Part I Item 1 Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy 206 Fuel Supply The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2009-2011 were:
## Table 0 ##
Actual 2011 and projected 2012 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
## Table 1 ##
(a) Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2011 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2012.
(b) Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.
Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are capable of also using fuel oil, if necessary.
Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2012, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.
Natural Gas The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation.
Long-term firm contracts for power plants comprise less than 25% of the Utility operating companies' total requirements.
Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.
Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.
Entergy Louisiana has a long-term natural gas supply contract, which expires January 1, 2013, in which Entergy Louisiana agreed to purchase natural gas in annual amounts equal to approximately one-third of its projected annual fuel requirements for certain generating units.
Annual demand charges associated with this
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Plan to Spin Off the Utility’s Transmission Business See the “Plan to Spin Off the Utility’s Transmission Business” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of this matter, including the planned retirement of debt and preferred securities.
Results of Operations Net Income 2011 Compared to 2010 Net income decreased $7.7 million primarily due to a higher effective income tax rate, lower other income, and higher other operation and maintenance expenses, substantially offset by higher net revenue, lower depreciation and amortization expenses, and lower interest expense.2010 Compared to 2009 Net income increased $105.7 million primarily due to higher net revenue, a lower effective income tax rate, higher other income, and lower depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses.
Net Revenue 2011 Compared to 2010 Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits).
Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2011 to 2010.
## Table 2 ##
The retail electric price variance is primarily due to a base rate increase effective July 2010.
See Note 2 to the financial statements for more discussion of the rate case settlement.
The ANO decommissioning trust variance is primarily related to the deferral of investment gains from the ANO 1 and 2 decommissioning trust in 2010 in accordance with regulatory treatment.
The gains resulted in an increase in 2010 in interest and investment income and a corresponding increase in regulatory charges with no effect on net income.
ENTERGY GULF STATES LOUISIANA, L. L. C.  MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Plan to Spin Off the Utility’s Transmission Business See the “Plan to Spin Off the Utility’s Transmission Business” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of this matter, including the planned retirement of debt and preferred securities.
Results of Operations Net Income 2011 Compared to 2010 Net income increased $12.3 million primarily due to lower interest expense and lower other operation and maintenance expenses, offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses and a higher effective income tax rate.2010 Compared to 2009 Net income increased $37.7 million primarily due to higher net revenue, a lower effective income tax rate, and lower interest expense, offset by higher other operation and maintenance expenses, lower other income, and higher taxes other than income taxes.
Net Revenue 2011 Compared to 2010 Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory credits.
Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2011 to 2010.
## Table 3 ##
The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in credits passed on to customers as a result of the Act 55 storm cost financing.
See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike” and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the Act 55 storm cost financing.
The volume/weather variance is primarily due to less favorable weather on the residential sector as well as the unbilled sales period.
The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 62 GWh, or 0.3%, in billed electricity usage, primarily due to increased consumption by an industrial customer as a result of the customer’s cogeneration outage and the addition of a new production unit by the industrial customer.
The fuel recovery variance resulted primarily from an adjustment to deferred fuel costs in 2010.
See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of fuel recovery.
Entergy Texas, Inc.  and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis 368 Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Texas has $7.2 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes and payments for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.
See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.
Entergy’s Utility supply plan initiative will continue to seek to transform its generation portfolio with new or repowered generation resources.
Opportunities resulting from the supply plan initiative, including new projects or the exploration of alternative financing sources, could result in increases or decreases in the capital expenditure estimates given above.
The estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints, environmental compliance, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.
Management provides more information on long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements.
As a wholly-owned subsidiary, Entergy Texas pays dividends to Entergy Corporation from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.
Sources of Capital Entergy Texas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include: x internally generated funds; x cash on hand; x debt or preferred stock issuances; and x bank financing under new or existing facilities.
Entergy Texas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt 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 Texas require prior regulatory approval.
Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements.
Entergy Texas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.
Entergy Texas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years:
## Table 4 ##
See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.
Entergy Texas has a credit facility in the amount of $100 million scheduled to expire in August 2012.
No borrowings were outstanding under the facility as of December 31, 2011.
Entergy Texas has obtained short-term borrowing authorization through October 2013 from the FERC under which it may borrow at any one time outstanding, $200 million in the aggregate.
See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Texas’s short-term borrowing limits.
Entergy Texas has also obtained an order from the FERC authorizing long-term securities issuances through July 2013.
Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy Texas’s service territory.
The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution, transmission, and generation infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.
Entergy Texas filed an application in April 2009 seeking a determination that $577.5 million of Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs are recoverable,
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Notes to Financial Statements Accounting for Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits Accounting standards require an employer to recognize in its balance sheet the funded status of its benefit plans.
This is measured as the difference between plan assets at fair value and the benefit obligation.
Entergy uses a December 31 measurement date for its pension and other postretirement plans.
Employers are to record previously unrecognized gains and losses, prior service costs, and any remaining transition asset or obligation (that resulted from adopting prior pension and other postretirement benefits accounting standards) as comprehensive income and/or as a regulatory asset reflective of the recovery mechanism for pension and other postretirement benefit costs in the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective regulatory jurisdictions.
