Company: EAI
Filing Date: 2025-02-18
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000065984-25-000012
Chunk: 506

Company: ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC
Filing Date: 2025-02-18
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 7
Chunk 506
---
 legal doctrine of laches; and/or the claims had been fully addressed and do not warrant further litigation.  In December 2020, System Energy filed a bill adjustment report indicating that $3.4 million had been credited to customers in connection with the two discrete issues concerning the inclusion of certain accumulated deferred income taxes balances in rates.In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above.  System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of FERC’s jurisdiction or authority.  The complainants sought rehearing of FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy opposed.  In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature.In August 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing System Energy’s and the complainants’ rehearing requests.  The FERC dismissed part of the complaint seeking an equity re-opener, maintained the abeyance for issues related to the proceeding addressing the sale-leaseback renewal and uncertain tax positions, lifted the abeyance for issues unrelated to that proceeding, and clarified the scope of the hearing.In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  The LPSC’s refund claims included, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base.  The LPSC also sought a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with