UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

 

In the Matter of 

 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC 

and 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 

 Docket No. 50-271-LA-3 

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) 

 

CLI-16-08 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

The NRC Staff requests that we vacate LBP-15-24, in which the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board granted the State of Vermont’s hearing request in this license amendment 

matter.1 As discussed below, this proceeding became moot while LBP-15-24 was still subject to 

appeal. Therefore, in keeping with our established practice, we grant the Staff’s motion and 

vacate LBP-15-24. 

 

1 NRC Staff Motion to Vacate LBP-15-24 (Oct. 26, 2015) (Staff Motion); LBP-15-24, 82 NRC 68 

(2015). 
- 2 - 

 BACKGROUND 

As one of a number of activities associated with decommissioning the Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, in September 2014 Entergy sought a license amendment to remove 

license conditions associated with the decommissioning trust fund for the facility.2 Rather than 

following the license conditions, Entergy proposed to conform to the regulations in 10 C.F.R. 

§ 50.75(h)(1)-(3).3 Shortly thereafter, Entergy requested an exemption pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 

§ 50.12.4 The exemption request (which assumed approval of the license amendment request) 

sought to relieve Entergy from two of the requirements of section 50.75(h)(1)(iv).5 First, Entergy 

requested an exemption from the requirement that trust disbursements are restricted to 

decommissioning expenses until final decommissioning has been completed.6 Second, Entergy 

requested an exemption from the requirement to provide thirty working days’ advance notice to 

the NRC of intended disbursements.7 Taken together, the requested exemptions and license 

 

2 Letter from Christopher J. Wamser, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (Sept. 4, 2014), 

at 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14254A405) (License Amendment Request). 

3 See Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 80 Fed. Reg. 8355, 8359 

(Feb. 17, 2015) (Notice of Opportunity to Request a Hearing). At the time section 50.75 was 

promulgated, the NRC clarified that licensees had the option of either maintaining existing 

license conditions governing decommissioning trusts or submitting to the new regulatory 

requirements. See Decommissioning Trust Provisions, Final Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 78,332, 

78,334-35 (Dec. 24, 2002). 

4 Letter from Christopher J. Wamser, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (Jan. 6, 2015) 

(ML15013A171) (Exemption Request). 

5 Id. at 1-3. The exemption request also sought to relieve Entergy from 10 C.F.R. 

§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), allowing it to make withdrawals from the decommissioning trust fund for 

certain irradiated fuel management costs. Id. at 1-2. 

6 Id. at 2; see 10 C.F.R. § 50.75(h)(1)(iv). 

7 Exemption Request at 1; see 10 C.F.R. § 50.75(h)(1)(iv). 
- 3 - 

amendment would allow Entergy to make withdrawals from the decommissioning trust fund for 

certain spent fuel management costs without providing prior notice.8 The Staff determined that 

Entergy’s exemption request met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.12 and granted the 

request on June 17, 2015.9

In response to a notice of opportunity to request a hearing on Entergy’s license 

amendment request, Vermont requested a hearing.10 Vermont proffered four contentions in its 

initial petition and later proposed a fifth contention.11 Entergy and the Staff opposed admission 

of all five contentions.12

In August 2015, the Board issued LBP-15-24, in which it granted Vermont’s hearing 

request and admitted Contentions I and V.13 In September 2015, Entergy filed a motion to 

 

8 See Exemption Request at 1. 

9 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 80 Fed. Reg. 

35,992 (June 23, 2015). 

10 Notice of Opportunity to Request a Hearing, 80 Fed. Reg. at 8356-58, 8359-60; State of 

Vermont’s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request (Apr. 20, 2015) (Hearing 

Request). 

11 Hearing Request at 3-31; State of Vermont’s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention 

Including the Proposed New Contention and to Add Additional Bases and Support to Existing 

Contentions I, III, and IV (July 6, 2015), at 4-7. 

12 See NRC Staff Answer to State of Vermont Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing 

Request (May 15, 2015); Entergy’s Answer Opposing State of Vermont’s Petition for Leave to 

Intervene and Hearing Request (May 15, 2015); NRC Staff’s Answer to the State of Vermont’s 

Motion for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions (July 31, 2015); Entergy’s Answer 

Opposing State of Vermont’s New Contention V and Additional Bases for Pending Contentions 

I, III, and IV (July 31, 2015). 

