CDW CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 73 6.
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets Goodwill The changes in goodwill by reportable segment are as follows:
## Table 0 ##
(1) Goodwill is net of accumulated impairment losses of $1,571 million, $354 million and $28 million related to the Corporate, Public and Other segments, respectively.
(2) Amounts have been recast to present Small Business as its own operating and reportable segment.
(3) Effective January 1, 2016, the CDW Advanced Services business is included in the Company's Corporate and Public segments.
(4) Other is comprised of Canada and CDW UK operating segments.
With the establishment of Small Business as its own reporting unit, the Company performed a quantitative analysis in order to allocate Goodwill between Corporate and Small Business.
Based on the results of the quantitative analysis performed as of January 1, 2017, the Company determined that the fair values of Corporate and Small Business reporting units exceeded their carrying values by 227% and 308%, respectively, and no impairment existed.
December 1, 2017 Impairment Analysis The Company completed its annual impairment analysis as of December 1, 2017.
For the Corporate, Small Business and UK reporting units, the Company performed a qualitative analysis.
The Company determined that it was more-likelythan-not that the individual fair values of the Corporate, Small Business and UK reporting units exceeded the respective carrying values and therefore a quantitative impairment analysis was deemed unnecessary.
Although uncertainty regarding the impact of the Referendum on the UK’s Membership of the European Union (“EU”), advising for the exit of the UK from the EU (referred to as “Brexit”) still exists in the current year, the Company does not believe there to be any additional risk that would indicate the quantitative analysis performed in the prior year would have a different result.
Therefore, a qualitative analysis was deemed appropriate for the UK reporting unit.
The Company performed a quantitative analysis of the Public and Canada reporting units.
Based on the results of the quantitative analysis, the Company determined that the fair value of the Public and Canada reporting units exceeded their carrying values by 179% and 153%, respectively, and no impairment existed.
December 1, 2016 Impairment Analysis The Company completed its annual impairment analysis as of December 1, 2016.
For the Corporate (which, as of December 1, 2016, included Small Business), Public and Canada reporting units, the Company performed a qualitative analysis.
The Company determined that it was more-likely-than-not that the individual fair values of the Corporate, Public and Canada reporting units exceeded the respective carrying values.
As a result of this determination, the quantitative impairment analysis was deemed unnecessary.
Due to the substantial uncertainty regarding the impact of Brexit, the Company performed a quantitative analysis of the CDW UK reporting unit.
Based on the results of the quantitative analysis, the Company determined that the fair value of the CDW UK reporting unit exceeded its carrying value and no impairment existed.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 162 Following are the amounts of Entergy Gulf States' planned construction and other capital investments, existing debt and lease obligations, and other purchase obligations:
## Table 1 ##
(1) Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements.
(2) Unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations are discussed in Note 9 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements under “Fuel Supply Agreements” and “Power Purchase Agreements.
” (3) It is expected that additional financing under these leases will be arranged as needed to acquire additional fuel, to pay interest, and to pay maturing debt.
If such additional financing cannot be arranged, however, the lessee in each case must repurchase sufficient nuclear fuel to allow the lessor to meet its obligations.
The planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Gulf States reflects capital required to support existing business and customer growth.
The estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, and the ability to access capital.
Management provides more information on construction expenditures and long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5, 6, 7, and 9 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements.
As a wholly-owned subsidiary, Entergy Gulf States dividends its earnings to Entergy Corporation at a percentage determined monthly.
Currently, all of Entergy Gulf States' retained earnings are available for distribution.
Sources of Capital Entergy Gulf States' sources to meet its capital requirements include:  internally generated funds;  cash on hand;  debt issuances; and  bank financing under new or existing facilities.
In 2002, Entergy Gulf States issued $340 million of long-term debt.
The net proceeds were used to redeem or repurchase prior to maturity, or to repay at maturity, $339 million of Entergy Gulf States' outstanding debt with 2003 maturities.
Entergy Gulf States is expected to continue refinancing or redeeming higher-cost debt and preferred stock prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.
All debt and common and preferred stock issuances by Entergy Gulf States require prior regulatory approval.
Preferred stock and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its corporate charter, bond indentures, and other agreements.
Short-term borrowings by Entergy Gulf States, including borrowings under the money pool, are limited to an amount authorized by the SEC, $340 million.
Under the SEC order authorizing the short-term borrowing limits, Entergy Gulf States cannot incur new short-term indebtedness if its common equity would comprise less than 30% of its capital.
