;
• an increase of $11 million as a result of higher insurance premiums due to amending coverage in mid-2006 in addition to the timing of premium payments compared to 2006;
• an increase of $11 million due to a provision for storm-related bad debts;
• an increase of $9 million in customer service costs primarily as a result of the write-off of uncollectible customer accounts; and
• an increase of $6 million in fossil plant expenses due to the return to normal operations work in 2007 versus storm restoration activities in 2006 as a result of Hurricane Katrina and differing outage schedules and scopes from 2006 to 2007.

The increase is partially offset by a decrease of $33 million in payroll, payroll-related, and benefits costs.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased from $618 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $630 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to an increase in plant in service and a revision made in the first quarter 2006 to estimated depreciable lives involving certain intangible assets. The increase was partially offset by a revision in the third quarter 2007 related to depreciation previously recorded on storm-related assets. Recovery of the cost of those assets will now be through the securitization of storm costs approved by the LPSC in the third quarter 2007. The securitization approval is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

Other income increased from $84 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $129 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to carrying charges on storm restoration costs.

Interest and other charges increased from $289 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $324 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to the following:

• interest on first mortgage bonds primarily at Entergy New Orleans. On September 23, 2006, when the one-year interest moratorium agreed to by the bondholders expired, Entergy New Orleans resumed interest accruals on its outstanding first mortgage bonds;
• interest on securitization bonds issued during the second quarter 2007 at Entergy Gulf States;

13

• interest on Entergy New Orleans' third-party accounts payable pursuant to its plan of reorganization, as discussed above under "Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita - Entergy New Orleans Bankruptcy" and
• interest recorded on advances from independent power producers.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $469 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $520 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007.

Parent & Other

Interest charges increased from $95 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $148 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to additional borrowings under Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facilities.

• the resolution of tax audit issues in the 2002-2003 audit cycle;
• an adjustment to state income taxes for Non-Utility Nuclear to reflect the effect of a change in the methodology of computing New York state income taxes as required by that state's taxing authority;
• book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction; and
• the amortization of investment tax credits.

• the flow-through of a pension item;
• the recognition of an income tax benefit related to ANO 1 steam generator removal cost; and
• the favorable resolution of a tax audit issue.

These factors were partially offset by state income taxes.

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.

14

Entergy's capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital percentage from 2006 to 2007 is primarily the result of additional borrowings under Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facilities, along with a decrease in shareholders' equity primarily due to repurchases of common stock.

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.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Corporation had in place two separate revolving credit facilities, a five-year credit facility and a three-year credit facility. The five-year credit facility was due to expire in May 2010 and the three-year facility was due to expire in December 2008.

In August 2007, Entergy Corporation entered into a new, $3.5 billion, five-year credit facility, and terminated the two previously existing facilities. Entergy Corporation has the ability to issue letters of credit against the total borrowing capacity of the facility. The weighted average interest rate as of September 30, 2007 was 5.88% on the drawn portion of the facility. The facility fee is currently 0.09% of the commitment amount. The facility fee and interest rate can fluctuate depending on the senior unsecured debt ratings of Entergy Corporation.

As of September 30, 2007, amounts outstanding under the $3.5 billion credit facility are:

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

See the table in the Form 10-K under "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital," which sets forth the amounts of planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for 2007 through 2009.

Entergy is developing its capital plan for 2008 through 2010 and currently anticipates making $5.9 billion in capital investments during that period, including approximately $2.7 billion for maintenance of Entergy's existing assets ($2.5 billion for Utility and $0.2 billion for Non-Utility Nuclear). The remaining $3.2 billion ($2.5 billion for Utility and $0.7 billion for Non-Utility Nuclear) is associated with specific investments such as the pending Ouachita and Calcasieu acquisitions, the Little Gypsy repowering, replacement of the Waterford 3 steam generators, environmental compliance spending, transmission upgrades, business function relocation, dry cask storage and nuclear license renewal projects, NYPA value sharing costs and other investments, such as potential opportunities through the Utility's supply plan initiatives that support its ability

15

to meet load growth. The planned capital investment estimate does not include the costs associated with the potential interconnection between Entergy Gulf States and ERCOT that is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements. These potential costs are currently estimated to be approximately $1 billion.