13 LBP-15-24, 82 NRC at 104. As admitted, Contention I concerned Entergy’s current license 

condition requiring thirty-day notification for decommissioning trust fund withdrawals in light of 

Vermont’s assertions that Entergy could otherwise improperly reduce the fund such that the 

plant cannot be maintained in a safe condition. Id. at 92. In particular, Vermont claimed that 

three categories of expenses violated NRC decommissioning regulations: “(1) the six line items 
- 4 - 

withdraw its license amendment request and to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice.14 In 

LBP-15-28, the Board granted Entergy’s motion to withdraw the license amendment request 

without prejudice and terminated the proceeding.15 The Board imposed two conditions on the 

withdrawal. First, it directed Entergy to provide written notice to Vermont of any new license 

amendment application relating to the decommissioning trust fund at the time of the 

application.16 Second, the Board directed Entergy to specify in the thirty-day notices that it must 

provide before making disbursements from the decommissioning fund if any of the proposed 

disbursements are to be used for certain expenses to which Vermont objected in its admitted 

Contention I.17 Following withdrawal of the license amendment request, Entergy may continue 

 

from the [Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report] that Vermont alleges to be nondecommissioning costs, (2) the legal costs associated with Entergy’s reduction in emergency 

planning, and (3) the potential for unforeseen costs associated with radionuclide releases and 

indefinite storage of spent fuel.” Id. (citations omitted). The Board admitted Contention V as a 

legal contention challenging the sufficiency of Entergy’s license amendment request, in view of 

the exemptions that the Staff approved. Id. at 102, 104. 

14 Entergy’s Motion to Withdraw its September 4, 2014 License Amendment Request

(Sept. 22, 2015), at 1 (Motion to Withdraw). At the same time, Entergy sought to extend the 

time for filing appeals until ten days after the Board’s ruling on its motion to withdraw. See 

Entergy’s Unopposed Motion to Extend the Time to Appeal LBP-15-24 (Sept. 22, 2015); Order 

of the Secretary (Sept. 24, 2015) (unpublished) (granting the request). 

15 LBP-15-28, 82 NRC 233, 244 (2015). 

16 Id.

17 Id. These expenses are six line items in Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning 

Activities Report and the legal costs associated with emergency planning. Id. at 242; 

LBP-15-24, 82 NRC at 86-87, 92; Hearing Request at 9-10; see also Site Specific 

Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rev. 0 

(Dec. 2014), at app. C (submitted as Attachment 1 to Entergy’s Post Shutdown 

Decommissioning Activities Report, enclosed in the Letter from Christopher J. Wamser, 

Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (Dec. 19, 2014) (ML14357A110)). The six line items 

are (1) a five million dollar payment to Vermont as part of a settlement agreement; (2) 

emergency preparedness costs; (3) shipments of non-radiological asbestos waste; 

(4) insurance; (5) property taxes; (6) and replacement of structures during SAFSTOR, such as a 
- 5 - 

to make withdrawals from the decommissioning trust fund for spent fuel management expenses. 

But, Entergy still must provide thirty days’ advance notice to the NRC of such withdrawals, given 

that the license condition requiring notice remains in effect.18

The Staff has now submitted a motion to vacate the Board decision granting Vermont’s 

hearing request, LBP-15-24, as moot.19 Vermont opposes the Staff’s motion.20

 DISCUSSION 

The Staff seeks to vacate the Board’s decision granting Vermont’s request for a hearing 

on Entergy’s license amendment request. The Board has now granted Entergy’s motion to 

withdraw the license amendment request and terminated the proceeding in LBP-15-28. The 

 

bituminous roof. LBP-15-28, 82 NRC at 242. The Board referred to item 6 as “replacement of 

structures related to dry cask storage, such as a bituminous roof.” Id. We clarify that the 

condition should reference the SAFSTOR period, as reflected in Vermont’s petition. See 

Hearing Request at 9-10 (listing “items that the State believes fail to meet the NRC’s definition 

of decommissioning, such as: . . . [r]eplacement of structures during SAFSTOR (e.g., line 

2b.1.4)”). The Board did not include unforeseen expenses related to radionuclide releases and 

spent fuel management, although Vermont objected to these expenses as part of Contention I. 

LBP-15-28, 82 NRC at 242; see supra note 13. 