In addition, this order restricts Entergy Gulf States from publicly issuing new long-term debt unless its
Deferred fuel costs The domestic utility companies are allowed to recover certain fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.
The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the domestic utility companies' financial statements.
The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 that has been or will be recovered or (refunded) through the fuel mechanisms of the domestic utility companies.
## Table 2 ##
Entergy Arkansas Entergy Arkansas' rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly bills.
The rider utilizes prior year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an annual energy cost rate.
The energy cost rate includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior calendar year.
As a result of reduced fuel and purchased power costs in 2001 and the accumulated over-recovery of 2001 energy costs, Entergy Arkansas decreased the energy cost rate effective April 2002.
In September 2002, Entergy Arkansas filed and the APSC approved an interim revision to the energy cost rate effective October 2002 through March 2003.
Entergy Arkansas reduced the energy cost rate to offset the accumulated over-recovery of energy costs through June 2002 and the projected over-recovery through December 2002.
The revised energy cost rate will be effective through March 2003 when the annual energy cost rate redetermination will be filed for the period April 2003 through March 2004.
Entergy Gulf States In the Texas jurisdiction, Entergy Gulf States' rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including carrying charges, not recovered in base rates.
Under current methodology, semiannual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas.
Entergy Gulf States will likely continue to use this methodology until the start of retail open access.
The amounts collected under Entergy Gulf States' fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge implemented until the date retail open access commences are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.
In the Texas jurisdiction, Entergy Gulf States' deferred electric fuel costs are $91.8 million as of December 31, 2002, which includes the following:
## Table 3 ##
The PUCT has ordered that the imputed capacity charges be excluded from fuel rates and therefore recovered through base rates.
It is uncertain, however, when or if a base rate proceeding before the PUCT will be initiated.
The current settlement agreement delaying retail open access in Texas requires a rate freeze during the delay
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 32 Following is a summary of the amount of Energy Commodity Services' output and installed capacity that is currently sold forward under physical or financial contracts at fixed prices:
## Table 4 ##
Entergy continually monitors industry trends in order to determine whether asset impairments or other losses could result from a decline in value, or cancellation, of merchant power projects, and records provisions for impairments and losses accordingly.
As discussed in "Results of Operations" above, in 2004 Entergy determined that the value of the Warren power plant owned by the non-nuclear wholesale assets business was impaired, and recorded the appropriate provision for the loss.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk Entergy Gulf States, System Fuels, and Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business enter into foreign currency forward contracts to hedge the Euro-denominated payments due under certain purchase contracts.
The notional amounts of the foreign currency forward contracts are 95.5 million Euro and the forward currency rates range from .8641 to 1.33020.
The maturities of these forward contracts depend on the purchase contract payment dates and range in time from January 2005 to January 2007.
The mark-to-market valuation of the forward contracts at December 31, 2004 was a net asset of $28.1 million.
The counterparty banks obligated on these agreements are rated by Standard & Poor's Rating Services at AA on their senior debt obligations as of December 31, 2004.
Interest Rate and Equity Price Risk - Decommissioning Trust Funds Entergy's nuclear decommissioning trust funds are exposed to fluctuations in equity prices and interest rates.
The NRC requires Entergy to maintain trusts to fund the costs of decommissioning ANO 1, ANO 2, River Bend, Waterford 3, Grand Gulf, Pilgrim, Indian Point 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee (NYPA currently retains the decommissioning trusts and liabilities for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick).
The funds are invested primarily in equity securities; fixed-rate, fixed-income securities; and cash and cash equivalents.
Management believes that exposure of the various funds to market fluctuations will not affect Entergy's financial results of operations as it relates to the ANO 1 and 2, River Bend, Grand Gulf, and Waterford 3 trust funds because of the application of regulatory accounting principles.
The Pilgrim, Indian Point 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee trust funds collectively hold approximately $952 million of fixed-rate, fixed-income securities as of December 31, 2004.
These securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 5.4%, an average duration of approximately 5.2 years, and an average maturity of approximately 7.9 years.
The Pilgrim, Indian Point 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee trust funds also collectively hold equity securities worth approximately $450 million as of December 31, 2004.
These securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate or somewhat exceed the return of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, and a relatively small percentage of the securities are held in a fund intended to replicate the return of the Wilshire 4500 Index.
The decommissioning trust funds are discussed more thoroughly in Notes 1, 8, and 15 to the consolidated financial statements
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 37 changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.