In April 2007, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business purchased the 798 MW Palisades nuclear energy plant located near South Haven, Michigan from Consumers Energy Company for a net cash payment of $336 million. Entergy received the plant, nuclear fuel, inventories, and other assets. The liability to decommission the plant, as well as related decommissioning trust funds, was also transferred to Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business. Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business executed a unit-contingent, 15-year purchased power agreement (PPA) with Consumers Energy for 100% of the plant's output, excluding any future uprates. Prices under the PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh. In the first quarter 2007, the NRC renewed Palisades' operating license until 2031. Also as part of the transaction, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business assumed responsibility for spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock Point nuclear plant, which is located near Charlevoix, Michigan.  Palisades' financial results since April 2007 are included in Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business segment. See Note 5 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the purchase price allocation and the amortization to revenue of the below-market PPA.

In April 2007, Entergy Louisiana announced that it plans to pursue the self-build solid fuel repowering of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant.  Petroleum coke and coal will be the unit's primary fuel sources.  In July 2007, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC for approval of the repowering project, and stated that it expects to spend $1.55 billion on the project. In addition to seeking a finding that the project is in the public interest, the filing with the LPSC asks that Entergy Louisiana be allowed to recover a portion of the project's financing costs during the construction period. Hearings were held in October 2007 and an LPSC decision could come in the fourth quarter 2007. Entergy Louisiana expects the project to be completed in 2011-2012. The planned capital investment estimate in the Form 10-K included capital required for a project of this type, although Entergy Louisiana now expects to spend approximately $100 million more through 2009 than the amounts included in the Form 10-K for the project.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the Entergy New Orleans debtor-in-possession (DIP) credit facility between Entergy New Orleans as borrower and Entergy Corporation as lender. Pursuant to the terms of its plan of reorganization, which became effective in May 2007, Entergy New Orleans fully repaid its DIP credit facility borrowings.

As shown in Entergy's Statements of Cash Flows, cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:

Entergy's cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $631 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2006. Following are cash flows from operating activities by segment:

• Utility provided $1,212 million in cash from operating activities in 2007 compared to providing $1,683 million in 2006, primarily due to decreased collection of fuel costs, the catch-up in receivable collections in 2006 due to delays caused by the hurricanes in 2005, and the receipt of an income tax refund in 2006 compared to income tax payments being made in 2007, partially offset by the receipt of $181 million of Community Development Block Grant funds by Entergy New Orleans in 2007, significant storm restoration spending in 2006, and a decrease in the amount of pension funding payments in 2007. A $344 million income tax refund was received by Entergy Corporation in 2006 (including $71 million attributable to Entergy New Orleans) as a result of net operating loss carry back provisions contained in the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. In accordance with Entergy's intercompany tax allocation agreement, $273 million of the refund was distributed to the Utility business in April 2006, with most of the remainder distributed to Non-Utility Nuclear.
• Non-Utility Nuclear provided $535 million in cash from operating activities in 2007 compared to providing $648 million in 2006. The decrease is due to the receipt of income tax refunds in 2006 compared to income tax payments being made in 2007, along with spending associated with four refueling outages in 2007 compared to one in 2006. The decrease was offset partially by the cash flows attributable to higher net revenue.
• Parent & Other used $120 million in cash in operating activities in 2007 compared to $75 million in 2006, primarily due to an increase in interest payments by Entergy Corporation.

Net cash used in investing activities increased by $56 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The following activity is notable in comparing the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to the nine months ended September 30, 2006:

• Construction expenditures were $169 million lower in 2007 than in 2006, primarily due to storm restoration expenditures by the Utility in 2006.
• Non-Utility Nuclear purchased the Palisades power plant in April 2007.
• Entergy Mississippi purchased the Attala power plant in January 2006.
• Insurance proceeds received increased by $64 million in 2007 because of payments received on Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita claims.
• In 2006, Entergy received proceeds from the sale of the retail electric portion of the Competitive Retail Services business operating in the ERCOT region of Texas and the sale of the non-nuclear wholesale asset business' remaining interest in a power development project.