18 See LBP-15-24, 82 NRC at 74. 

19 The Staff did not seek review of LBP-15-24. Staff Motion at 5, 7. 

20 State of Vermont’s Response to NRC Staff’s Motion to Vacate LBP-15-24 (Nov. 5, 2015) 

(Vermont Answer). The Staff notes that Entergy does not oppose the motion to vacate. Staff 

Motion at 2 n.4. 

Also pending before us is the petition of the State of Vermont, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Corporation, and Green Mountain Power Corporation seeking “a robust, comprehensive, 

and participatory review of Entergy’s use of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Decommissioning 

Trust Fund.” See Petition of the State of Vermont, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Corporation, and Green Mountain Power Corporation for Review of Entergy Nuclear Operation, 

Inc.’s Planned Use of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund (Nov. 4, 

2015), at 1. The petitioners request that we consider the Staff’s motion to vacate as part of the 

comprehensive review they seek. Id. at 14. We decline to do so and will issue a separate 

decision addressing that petition. 
- 6 - 

issue before us today is whether vacatur of LBP-15-24 is appropriate in the circumstances 

presented here. Because there is no longer a live dispute with respect to the license 

amendment request, we vacate LBP-15-24 in accordance with our usual practice. 

The Staff argues that LBP-15-24 should be vacated because Entergy’s withdrawal of the 

license amendment request has made our review of that decision moot.21 Vermont counters 

that the Staff’s “characterization of the withdrawal fails to recognize that the Board imposed 

conditions on Entergy’s withdrawal that link directly to the underlying decision,” such that the 

underlying dispute is not moot.22 Vermont argues that LBP-15-24 should not be vacated in 

order to preserve the integrity of the conditions.23 Further, Vermont raises the concern that 

vacating the decision that granted its intervention petition could eliminate its ability to enforce 

the conditions contained in LBP-15-28.24

We agree with the Staff that the case is now moot because the disputed license 

amendment request has been withdrawn.25 While Vermont asserts that live issues remain 

because it continues to dispute Entergy’s use of decommissioning funds at Vermont Yankee,26

the hearing opportunity that the Board granted in LBP-15-24 was limited to the September 2014 

license amendment request. Disagreement regarding use of decommissioning trust funds apart 

 

21 Staff Motion at 7. 

22 Vermont Answer at 1. 

23 Id. at 2. 

24 Id.

25 See, e.g., Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 

and 3), CLI-13-10, 78 NRC 563, 568 (2013).

26 Vermont Answer at 4. 
- 7 - 

from that request does not convert this matter into a live controversy. Moreover, vacatur of 

LBP-15-24 does not affect the conditions that the Board imposed on the withdrawal in 

LBP-15-28. The Board’s decision in LBP-15-28 binds the parties, and Entergy must comply 

with the conditions of withdrawal set forth therein.27

Vermont also argues against vacatur because, it claims, vacating the decision would 

“strip the conditions of any context.”28 But as we observed in San Onofre, vacated orders, such 

as LBP-15-24, will remain available for reference; LBP-15-24 will not be expunged from agency 

records.29 Neither does vacatur of LBP-15-24 diminish Vermont’s right to challenge Entergy’s 

compliance with the conditions imposed by the Board in LBP-15-28. If Vermont wishes to lodge 

such a challenge, it may do so by filing a petition for enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. 

§ 2.206.30

 

27 While it is true that LBP-15-28 has no precedential effect, it binds the parties to this case. 

See Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), 

CLI-13-9, 78 NRC 551, 558 (2013).

28 Vermont Answer at 6. 

29 San Onofre, CLI-13-9, 78 NRC at 559 (“Regardless of vacatur, the decision is an agency 

record, and will not be excised from the public view.”). As was the case in San Onofre, 

LBP-15-24 will be publicly available via the agency’s ADAMS recordkeeping system and will be 

published as part of NUREG-0750, a compilation of Commission and Board decisions. Id.

