Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Notes to Financial Statements (a) Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds, some of which are secured by collateral mortgage bonds.
(b) Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service. ?
?The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983. ?
?Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.
(c) See Note 10 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Waterford 3 lease obligation and Entergy Louisiana’s acquisition of the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets and for further discussion of the Grand Gulf lease obligation.
(d) This note did not have a stated interest rate, but had an implicit interest rate of 7.458%.
(e) The fair value excludes lease obligations of $34 million at System Energy and long-term DOE obligations of $183 million at Entergy Arkansas, and includes debt due within one year. ?
?Fair values are classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements and are based on prices derived from inputs such as benchmark yields and reported trades.
The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations and long-term DOE obligations) for debt outstanding as of December?31, 2017, for the next five years are as follows:
## Table 0 ##
In November 2000, Entergy’s non-utility nuclear business purchased the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction.
As part of the purchase agreement with NYPA, Entergy recorded a liability representing the net present value of the payments Entergy would be liable to NYPA for each year that the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants would run beyond their respective original NRC license expiration date.
In October 2015, Entergy announced a planned shutdown of FitzPatrick at the end of its fuel cycle.
As a result of the announcement, Entergy reduced this liability by $26.4 million pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement.
In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy.
As part of the trust transfer agreement, the original decommissioning agreements were amended, and the Entergy subsidiaries’ obligation to make additional license extension payments to NYPA was eliminated.
In the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the note payable of $35.1 million from the consolidated balance sheet.
Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October 2019. ?
?Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2018.
Entergy New Orleans has also obtained long-term financing authorization from the City Council that extends through June 2018, as the City Council has concurrent jurisdiction with the FERC over such issuances.
Capital Funds Agreement Pursuant to an agreement with certain creditors, Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to: ?
maintain System Energy’s equity capital at a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding shortterm debt);
Entergy maintains decommissioning trust funds that are committed to meeting its obligations for the costs of decommissioning the nuclear power plants. ?
?The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds and the related asset retirement obligation regulatory assets (liabilities) of Entergy as of December?31, 2017 and 2016 are as follows:
## Table 1 ##
As a result of the agreement with NYPA discussed above, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables of $1.5 billion for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick.
At December 31, 2016, the fair values of the decommissioning trust funds held by NYPA were $719 million for the Indian Point 3 plant and $785 million for the FitzPatrick plant.
See Note 16 to the financial statements for further discussion of the transfer of the decommissioning trust funds held by NYPA to Entergy.
Coal Combustion Residuals In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of RCRA Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA. ?
?Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation.
In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.  The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria. ?
?Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse.
In December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions.
States may submit to the EPA proposals for permit programs.
In September 2017 the EPA agreed to reconsider certain provisions of the CCR rule in light of the WIIN Act.
The EPA has not yet initiated a new round of rulemaking and has not extended the existing mid-October 2017 groundwater monitoring deadline.
Entergy met the existing monitoring deadline, is monitoring state agency actions, and will participate in the regulatory development process.
Part I Item 1 Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy Authorizations to Operate Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.
Non-nuclear Generating Stations In November 2016, Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer Wind Ventures, LLC, a windpowered electric generation joint venture owned in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment and accounted for as an equity method investment.
Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer for $0.5 million and realized a pre-tax loss of $0.2 million.
Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
## Table 2 ##
(a) “Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b) The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities. ?
?For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c) Indirectly owned through interests in unconsolidated joint ventures.
Independent System Operators The Pilgrim plant falls under the authority of the Independent System Operator New England (ISO-NE) and the Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). ?
?The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. ?
?The primary purpose of ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.
Energy and Capacity Sales As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers. ?
?Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets. ?
?Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows loadserving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas. ?
?Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy. ?
?While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both. ?
?See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.
As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. ?
?Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. ?
?Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. ?
?The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e. g. , emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>Amount (In Thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>$760,000</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>$857,679</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>$898,500</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>$960,764</td></tr><tr><td>2022</td><td>$1,304,431</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2017</td><td colspan="2">2016</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>DecommissioningTrust Fair Values</td><td>RegulatoryAsset (Liability)</td><td>DecommissioningTrust Fair Values</td><td>RegulatoryAsset (Liability)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">(In Millions)</td><td colspan="2">(In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Utility:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ANO 1 and ANO 2</td><td>$944.9</td><td>$337.9</td><td>$834.7</td><td>$316.3</td></tr><tr><td>River Bend</td><td>$818.2</td><td>-$30.6</td><td>$712.8</td><td>-$28.4</td></tr><tr><td>Waterford 3</td><td>$493.9</td><td>$188.9</td><td>$427.9</td><td>$172.8</td></tr><tr><td>Grand Gulf</td><td>$905.7</td><td>$169.1</td><td>$780.5</td><td>$142.5</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Wholesale Commodities</td><td>$4,049.3</td><td>$—</td><td>$2,968.0</td><td>$—</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Plant</td><td>Location</td><td>Ownership</td><td>Net Owned Capacity (a)</td><td>Type</td></tr><tr><td>Independence Unit 2; 842 MW</td><td>Newark, AR</td><td>14%</td><td>121 MW(b)</td><td>Coal</td></tr><tr><td>RS Cogen; 425 MW (c)</td><td>Lake Charles, LA</td><td>50%</td><td>213 MW</td><td>Gas/Steam</td></tr><tr><td>Nelson 6; 550 MW</td><td>Westlake, LA</td><td>11%</td><td>60 MW(b)</td><td>Coal</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between the greatest ANO 1 and ANO 2 in 2016 and 2017? (in Million)
Answer: 131.8
Reasoning program: add(944.9,337.9), add(834.7,316.3), subtract(#0,#1)