Annual Report (Form 10-K), fiscal year 1993

Item 1. Business
BUSINESS OF ENTERGY
General
Entergy Corporation was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on May 27, 1949. On December 31, 1993, in connection with the Merger (see "Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger," below), Entergy Corporation merged with and into Entergy-GSU Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Holdings), and Holdings was renamed Entergy Corporation. Entergy Corporation is a holding company registered under the Holding Company Act and does not own or operate any physical properties. Entergy Corporation owns all of the outstanding common stock of five retail operating electric utility subsidiaries, AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI. AP&L was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas in 1926; GSU was incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas in 1925; LP&L and NOPSI were incorporated under the laws of the State of Louisiana in 1974 and 1926, respectively; and MP&L was incorporated under the laws of the State of Mississippi in 1963. As of December 31, 1993, these operating companies provided electric service to approximately 2.3 million customers in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. In addition, GSU furnished gas service in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area, and NOPSI furnished gas service in the City of New Orleans. GSU's steam products department produces and sells, on an unregulated basis, process steam and by- product electricity supplied from its steam electric extraction plant to a large industrial customer. The business of the System is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak period occurring during the third quarter. During 1993, the System's (excluding GSU) electricity sales as a percentage of total System energy sales were: residential - 28.1%; commercial - 19.9%; and industrial - 36.9%. Electric revenues from these sectors as a percentage of total System electric revenues were: 36.3% - residential; 24.4% - commercial; and 27.3% - industrial. Sales to governmental and municipal sectors and to nonaffiliated utilities accounted for the balance of energy sales. During 1993, GSU's electric department sales as a percentage of total GSU energy sales were: residential - 25.5%; commercial - 20.3%; and industrial - 50.8%. Electric revenues from these sectors as a percentage of total GSU electric revenues were: 33.5% - residential; 23.8% - commercial; and 37.2% - industrial. Sales to governmental and municipal sectors and to nonaffiliated utilities accounted for the balance of GSU's energy sales. The System's major industrial customers are in the chemical processing, petroleum refining, paper products, and food products industries.
Entergy Corporation also owns all of the outstanding common stock of System Energy, Entergy Services, Entergy Operations, Entergy Power, and Entergy Enterprises. System Energy is a nuclear generating company that was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas in 1974. System Energy sells the capacity and energy at wholesale from its 90% interest in Grand Gulf 1 to its only customers, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI (see "Capital Requirements and Future Financing - - Certain System Financial and Support Agreements - Unit Power Sales Agreement," below). System Energy has approximately a 78.5% ownership interest and an 11.5% leasehold interest in Grand Gulf 1. Entergy Services provides general executive and advisory services, and accounting, engineering, and other technical services to certain of the System companies, generally at cost. Entergy Operations is a nuclear management company that operates ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1, subject to the owner oversight of AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, respectively. Entergy Power, an independent power producer, owns 809 MW of generating capacity and markets its capacity and energy in the wholesale market outside Arkansas and Missouri and in markets not otherwise presently served by the System. (For further information on regulatory proceedings related to Entergy Power, see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - Entergy Power," below). Entergy Enterprises is a nonutility company that invests in businesses whose products and activities are of benefit to the System's utility business (see "Corporate Development," below). Entergy Enterprises also markets technical expertise developed by the System companies when it is not required in the System's operations. Entergy Enterprises has received SEC approval to provide services to certain nonutility companies in the System. In 1992 and 1993, several new Entergy Corporation subsidiaries were formed to participate in utility projects located outside the System's retail service territory, both domestically and in foreign countries (see "Corporate Development," below).
AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI own, in ownership percentages of 35%, 33%, 19%, and 13%, respectively, all of the common stock of System Fuels, a non-profit subsidiary, that implements and/or maintains certain programs to procure, deliver, and store fuel supplies for the System.