Financing activities provided $258 million of cash for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 compared to using $699 million of cash for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The following activity is notable in comparing the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to the nine months ended September 30, 2006:

• Entergy Corporation increased the net borrowings under its credit facilities by $1,296 million in 2007, compared to decreasing the net borrowings under its credit facilities by $290 million in 2006. See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the Entergy Corporation credit facilities.
• A subsidiary of Entergy Gulf States issued $329.5 million of securitization bonds in June 2007. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional information regarding the securitization bonds.
• Entergy Mississippi redeemed $100 million of first mortgage bonds in 2007 and issued $100 million of first mortgage bonds in 2006.

18

• Entergy Corporation repurchased $1,024 million of its common stock in 2007, and did not repurchase any shares of its common stock in 2006.
• Entergy Louisiana Holdings, Inc. redeemed all $100.5 million of its outstanding preferred stock in June 2006.
• Entergy Arkansas borrowed $60 million against its credit facility in 2007 and Entergy Louisiana repaid $40 million in borrowings against its credit facility in 2006.

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

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of federal regulatory proceedings. Following are updates to that discussion.

Rough Production Cost Equalization proceeding

Several parties intervened in the rate proceeding at the FERC, including the APSC, the MPSC, the Council, and the LPSC, which have also filed protests. Certain Entergy Arkansas wholesale customers also intervened, raising issues regarding whether the bandwidth payments are properly reflected in the wholesale rate that Entergy Arkansas charges. The APSC, the MPSC, and the Council ask the FERC to confirm that the FERC did not intend to preempt a retail regulator from undertaking an independent prudence review of the production costs in setting retail rates, or ask the FERC to set the rough production cost equalization payments/receipts for hearing to allow the retail regulators the opportunity to evaluate the prudence of the underlying production costs. In July 2007, the FERC accepted the proposed rates for filing, allowed them to go into effect as of June 1, 2007, subject to refund, and set the filing, including the calculation and underlying production costs, for hearing and settlement procedures. Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the proceeding is set for hearing in May 2008.

Entergy Arkansas will pay $36 million per month for seven months, and began making the payments to Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Mississippi in June 2007. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the APSC has approved through December 31, 2008 a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.

19

Additionally, the Utility operating companies had filed with the FERC proposing certain modifications to the rough production cost equalization calculation. The FERC rejected certain of the proposed modifications, accepted certain of the proposed modifications without further proceedings, and set two of the proposed modifications for hearing and settlement procedures. A settlement in principle was reached in one of the proceedings, which settlement has been filed with the FERC. Settlement procedures were terminated in the second proceeding that involves changes to the functionalization of costs to the production function and a hearing in that proceeding is currently scheduled for March 2008.

On April 27, 2007, the FERC denied the requests for rehearing filed regarding the Utility operating companies' compliance filing to implement the System Agreement decision, with one exception regarding the issue of retrospective refunds. That issue will be addressed subsequent to the remanded proceeding involving the interruptible load decision discussed in the paragraph further below in this section. The LPSC appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Utility operating companies and the APSC intervened in that appeal.

Based on the FERC's April 27, 2007 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas recorded accounts payable and Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Mississippi recorded accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC's remedy based on calendar year 2006 production costs that FERC accepted for filing and allowed to go into effect in June 2007. Entergy Arkansas recorded a corresponding regulatory asset for its right to collect the payments from its customers, and Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Mississippi recorded corresponding regulatory liabilities for their obligations to pass the receipts on to their customers. The regulatory asset and liabilities are shown as "System Agreement cost equalization" on the respective balance sheets. The liabilities and assets for the estimated payments and receipts that may be required to implement the FERC's remedy based on calendar year 2007 production costs will be recorded at the end of 2007 when all production costs for 2007 have been incurred.  The level of any payments and receipts is significantly affected by a number of factors, including, among others, weather, the price of alternative fuels, the operating characteristics of the Entergy System generating fleet, and multiple factors affecting the calculation of the non-fuel related revenue requirement components of the total production costs, such as plant investment.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, various parties, including the LPSC and the APSC, appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC's June 1 and December 19, 2005 orders establishing the rough production cost equalization bandwidth. The D.C. Circuit held oral argument on the appeals on November 2, 2007.