30 Vermont asserts that the “Board necessarily has continuing jurisdiction to enforce those 

conditions.” Vermont Answer at 6. On this point, Vermont is incorrect. After a proceeding is 

terminated, a licensing board does not retain jurisdiction over the matter. Cf. Virginia Electric & 

Power Co. d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (North Anna 

Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-12-14, 75 NRC 692, 699-701 (discussing when the Licensing 

Board’s jurisdiction ends). Vermont does not need—or benefit from—“party status” to seek to 

enforce the conditions in the Board’s decision; under section 2.206, “[a]ny person” may request 

enforcement action. 
- 8 - 

Citing the Board’s Condition 1, which requires Entergy to notify Vermont if it submits a 

new license amendment request relating to the decommissioning trust fund, Vermont also 

argues that LBP-15-24 should not be vacated because the dispute it has raised falls into the 

“capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.31 Vermont 

argues that, by imposing Condition 1, the Board “effectively recognized” the likelihood that 

Entergy will submit a new license amendment request.32 The Staff acknowledges this exception 

to the mootness doctrine but argues it is inapplicable here.33 Based on Entergy’s 

representation, the Staff contends that there is no reasonable expectation that Entergy will 

submit another license amendment request similar to the September 2014 request and, in any 

case, any future license amendment request would trigger an opportunity for a hearing and thus 

allow for review.34

As we have previously noted, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception 

“applies only to cases in which both the challenged action was in its duration too short to be 

litigated, and there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject 

 

31 Vermont Answer at 7. 

32 Id. We do not view the Board’s condition as an acknowledgment that Entergy is likely to 

submit a similar license amendment request in the future, but rather an additional safeguard to 

ensure that, if Entergy does, Vermont will have adequate notice to seek a hearing on the 

request. And in any event, as the Board recognized, “[t]his condition does not impose any 

additional administrative burden because Entergy is already required by the regulations to notify 

Vermont of any request to amend the Vermont Yankee license.” LBP-15-28, 82 NRC at 243 

(citing 10 C.F.R. § 50.91(b)(1)). 

33 Staff Motion at 8 (citing San Onofre, CLI-13-9, 78 NRC at 558 n.26; San Onofre, CLI-13-10, 

78 NRC at 568 n.35). 

34 Id. (citing Motion to Withdraw at 5 (“Entergy currently has no plans to reinstate this license 

amendment proceeding at a future date.”)). 
- 9 - 

to the same action again.”35 Here, however, a future license amendment request relating to the 

decommissioning trust fund would not be “too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its 

cessation or expiration.”36 As the Staff noted, if Entergy were to re-file a similar license 

amendment request, it would trigger an opportunity for a hearing.37 And because such an 

amendment would remain relevant throughout the decommissioning process (which, even if 

performed rapidly, will take years), this case is not one where the challenged action would be 

too short in duration to be subject to review.38 With respect to whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the same parties will be subject to the same action again, Entergy has 

represented in this case that it “‘currently has no plans to reinitiate this license amendment 

proceeding at a future date.’”39 While it is possible that Entergy will re-submit its license 

amendment request at some point during the decommissioning period, we decline to look 

 

35 Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-10, 

37 NRC 192, 205 (1993); see also San Onofre, CLI-13-9, 78 NRC at 558 n.26; Advanced 

Medical Systems, Inc., (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-8, 37 NRC 181, 185 

(1993) (citing S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911); 

Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 109 (1978); Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. 

Regan, 727 F.2d 1161, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). 

36 Advanced Medical Systems, CLI-93-8, 37 NRC at 187. 

37 Staff Motion at 8 & n.42 (citing Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, § 189a., 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2239(a)(1)(A)). 

38 Decommissioning activities at Vermont Yankee are expected to span approximately sixty 

years. Vermont Answer at 5 (citing Letter from Christopher J. Wamser, Entergy, to NRC 

Document Control Desk (Dec. 19, 2014), Enclosure, Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities 

Report, at 8 (ML14357A110)); see 10 C.F.R. § 50.82(a)(3) (requiring completion of 

decommissioning within sixty years of permanent cessation of operations). 

39 Motion to Withdraw at 5. 
- 10 - 

behind its representation today and speculate that it will do so. For these reasons, this case 

does not fit within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception. 

While unreviewed Board decisions do not create binding legal precedent, we 

nonetheless customarily vacate such decisions as a prudential matter when appellate review is 

cut short by mootness.40 We see no reason to depart from our customary practice today. When 

vacating for mootness, we neither approve nor disapprove the underlying Board ruling; we 

therefore take no position on the Board’s decision in LBP-15-24.41

 CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, we grant the Staff’s motion and vacate LBP-15-24 as 

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL 

 /RA/ . 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 2nd day of June, 2016.