GSU has four wholly-owned subsidiaries: Varibus Corporation, GSG&T, Inc., Southern Gulf Railway Company, and Prudential Oil & Gas, Inc. Varibus Corporation operates intrastate gas pipelines in Louisiana, which are used primarily to transport fuel to two of GSU's generating stations, and has marketed computer-aided engineering and drafting technologies and related computer equipment and services. GSG&T, Inc. owns the Lewis Creek Station, a 532 MW (as of December 31, 1993) gas-fired generating plant, which is leased and operated by GSU. Southern Gulf Railway Company will own and operate several miles of rail track being constructed in Louisiana for the purpose of transporting coal for use as a boiler fuel at Nelson Unit 6. Prudential Oil & Gas, Inc., which was formerly in the business of exploring, developing, and operating oil and gas properties in Texas and Louisiana, is presently inactive.
Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger
On December 31, 1993, Entergy Corporation consummated its acquisition of GSU. Entergy Corporation merged with and into Holdings, and Holdings was renamed Entergy Corporation. GSU became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation and continues to operate as a public utility under the regulation of the PUCT and the LPSC. As consideration to GSU's shareholders, Entergy Corporation paid $250 million in cash and issued 56,667,726 shares of its common stock at a price of $35.8417 per share, in exchange for outstanding shares of GSU common stock. In addition, $33.5 million of transaction costs were capitalized in connection with the Merger. See "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Other Regulation and Litigation," for, information on requests for rehearing and appeals of certain regulatory approvals of the Merger.
The information contained in this Form 10-K is filed on behalf of all the registrants of Entergy, including GSU. Unless otherwise noted, consolidated financial and statistical information contained in this report that is stated as of December 31, 1993 (such as assets, liabilities, and property), includes the associated GSU amounts, and consolidated financial and statistical information for periods ending before January 1, 1994 (such as revenues, sales, and expenses), does not include GSU amounts; those amounts are presented separately for GSU herein.
Certain Industry and System Challenges
The System's business is affected by various challenges and issues including those that confront the electric utility industry in general. These issues and challenges include:
- an increasingly competitive environment (see "Competition," below);
- compliance with regulatory requirements with respect to nuclear operations (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry," below) and environmental matters (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Environmental Regulation," below);
- adaptation to structural changes in the electric utility industry, including increased emphasis on least cost planning and changes in the regulation of generation and transmission of electricity (see "Competition - General" and "Competition - Least Cost Planning," below);
- continued cost management (particularly in the area of operation and maintenance costs at nuclear units) to improve financial results and to delay or to minimize the need for rate increase requests in light of current rate freezes and rate caps at the System operating companies (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters," below);
- integrating GSU into the System's operations and achieving cost savings (see "Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger," above);
- achieving enhanced earnings in light of lower returns and slow growth in the domestic utility business (see "Corporate Development," below); and
- resolving GSU's major contingencies, including potential write- offs and refunds related to River Bend (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters - GSU," below) and litigation with Cajun relating to its ownership interest in River Bend (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Other Regulation and Litigation - GSU," below).
Corporate Development
Entergy continues to consider new opportunities to expand its regulated electric utility business, as well as to expand into utility and utility-related businesses that are not regulated by state and local regulatory authorities (nonregulated businesses). Investments in nonregulated businesses are likely to draw upon the System's skills in power generation and customer service as well as its strengths in the fuels area. Entergy Corporation's investment strategy with respect to nonregulated businesses is to invest in nonregulated business opportunities wherein Entergy Corporation has the potential to earn a greater rate of return compared to its regulated utility operations. Entergy Corporation's nonregulated businesses fall into two broad categories: overseas power development and new electro- technologies. Entergy Corporation has made investments in Argentina's electric energy infrastructure, as described below, and is pursuing additional projects in Central America, South America, South Africa, and Asia. Entergy Corporation will also open offices in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Hong Kong in 1994. In addition, Entergy Corporation is seeking to provide telecommunications services based upon its experience with interactive communications systems that allow customers to control energy usage. Entergy Corporation expects to invest approximately $150 million per year in nonregulated businesses.