The FERC also deferred further action on the question of whether it provided sufficient rationale for not ordering refunds, and whether it impermissibly delayed implementation of the bandwidth remedy, until resolution of this paper hearing.
Entergy's Utility Operating Companies' Compliance Filing In April 2006, the Utility operating companies filed with the FERC their compliance filing to implement the provisions of the FERC's decision.
The filing amended the System Agreement to provide for the calculation of production costs, average production costs, and payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies to the extent required to maintain rough production cost equalization pursuant to the FERC's decision.
The FERC accepted the compliance filing in November 2006, with limited modifications.
Provisions of the compliance filing as approved by the FERC include: the first payments commenced in June 2007, rather than earlier; interest is not required on the unpaid balance; and any payments will be made over seven months, rather than 12.
In April 2007, the FERC denied various requests for rehearing, with one exception regarding the issue of retrospective refunds.
That issue will be addressed subsequent to the remanded proceeding involving the interruptible load decision discussed further below in this section under "Interruptible Load Proceeding. "
Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates Each year Entergy has filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC's orders in the System Agreement proceeding.
These filings show the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies are necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC's orders:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>(in millions)</td><td>Corporate</td><td>Small Business<sup>-2</sup></td><td>Public</td><td>Other<sup>-4</sup></td><td>Consolidated</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31, 2014<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$1,045.9</td><td>$185.9</td><td>$911.3</td><td>$74.5</td><td>$2,217.6</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency translation</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-22.4</td><td>-22.4</td></tr><tr><td>Acquisition</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>305.2</td><td>305.2</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31, 2015<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1,045.9</td><td>185.9</td><td>911.3</td><td>357.3</td><td>2,500.4</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency translation</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-45.4</td><td>-45.4</td></tr><tr><td>CDW Advanced Services Allocation<sup>-3</sup></td><td>28.2</td><td>—</td><td>18.3</td><td>-46.5</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31, 2016<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1,074.1</td><td>185.9</td><td>929.6</td><td>265.4</td><td>2,455.0</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency translation</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>24.6</td><td>24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Balances as of December 31, 2017<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$1,074.1</td><td>$185.9</td><td>$929.6</td><td>$290.0</td><td>$2,479.6</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> 2003</td><td> 2004</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2006-2007</td><td> after 2007</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> (In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Planned construction and</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>capital investment</td><td>$236</td><td>$226</td><td>$230</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt maturities</td><td>$293</td><td>$654</td><td>$98</td><td>$200</td><td>$1,007</td></tr><tr><td>Capital and operating lease payments -1</td><td>$29</td><td>$28</td><td>$17</td><td>$24</td><td>$14</td></tr><tr><td>Unconditional fuel and purchased</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>power obligations -2</td><td>$28</td><td>$24</td><td>$2</td><td>$4</td><td>$25</td></tr><tr><td>Nuclear fuel lease obligations -1(3)</td><td>$29</td><td>$12</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Interim surcharge</td><td>$53.9 million</td></tr><tr><td>Items to be addressed as part of unbundling</td><td>$29.0 million</td></tr><tr><td>Imputed capacity charges</td><td>$ 8.6 million</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>$ 0.3 million</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> 2002</td><td> 2001</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">(In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Arkansas</td><td>$-42.6</td><td>$17.2</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Gulf States</td><td>$ 100.6</td><td>$ 126.7</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Louisiana</td><td>$ -25.6 </td><td>$ -67.5 </td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Mississippi</td><td>$ 38.2</td><td>$ 106.2</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy New Orleans</td><td>$ -14.9 </td><td>$ -10.2 </td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> 2005</td><td> 2006</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2009</td></tr><tr><td> Energy Commodity Services:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Capacity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Planned MW in operation</td><td>1,578</td><td>1,578</td><td>1,578</td><td>1,578</td><td>1,578</td></tr><tr><td>% of capacity sold forward</td><td>44%</td><td>33%</td><td>29%</td><td>29%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Planned generation (TWh)</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>% of planned generation sold forward</td><td>69%</td><td>54%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Blended Capacity and Energy (based on revenues)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>% of planned energy and capacity sold forward</td><td>63%</td><td>44%</td><td>38%</td><td>39%</td><td>22%</td></tr><tr><td>Average contract revenue per MWh</td><td>$24</td><td>$24</td><td>$28</td><td>$28</td><td>$21</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the average of Planned MW in operation in 2005, 2006, and 2007?
Answer: 1578
Reasoning program: add(1578,1578), add(#0,1578), divide(#1,const_3)