 

40 See, e.g., San Onofre, CLI-13-9, 78 NRC at 558. 

41 In other words, our decision to vacate LBP-15-24 “‘does not intimate any opinion on [its] 

soundness.’” San Onofre, CLI-13-9, 78 NRC at 559 n.31 (citing Yankee Atomic Electric Co. 

(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-99-24, 50 NRC 219, 222 (1999) (quoting Kerr-McGee 

Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), CLI-96-2, 43 NRC 13, 15 (1996)). 
Commissioner Baran, Dissenting 

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision. 

Vacatur of the Board’s decision serves no useful purpose in this case. The Board 

already terminated the proceeding in LBP-15-28. Unreviewed Board decisions, like the one the 

NRC Staff seeks to vacate here, do not create binding precedent. Regardless of whether 

LBP-15-24 is vacated, the decision will remain publicly available and its analysis and reasoning 

can be cited for its persuasive value.1 And, as the majority notes, the Board’s decision in 

LBP-15-28 will continue to bind the parties, and Entergy must comply with the conditions of 

withdrawal set forth in that decision.2

The NRC Staff makes no substantive argument for why vacatur is necessary or in any 

way desirable. The Staff merely cites prior Commission precedent for the general practice of 

vacating unreviewed Board decisions when they are later rendered moot and notes the 

“complexity of the issues raised in LBP-15-24.”3 But there is nothing inherently confusing about 

Board decisions in cases in which the parties vigorously dispute complex issues. Unnecessarily 

vacating the Board decision is more likely to cause confusion. Although the majority explains 

that the Commission is not taking a position on the merits of the Board’s decision, vacatur will 

likely leave some with the misimpression that the Commission has concluded that the Board 

decision is somehow unsound. 

I see no reason to continue the customary practice of vacating unreviewed Board 

decisions simply because the Commission has done so in the past. Rather than perpetuate this 

 

1 See Majority Decision at 9 (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-13-9, 78 NRC 551, 559 (2013)). 

2 Id.

3 Staff Motion at 9. 
- 2 - 

peculiar practice, I believe we should require a litigant seeking vacatur to demonstrate that it is 

actually warranted. Like federal courts, the Commission should consider the facts of each case 

and balance the equities in deciding whether to vacate a Board decision.4

 

4 See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1994) (emphasizing 

the equitable nature of a vacatur determination). 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LA-3 

 AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) 

 ) 

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-16-

08 have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange and email. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop: T-3 F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

William J. Froehlich, Chairman 

William.Froehlich@nrc.gov 

Dr. Michael F. Kennedy 

Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov

Dr. Richard E. Wardwell 

Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop: O15D21 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Catherine L. Scott, Esq. 

Beth Mizuno, Esq. 

Mitzi Young, Esq. 

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

Jeremy Wachutka, Esq. 

Daniel Straus, Esq. 

Matthew Ring, Esq. 

John Tibbetts, Paralegal 

catherine.scott@nrc.gov 

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov

mitzi.young@nrc.gov 

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov 

jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov

daniel.straus@nrc.gov 

matthew.ring@nrc.gov 

edward.williamson@nrc.gov

john.tibbetts@nrc.gov 

Nicole Pepperl, Law Clerk 

Nicole.Pepperl@nrc.gov 

Cooper J Strickland, Law Clerk 

Cooper.Strickland@nrc.gov 

Vermont Department of Public Service 

112 State Street – Drawer 20 

Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 

Aaron Kisicki, Esq. 

Kyle Landis-Marinello, Esq. 

aaron.kisicki@state.vt.us

kyle.landis-marinello@vermont.gov 
DOCKET NO. 50-271-LA-3 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-16-08

2 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop: O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Hearing Docket 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Commission Appellate 

 Adjudication 

Mail Stop: O-7H4M 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

ocaamail@nrc.gov

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 

Stephen Burdick, Esq. 

Raphael Kuyler, Esq. 

Ryan Lighty, Esq. 

pbessette@morganlewis.com

sburdick@morganlewis.com 

rkuyler@morganlewis.com 

rlighty@morganlewis.com 

Entergy Services, Inc. 

101 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 200012133 

Susan Raimo, Esq. 

sraimo@entergy.com

[Original signed by Brian Newell ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 2nd day of June, 2016