On April 3, 2007, the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC in which it sought to have the FERC order the following modifications to Entergy's rough production costs equalization calculation: (1) elimination of interruptible loads from the methodology used to allocate demand-related capacity costs; and (2) change of the method used to re-price energy from the Vidalia hydroelectric project for purposes of calculating production cost disparities. Entergy filed an intervention and protest in this proceeding. In May 2007 the FERC denied the LPSC's complaint. The LPSC has requested rehearing.

Other System Agreement-related Proceedings and Activity

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2006 the APSC filed a complaint at the FERC that states, "the purpose of the complaint is to institute an investigation into the prudence of Entergy's practices affecting the wholesale rates that flow through its System Agreement." In June 2007 the FERC denied the APSC's complaint on the basis that it was premature. The FERC found that the annual rough production cost equalization filing is the appropriate proceeding for the retail regulators to raise prudence issues. Regarding transmission, the FERC found that the FERC has recently implemented reforms related to transmission. If those reforms are inadequate to address the APSC's concerns, then it can renew its complaint. The APSC, the MPSC, and the Council have asked for rehearing or clarification of this order to confirm that the FERC did not intend to preempt a retail regulator from undertaking an independent prudence review of the production costs in setting retail rates.

20

As discussed in the Form 10-K, on December 18, 2006, the LPSC filed a complaint requesting the FERC "immediately institute a proceeding to determine whether, and on what terms, [Entergy Arkansas] may withdraw" from the System Agreement. In June 2007 the FERC denied the LPSC's complaint on the basis that it was premature. The FERC's order indicates that the FERC will evaluate at the time of Entergy Arkansas' departure whether "the System Agreement will remain just and reasonable for the remaining members . . . and likewise that any new Entergy Arkansas jurisdictional wholesale arrangements will be just and reasonable." The FERC Order goes on to state that "in light of the history and nature of the existing members' planning and operation of their facilities under the System Agreement, it is possible it may ultimately be appropriate to require transition measures or other conditions to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates and services" upon the termination of Entergy Arkansas' participation in the current System Agreement.

On April 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC's appeal of the FERC's March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies' interruptible loads.  In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds. The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directs Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change. In addition, the order directs the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996. Entergy, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council have requested rehearing of the FERC's order on remand. The FERC granted the Utility operating companies' request to delay the payment of refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996 until 30 days following a FERC order on rehearing.

In October 2007 the MPSC issued a letter confirming its belief that Entergy Mississippi should exit the System Agreement in light of recent developments involving the System Agreement. The MPSC letter also requests that Entergy Mississippi advise the MPSC regarding the status of the Utility operating companies' effort to develop successor arrangements to the System Agreement and advise the MPSC regarding Entergy Mississippi's position with respect to withdrawal from the System Agreement. In November 2007, pursuant to the provisions of the System Agreement, Entergy Mississippi provided its written notice to terminate its participation in the System Agreement effective ninety-six (96) months from the date of the notice or such earlier date as authorized by the FERC.

In conjunction with the application of Entergy Gulf States and Calcasieu Power, LLC seeking FERC approval of Entergy Gulf States' acquisition of the Calcasieu Generating Facility, the Utility operating companies filed a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that the FERC find either (1) that in those circumstances where a resource to be acquired or constructed has been determined by Entergy's Operating Committee to be a resource devoted to serving Entergy System load and has been approved by the applicable retail regulator, the cost of such resource shall be reflected in the rough production cost equalization calculation; or (2) that Entergy Gulf States' acquisition of the Calcasieu facility is prudent and the costs are properly reflected in the rough production cost equalization calculation.  The APSC, LPSC, MPSC, City Council, and several other parties intervened in the proceeding, with the APSC, LPSC, and City Council filing protests.  In July 2007 the FERC denied the application for a declaratory order. The FERC concluded that (1) the circumstances surrounding resource acquisition on the Entergy System were not of sufficient "local interest" to warrant the FERC deferring to the findings of the applicable regulator; and (2) with respect to the alternative request for relief, consistent with its prior precedent, the FERC would not "entertain the issue of the prudence of a purchase until such time as the purchaser passes on the cost of the purchase to its customers." Entergy Gulf States and Calcasieu Power's application before the FERC seeking approval of the acquisition is still pending.