Current investments in nonregulated businesses include the following:
(1) Entergy Corporation's subsidiary, Entergy Power Development Corporation (an EWG under the provisions of the Energy Act), through its subsidiary (which is also an EWG) Entergy Richmond Power Corporation, owns a 50% interest in an independent power plant in Richmond, Virginia. The power plant is jointly-owned and operated by the Enron Power Corporation, a developer of independent power projects. The plant owners have a 25-year contract to sell electricity to Virginia Electric & Power Company. Entergy Corporation's investment in the project totals approximately $12.5 million.
(2) Entergy Enterprises has a 9.95% equity interest in First Pacific Networks, Inc. (FPN), a communications company, and a license from FPN in connection with utility applications, being jointly developed by Entergy Enterprises and FPN, for FPN's patented communications technology. Entergy Enterprises' investment in FPN is approximately $20.1 million, of which $9.7 million is equity investment.
(3) Entergy Enterprises' subsidiary, Entergy Systems and Service, Inc. (Entergy SASI), holds a 9.95% equity interest in Systems and Service International, Inc. (SASI), a manufacturer of efficient lighting products. This subsidiary also made a loan to SASI, acquired the business and assets of SASI's distribution subsidiary, and entered into an agreement to distribute SASI's products. Entergy Enterprises' initial investment in this business was approximately $11 million (of which $2.3 million is invested in SASI common stock). Entergy Corporation has provided to Entergy SASI $6.0 million in loans, as of December 31, 1993, to fund Entergy SASI's installment sale agreements with its customers.
(4) Entergy Corporation's subsidiary, Entergy, S.A., participated in a consortium with other nonaffiliated companies that acquired a 60% interest in Argentina's Costanera steam electric generating facility consisting of seven natural gas- and oil-fired generating units, with a total installed capacity of 1,260 MW. Entergy Corporation's initial investment to acquire its 10% interest in the consortium was approximately $11 million and its maximum financial obligation currently authorized by the SEC in connection with this investment is $22.5 million.
(5) In January 1993, Entergy Corporation, through a new subsidiary, Entergy Argentina, S.A., participated in a consortium with other nonaffiliated companies that acquired a 51% interest in a foreign electric distribution company providing service to Buenos Aires, Argentina. Entergy Corporation's initial investment to acquire its 10% interest in the consortium was approximately $58 million and its maximum financial obligation currently authorized by the SEC in connection with this investment is $77.5 million.
(6) In July 1993, Entergy Corporation, through a new subsidiary, Entergy Transener, S.A., participated in a consortium with other nonaffiliated companies that acquired a 65% interest in a foreign transmission system providing service in the country of Argentina. Entergy Corporation's initial investment to acquire its 15% interest in the consortium was $18.5 million.
In the near term, these investments are likely to have a minimal effect on earnings; but the possibility exists that they could contribute to future earnings growth. However, due to the absence of an allowed rate of return, these investments involve a higher degree of risk.
International operations are subject to certain risks that are inherent in conducting business abroad, including possible nationalization or expropriation, price and exchange controls, limitations on foreign participation in local governmental enterprises, and other restrictive actions. Changes in the relative value of currencies take place from time to time and their effects may be favorable or unfavorable on results of operations. In addition, there are exchange control restrictions in certain countries relating to repatriation of earnings.
Selected Data
Selected customer and sales data for 1993 are summarized in the following tables:
1993 - Selected Customer Data
Customers as of December 31, 1993 ------------------ Area Served Electric Gas ----------- -------- --- AP&L Portions of State of Arkansas 590,862 - GSU Portions of the States of Texas 593,975 85,040 and Louisiana LP&L Portions of State of Louisiana 599,991 - MP&L Portions of State of Mississippi 361,692 - NOPSI City of New Orleans, except Algiers, is provided electric service by LP&L 190,613 154,251 --------- ------- System 2,337,133 239,291 ========= =======
NOPSI sold 17,437,292 MCF of natural gas to retail customers in 1993. Revenues from natural gas operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1993, were material for NOPSI, but not material for the System (see "Industry Segments," below, for a description of NOPSI's business segments).