For the portion of Entergy Louisiana that is not regulated, the unrecognized prior service cost, gains and losses, and transition asset/obligation for its pension and other postretirement benefit obligations are recorded as other comprehensive income.
Entergy Louisiana recovers other postretirement benefit costs on a pay-as-you-go basis and records the unrecognized prior service cost, gains and losses, and transition obligation for its other postretirement benefit obligation as other comprehensive income.
Accounting standards also require that changes in the funded status be recorded as other comprehensive income and/or a regulatory asset in the period in which the changes occur.
With regard to pension and other postretirement costs, Entergy calculates the expected return on pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets by multiplying the long-term expected rate of return on assets by the marketrelated value (MRV) of plan assets.
Entergy determines the MRV of pension plan assets by calculating a value that uses a 20-quarter phase-in of the difference between actual and expected returns.
For other postretirement benefit plan assets Entergy uses fair value when determining MRV.
Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Plans’ Assets The Plan Administrator’s trust asset investment strategy is to invest the assets in a manner whereby long-term earnings on the assets (plus cash contributions) provide adequate funding for retiree benefit payments.
The mix of assets is based on an optimization study that identifies asset allocation targets in order to achieve the maximum return for an acceptable level of risk, while minimizing the expected contributions and pension and postretirement expense.
In the optimization studies, the Plan Administrator formulates assumptions about characteristics, such as expected asset class investment returns, volatility (risk), and correlation coefficients among the various asset classes.
The future market assumptions used in the optimization study are determined by examining historical market characteristics of the various asset classes and making adjustments to reflect future conditions expected to prevail over the study period.
The target asset allocation for pension adjusts dynamically based on the pension plans’ funded status.
The current targets are shown below.
The expectation is that the allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the pension plans’ funded status increases.
The following ranges were established to produce an acceptable, economically efficient plan to manage around the targets.
The target and range asset allocation for postretirement assets reflects recommendations made in the latest optimization study.
Entergy’s qualified pension and postretirement weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the target asset allocation and ranges are as follows:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Natural Gas</td><td colspan="2">Nuclear</td><td colspan="2">Coal</td><td colspan="2">PurchasedPower</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>%ofGen</td><td>CentsPerkWh</td><td>%ofGen</td><td>CentsPerkWh</td><td>%ofGen</td><td>CentsPerkWh</td><td>%ofGen</td><td>CentsPerkWh</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>25</td><td>4.85</td><td>34</td><td>.81</td><td>13</td><td>2.31</td><td>28</td><td>4.59</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>22</td><td>5.39</td><td>36</td><td>.78</td><td>13</td><td>2.00</td><td>29</td><td>5.28</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>5.64</td><td>34</td><td>.66</td><td>12</td><td>2.04</td><td>35</td><td>5.29</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Natural Gas</td><td colspan="2">Nuclear</td><td colspan="2">Coal</td><td colspan="2">PurchasedPower</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Arkansas (a)</td><td>3%</td><td>11%</td><td>57%</td><td>52%</td><td>24%</td><td>23%</td><td>16%</td><td>14%</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Gulf States Louisiana</td><td>29%</td><td>31%</td><td>27%</td><td>19%</td><td>10%</td><td>11%</td><td>34%</td><td>39%</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Louisiana</td><td>29%</td><td>27%</td><td>36%</td><td>40%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>33%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Mississippi</td><td>39%</td><td>40%</td><td>23%</td><td>23%</td><td>19%</td><td>20%</td><td>19%</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy New Orleans</td><td>37%</td><td>34%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>9%</td><td>9%</td><td>9%</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Texas</td><td>37%</td><td>19%</td><td>12%</td><td>16%</td><td>9%</td><td>11%</td><td>42%</td><td>54%</td></tr><tr><td>System Energy (b)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Utility (a)</td><td>25%</td><td>23%</td><td>34%</td><td>34%</td><td>13%</td><td>13%</td><td>28%</td><td>30%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Amount (In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>2010 net revenue</td><td>$1,216.7</td></tr><tr><td>Retail electric price</td><td>31.0</td></tr><tr><td>ANO decommissioning trust</td><td>26.4</td></tr><tr><td>Transmission revenue</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Volume/weather</td><td>-15.9</td></tr><tr><td>Net wholesale revenue</td><td>-11.9</td></tr><tr><td>Capacity acquisition recovery</td><td>-10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>2011 net revenue</td><td>$1,252.3</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Amount (In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>2010 net revenue</td><td>$933.6</td></tr><tr><td>Retail electric price</td><td>-20.1</td></tr><tr><td>Volume/weather</td><td>-5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel recovery</td><td>14.8</td></tr><tr><td>Transmission revenue</td><td>12.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-2.1</td></tr><tr><td>2011 net revenue</td><td>$933.4</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>(In Thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>$63,191</td><td>$13,672</td><td>$69,317</td><td>-$50,794</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the ratio of the net income increase in 2010 to the decrease in 2011
Answer: 13.7273
Reasoning program: divide(105.7,7.7)