21

In May 2007 the FERC denied the requests for rehearing of its October 2006 order. In June 2007, the Utility operating companies made their compliance filing pursuant to the FERC's order denying rehearing.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in the FERC's April 2006 order approving Entergy's ICT proposal, the FERC stated that the weekly procurement process (WPP) must be operational within approximately 14 months of the FERC order, or June 24, 2007, or the FERC may reevaluate all approvals to proceed with the ICT.  The Utility operating companies have been working with the ICT and a software vendor to develop the software and systems necessary to implement the WPP. The Utility operating companies also filed with the FERC in April 2007 a request to make certain corrections and limited modifications to the current WPP tariff provisions. The Utility operating companies have filed status reports with the FERC notifying the FERC that, due to unexpected issues with the development of the WPP software and testing, the WPP is still not operational. The Utility operating companies have notified the FERC that Entergy will continue to pursue the implementation of the WPP as soon as possible and will notify the FERC upon the successful completion of the software testing.

In October 2006 the Utility operating companies filed revisions to their Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") with the FERC to establish a mechanism to recover from their wholesale transmission customers the (1) costs incurred to develop or join an RTO and to develop the ICT; and (2) the on-going costs that will be incurred under the ICT agreement. Several parties intervened opposing the proposed tariff revisions. In December 2006 the FERC accepted for filing Entergy's proposed tariff revisions, and set them for hearing and settlement procedures. In its Order, the FERC concluded that each of the Utility operating companies "should be allowed the opportunity to recover its start up costs associated with its formation of the ICT and its participation in prior failed attempts to form an RTO," but also that the proposed tariffs raised issues of fact that are more properly addressed through hearing and settlement procedures. In June 2007 the Utility operating companies reached a settlement-in-principle with the parties to the proceeding and the settlement has been filed with the FERC.

In April 2007 the FERC issued an order terminating the AFC hearing involving Entergy because Entergy's ICT has been installed. In accordance with the provisions of the FERC order approving the ICT, during the first three quarters of 2007 the Utility operating companies notified the FERC, the ICT, and the stakeholders that certain instances had been identified in which software errors related to the AFC process had resulted in the reporting of inaccurate data.  Following the reporting of these errors, certain market participants continue to urge the FERC to move forward with an AFC hearing in light of the identified errors.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2005, the FERC 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.  The FERC decided to hold that investigation in abeyance, however, pending the outcomes of the ICT proceedings and Entergy's affiliate purchased power agreements proceeding. In June 2005, Entergy sought rehearing of the May order instituting the proceeding. The FERC terminated the Section 206 proceeding in May 2007 and dismissed Entergy's request for rehearing as moot. The FERC found that there was no further need for the proceeding.

22

Power Generation

As discussed more fully in the Form 10-K, the sale of electricity from the power generation plants owned by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the variability of market power prices. Following is an updated summary of the amount of Non-Utility Nuclear's output that is sold forward under physical or financial contracts (2007 represents the remaining quarter of the year):

The Vermont Yankee acquisition included a 10-year PPA under which the former owners will buy the power produced by the plant through the expiration in 2012 of the current operating license for the plant. The PPA includes an adjustment clause under which the prices specified in the PPA will be adjusted downward monthly if power market prices drop below PPA prices, which has not happened thus far and is not expected in the foreseeable future.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of Non-Utility Nuclear's value sharing agreements with NYPA for energy sales from the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants. In October 2007 Non-Utility Nuclear and NYPA amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms. Under the amended value sharing agreements Non-Utility Nuclear will make annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014. Non-Utility Nuclear will pay NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual cap of $24 million. The annual payment for each year is due by January 15 of the following year, with the payment for year 2007 output due on January 15, 2008. If Entergy or an Entergy affiliate ceases to own the plants, then, after January 2009, the annual payment obligation terminates for generation after the date that Entergy ownership ceases.