GSU sold 6,786,794 MCF of natural gas to retail customers in 1993. Revenues from natural gas operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1993, were not material for GSU.
See "Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Selected Financial Data - - Five-Year Comparison," "AP&L Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," "GSU Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," "LP&L Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," "MP&L Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," "NOPSI Selected Financial Data - - Five-Year Comparison," and "System Energy Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," (which follow each company's notes to financial statements herein) incorporated herein by reference, for further information with respect to operating statistics of the System and of AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and System Energy, respectively.
Employees
As of December 31, 1993, Entergy had 16,679 employees as follows:
Full-time: Entergy Corporation 6 AP&L 2,557 GSU (1) 4,765 LP&L 1,727 MP&L 1,236 NOPSI 716 System Energy - Entergy Operations 3,508 Entergy Services (2) 1,986 Other Subsidiaries 24 ------ Total Full-time 16,525 Part-time 154 ------ Total Entergy System 16,679 ====== __________________
(1) As of December 31, 1993, GSU had not been functionally aligned into Entergy. In December 1993, GSU recorded $17 million for an announced early retirement program in connection with the Merger. Of the 503 employees eligible, 369 employees elected to participate in the program.
(2) As a result of System realignment of operations along functional lines, certain employees of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI transferred to Entergy Services during 1993.
Competition
General. Entergy and the electric utility industry are experiencing increased competitive pressures both in the retail and wholesale markets. The economic, social, and political forces behind these competitive pressures are numerous and complex. They include legislative and regulatory changes, technological advances, consumer demands, greater availability of natural gas, environmental needs, and others. Entergy looks at these competitive pressures both as opportunities to compete for new customers and as risks for loss of customers.
On October 24, 1992, Congress passed the Energy Act. The Energy Act addresses a wide range of energy issues and alters the way Entergy and the rest of the electric utility industry will operate in the future. The Energy Act creates exemptions from regulation under the Holding Company Act and creates a class of EWG's consisting of utility affiliates and nonutilities that are owners and operators of facilities for the generation and transmission of power for sales at wholesale. These exemptions offer an incentive for Entergy to participate in the development of wholesale power generation. In addition, the Holding Company Act has been amended to allow utilities to compete on a global scale with foreign entities to own and operate generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. The Energy Act also gives FERC the authority to order investor-owned utilities, including the System operating companies, to transmit power and energy to or for wholesale purchasers and sellers. The law creates the potential for electric utilities and other power producers to gain increased access to the transmission systems of other entities to facilitate wholesale sales. FERC may also require electric utilities to increase their transmission capacity to provide these services. The impact of this provision on the System operating companies should be lessened by their joint filing of open access transmission service tariffs with FERC in 1991 (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters," below). The Energy Act also amends PURPA by requiring states to consider (1) new regulatory standards that would require electric utilities to undertake integrated resource planning, and (2) allowing energy efficiency programs to be at least as profitable as new energy supply options. Entergy is unable to predict the ultimate impact the Energy Act will have on its operations.
Wholesale Competition. Entergy has, like other utility systems, generating capacity (most of which is owned by Entergy Power) and energy available for a period of time for sale to other utility systems. The System is in competition with neighboring systems, as well as EWG's, to sell such capacity and energy. Given this competition, the ability of the System to sell this capacity and energy is limited. However, in 1993, the System sold 8,291 million KWH of energy (compared to 7,979 million KWH in 1992) to nonaffiliated utilities. The System also sold 1,234 MW of long-term capacity (compared to 1,048 MW in 1992) to nonaffiliated utilities outside of the System's service area. These capacity sales represent 8% of the System's net capability (excluding GSU) at year-end 1993. Under AP&L's and LP&L's Grand Gulf 1 rate orders, and under GSU's River Bend rate order in Louisiana, a portion of the capacity of Grand Gulf 1 and River Bend represents capacity that is available for sale, subject to regulatory approval, to nonaffiliated parties. In some cases, profits from such sales must be shared between ratepayers and shareholders.
