Company: EAI
Filing Date: 2025-02-18
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000065984-25-000012
Chunk: 193

Company: ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC
Filing Date: 2025-02-18
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 193
---
 allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  The FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision.  The hearing was held in May 2013 and the ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2013.  The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions.  Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision.  The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation.  The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments.  The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies.  The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales.  The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%.  The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas.  The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC