Company: EAI
Filing Date: 2025-08-01
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000065984-25-000087
Chunk: 236

Company: ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC
Filing Date: 2025-08-01
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 7
Chunk 236
---
 a 453 MW simple-cycle combustion turbine facility, which will be enabled with hydrogen co-firing optionality, originally expected to be located in Liberty County, Texas.  In March 2025, Entergy Texas filed testimony explaining that Entergy Texas planned to move forward with building the Lone Star Power Station on a more cost-effective alternative site in San Jacinto County, Texas.  A hearing on the merits was held in April 2025.  Also in April 2025, Entergy Texas, intervenors, and the PUCT staff filed initial briefs.  In its initial brief, the PUCT staff recommends denial of Entergy Texas’s application or, in the alternative, approval subject to conditions that include a prudence review by an external consultant if actual project costs exceed estimated costs by more than 10%, transmission cost reporting, and weatherization of both the Legend Power Station and the Lone Star Power Station.  Certain intervenors requested that the PUCT impose various conditions upon the approval of the resources, including, among others, cost recovery limitations, a direction that Entergy Texas initiate a competitive tariff 

16

Table of ContentsEntergy Corporation and SubsidiariesManagement’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

proceeding to facilitate industrial sleeving, a requirement for additional regulatory approvals related to hydrogen or carbon capture and storage implementation, limits on the recovery of supplemental filing costs, and calculation of AFUDC based on an adjusted weighted average cost of capital.  Reply briefs were filed in May 2025.  In June 2025 the ALJs with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a proposal for decision, in which they recommended rejection of Entergy Texas’s application to construct the Legend Power Station and the Lone Star Power Station based upon their finding that Entergy Texas did not demonstrate the resources to be cost-effective alternatives to address the uncontested need for additional generation.  In the alternative, the ALJs recommended that if the PUCT approves the resources, that conditions be imposed, including a deferral of the finding that the resources were prudently selected until Entergy Texas’s next rate case, a prudence review by an external consultant if actual project costs exceed estimated costs by more than 10%, weatherization requirements, and a requirement that Entergy Texas obtain additional regulatory approvals prior to implementing hydrogen co-firing or carbon capture and storage.  The ALJs’ proposal for decision is an interim step in the certification process, and it is not binding upon the PUCT.  Entergy Texas filed exceptions in July