As discussed in "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - Open Access Transmission," below, Entergy Power and the System operating companies will be permitted by FERC to make wholesale capacity sales in bulk power markets at rates based primarily upon negotiation and market conditions rather than cost of service. In order to receive authorization to make such sales, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI also filed with FERC open access transmission service tariffs. FERC has approved this filing, subject to certain modifications. Revisions to the tariffs were filed in December 1993 to recognize GSU's inclusion in the Entergy System. When the modified tariffs are made effective, Entergy Power and the System operating companies may engage in sales at market prices. It is anticipated that these tariffs will enable any electric utility (as defined in such tariffs) to use Entergy 's integrated transmission system for the transmission of capacity and energy produced and sold by such electric utility or by third parties. Other similar open access transmission tariffs have also been filed with FERC for several large utility companies or systems and more open access transmission tariffs are anticipated. Concurrently, capacity resources are being developed and used to make wholesale sales from a range of non-traditional sources, including nonutility generators as well as cogenerators and small power producers qualifying under PURPA.
These developments simultaneously produce increased marketing opportunities for utility systems such as Entergy and expose the System to loss of load or reduced sales revenues due to displacement of System sales by alternative suppliers with access to the System's primary areas of service. Entergy Power, which owns 809 MW of capacity, was formed to compete with other utilities and independent power producers in the bulk power market. As of December 31, 1993, Entergy Power has accumulated total losses from operations of $52.5 million. Entergy Power has entered into several long-term contracts for the sale of capacity and associated energy from its resources and has also made short-term capacity and energy sales. Entergy Power continues to actively market its capacity and energy in the bulk power market. (See "Corporate Development," above, for information with respect to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy, Entergy Power Development Corporation, organized as an EWG to compete in the wholesale power market.)
Retail Competition. Scheduled increases in the price of power sold by the System pursuant to the operation of phase-in plans (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate matters - Retail Rate Matters," below) will affect the competitiveness of certain classes of industrial customers whose costs of production are energy-sensitive. Entergy is constantly working with these customers to address their concerns. It is the practice of the System operating companies to negotiate the renewal of contracts with large industrial customers prior to their expiration. In certain cases (particularly for GSU), contracts or special tariffs that use incentive pricing below total cost have been negotiated with industrial customers to keep these customers on the System. These contracts and tariffs have generally resulted in increased KWH sales at lower margins over incremental cost. While the System operating companies anticipate they will be successful in renegotiating such contracts, they cannot assure that they will be successful or that future revenues will not be lost to other forms of generation. To date, through these efforts, Entergy has been largely successful in retaining its industrial load. This competitive challenge could increase.
Cogeneration is generally defined as the combined production of electricity and steam. Cogenerated power may be either sold by its producer to the local utility at its avoided cost under PURPA, or utilized by the cogenerator to displace purchases from the utility. To the extent that cogeneration is used by industrial customers to meet their own power requirements, the System may suffer loss of industrial load. Cogenerated power delivered to the System would be purchased at avoided cost, which for a number of years is expected to be equivalent to avoided energy cost, and as such, the cost of these purchases would not impact earnings. To date, only a few cogeneration facilities have been installed in areas served by the System, excluding GSU. The primary purpose of these facilities is to displace power that was purchased from the System. The economic advantage to the customer is generally due to the customer having waste products that can be used as fuel. Presently, the loss of load to cogeneration and the amount of cogenerated power delivered under PURPA to the System (excluding GSU) is not significant. The System is prepared to participate (subject to regulatory approval) in various phases of the design, construction, procurement, and ownership of cogeneration facilities. The System has entered into several cogeneration deferral agreements with certain of its retail customers, which give the System the right of first refusal to participate in any of such customers' cogeneration activities. Such participation could occur in the event there are individual customers whose long-term interests, along with Entergy's, can best be served by installing cogeneration facilities. No such participation has occurred to date, except by GSU.