Non-Utility Nuclear had previously calculated that $0 was owed to NYPA under the value sharing agreements for generation output in 2005 and 2006. In November 2006 NYPA filed a demand for arbitration claiming that $90.5 million was due to NYPA for 2005 under these agreements, and NYPA filed in April 2007 an amended demand for arbitration claiming that an additional $54 million was due to NYPA for 2006 under the value sharing agreements. As part of their agreement to amend the value sharing agreements, Non-Utility Nuclear and NYPA waived all present and future claims under the previous value sharing terms, including the claims for 2005 and 2006 pending before the arbitrator.

Non-Utility Nuclear will record its liability for payments to NYPA as power is generated and sold by Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick. Non-Utility Nuclear recorded a $57 million liability for generation through September 30, 2007. An amount equal to the liability will be recorded to the plant

23

asset account as contingent purchase price consideration for the plants. This amount will be depreciated over the expected remaining useful life of the plants.

Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide collateral to secure its obligations under the agreements. The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide collateral based upon the difference between the current market and contracted power prices in the regions where Non-Utility Nuclear sells power. The primary form of collateral to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty.  Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of collateral.  At September 30, 2007, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had in place as collateral $747 million of Entergy Corporation guarantees for wholesale transactions, including $65 million of guarantees that support letters of credit. The assurance requirement associated with Non-Utility Nuclear is estimated to increase by an amount of up to $325 million if gas prices increase $1 per MMBtu in both the short- and long-term markets. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation's credit rating to below investment grade, Entergy will be required to replace Entergy Corporation guarantees with cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements.

In addition to selling the power produced by its plants, the Non-Utility Nuclear business sells installed capacity to load-serving distribution companies in order for those companies to meet requirements placed on them by the ISO in their area. Following is a summary of the amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' installed capacity that is currently sold forward, and the blended amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' planned generation output and installed capacity that is currently sold forward (2007 represents the remaining quarter of the year):

As of September 30, 2007, approximately 99% of Non-Utility Nuclear's counterparty exposure from energy and capacity contracts is with counterparties with investment grade credit ratings.

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, qualified pension and other postretirement benefits, and other contingencies.

In September 2006 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS 157), which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 generally does not require any new fair value measurements. However, in some cases, the application of SFAS 157 in the future may change Entergy's practice for measuring and disclosing fair values under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. SFAS 157 is effective for Entergy in the first quarter 2008 and will be applied prospectively. Entergy is currently evaluating SFAS 157 and its potential future effects on its financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

24

The FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities" (SFAS 159) during the first quarter 2007. SFAS 159 provides an option for companies to select certain financial assets and liabilities to be accounted for at fair value with changes in the fair value of those assets or liabilities being reported through earnings. The intent of the standard is to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by the application of the more complicated fair value hedging accounting rules. Under SFAS 159, companies can select existing assets or liabilities for this fair value option concurrent with the effective date of January 1, 2008 for companies with fiscal years ending December 31 or can select future assets or liabilities as they are acquired or entered into. Entergy is in the process of evaluating the potential effect of making this accounting election, but does not expect the provisions of this standard to have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In June 2006, the EITF reached a consensus on EITF Issue 06-3 "How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement (That Is, Gross versus Net Presentation)" (EITF 06-3). The scope of this issue includes any tax assessed by a governmental authority that is both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer, and may include, but is not limited to, sales, use, value added, and some excise taxes. Under EITF 06-3, the presentation of taxes within the scope of this issue on either a gross basis (included in revenues and costs) or a net basis (excluded from revenues) is an accounting policy decision that should be disclosed. For any such taxes reported on a gross basis, the amounts of those taxes in interim and annual financial statements, for each period for which an income statement is presented, should be disclosed if those amounts are significant. Entergy's policy is to present such taxes on a net basis, unless required to report differently by a regulatory authority. EITF 06-3 did not affect Entergy's financial statements.

25

(Page left blank intentionally)

26

27