Existing qualifying facilities in the GSU service territory are estimated to total approximately 2,400 MW's or over 10% of Entergy's total owned and leased generating capability as of December 31, 1993. GSU currently believes that no significant load will be lost to cogeneration projects during the next several years; however, GSU is currently negotiating a contract with a large industrial customer, which is scheduled to expire in 1996. If the contract is not renewed, GSU would lose approximately $40 million in base revenues.
Although GSU has competed in the past for various retail and wholesale customers, the System (excluding GSU) generally is not in direct competition with privately-owned or municipally-owned electric utilities for retail sales. However, a few municipalities distribute electricity within their corporate limits and some of these generate all or a portion of their requirements. A number of electric cooperative associations or corporations serve a substantial number of retail customers in or adjacent to areas served by the System . Sales of energy by the System to privately- or municipally-owned utilities amounted to approximately 4.6% of total System energy sales in 1993 (excluding GSU).
Legislatures and regulatory commissions in several states have considered, or are considering, retail wheeling, which is the transmission by an electric utility of energy produced by another entity over the utility's transmission and distribution system to a retail customer in the electric utility's service territory. Retail wheeling would permit retail customers to elect to purchase electric capacity and/or energy from the electric utility in whose service area they are located or from any other electric utility or independent power producer. Retail wheeling is not currently required within the Entergy System service area. See "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Other Regulation and Litigation," below for information on proceedings brought by Cajun seeking transmission access to certain of GSU's industrial customers.
Least Cost Planning. The System continues to pursue least cost planning, also known as integrated resource planning, in order to compete more effectively in both retail and wholesale markets. Least cost planning is the development of strategies to add resources to meet future electricity demands reliably and at the lowest possible cost. The least cost planning process includes the study of electric supply- and demand-side options. The resultant plan uses demand-side options, such as changing customer consumption patterns, to limit electricity usage during times of peak demand, thus delaying the need for new capacity resources. Least cost planning offers the potential for the System to minimize customer costs, while providing an opportunity to earn a return.
On December 1, 1992, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI each filed a Least Cost Plan with its respective regulator, and on July 1, 1993, each company filed a near-term revision to such plan. Each Least Cost Plan details the resources that the System intends to use to provide reasonably priced, reliable electric service to its customers over the next 20 years. Such plan includes 925 MW of DSM resources, such as programs for efficient air conditioning and heating, high efficiency lighting, and CCLM. CCLM is the subject of recent Entergy proposals (filed, or to be filed, by AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI with their respective regulators) requesting the CCLM pilot be withdrawn from consideration in the existing Least Cost Plan dockets on the basis of a new proposal by Entergy to undertake the initial pilot development of CCLM at Entergy stockholder expense. To date, the Council and the LPSC are the only regulators that have addressed the proposal. The System expects to spend a total of approximately $800 million for DSM resources over the next 20 years. Such plan also includes significant resource additions, but does not contemplate construction of any generating facilities at new sites. All incremental supply-side resources will come from either delayed retirements or repowering of existing generating units. The System estimates that, over the next 20 years, least cost planning, if implemented in accordance with the terms of each filed Least Cost Plan, will reduce revenue requirements by approximately $2.3 billion ($600 million on a net present value basis), thereby avoiding the need for related rate increase requests. Each Least Cost Plan includes specific actions that the System will undertake pursuant to regulatory approval, including the recovery of costs associated with DSM (for further information, see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters," below).
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AND FUTURE FINANCING
Construction expenditures for the System are estimated to aggregate $586 million, $560 million, and $550 million for the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. No significant costs are expected in connection with the System's generating facilities. Actual construction costs may vary from these estimates because of a number of factors, including changes in load growth estimates, changes in environmental regulations, modifications to nuclear units to meet regulatory requirements, increasing costs of labor, equipment and materials, and cost of capital.
Construction expenditures by company (including immaterial environmental expenditures and AFUDC, but excluding nuclear fuel and the impact of the ice storm that occurred in February 1994) for the period 1994-1996 are estimated as follows:
1994 1995 1996 Total ---- ---- ---- ----- (In Millions)
AP&L $181 $172 $175 $528 GSU 134 128 119 381 LP&L 156 143 142 441 MP&L 61 63 63 187 NOPSI 26 26 26 78 System Energy 26 22 23 71 Entergy Power 2 6 2 10 System $586 $560 $550 $1,696
In addition to construction expenditure requirements, the estimated amounts required during 1994-1996 to meet scheduled long- term debt and preferred stock maturities and cash sinking fund requirements are: AP&L - $83 million; GSU - $214 million; LP&L - $158 million; MP&L - $212 million; NOPSI - $80 million; and System Energy - $615 million. A substantial portion of the above capital and refinancing requirements is expected to be satisfied from internally generated funds and cash on hand supplemented by the issuance of debt and preferred stock. Certain System companies may also continue with the acquisition or refinancing of all, or a portion of, certain outstanding series of preferred stock and long-term debt.
In early February 1994, an ice storm left more than 221,000 Entergy customers without electric power across the System's four- state service area. The storm was the most severe natural disaster ever to affect the System, causing damage to transmission and distribution lines, equipment, poles, and facilities in certain areas, particularly in Mississippi. A substantial portion of the related costs, which are estimated to be $110 million - $140 million, are expected to be capitalized. The MPSC acknowledged that there is precedent in Mississippi for recovery of certain costs associated with storms and natural disasters and the restoration of service resulting from such events. MP&L plans to immediately file for rate recovery of the costs related to the ice storm (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters - MP&L," below).
Entergy Corporation's current primary capital requirements are to periodically invest in, or make loans to, its subsidiaries. Entergy Corporation has SEC authorization to make additional investments in Entergy Power, Entergy S.A., Entergy Argentina, S.A., Entergy Transener, S.A., Entergy SASI, and FPN. Entergy Corporation expects to meet these requirements in 1994-1996 with internally generated funds and cash on hand. Entergy receives funds through dividend payments from its subsidiaries. Certain restrictions may limit the amount of these distributions. See Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 2, "Rate and Regulatory Matters" and Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," incorporated herein by reference, regarding River Bend rate appeals and pending litigation with Cajun. Substantial write- offs or charges resulting from adverse rulings in these matters could adversely affect GSU's ability to continue to pay dividends.
Entergy Corporation continues to consider new opportunities to expand its electric energy business, including expansion into related nonregulated businesses. Entergy Corporation expects to invest up to approximately $150 million per year over the next three years in nonregulated business opportunities. Entergy Corporation may finance any such expansion with cash on hand. Further, shareholder and/or regulatory approvals may be required for such acquisitions to take place. Also, Entergy Corporation has SEC authorization to repurchase shares of its outstanding common stock. Market conditions and board authorization determine the amount of repurchases. Entergy Corporation has requested SEC authorization for a $300 million bank line of credit, the proceeds of which are expected to be used for common stock repurchases and other optional activities.
(For further information on the capital and refinancing requirements, capital resources, and short-term borrowing arrangements of AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and System Energy, respectively, refer in each case to AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, MP&L's, NOPSI's, and System Energy's "Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis - Liquidity and Capital Resources," Note 4 of AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, MP&L's, NOPSI's, and System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Lines of Credit and Related Borrowings," Note 5 of AP&L's and NOPSI's Notes to Financial Statements, "Preferred Stock", Note 5 of GSU's Notes to Financial Statements, "Preferred, Preference and Common Stock", Note 5 of LP&L's and MP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Preferred and Common Stock," Note 6 of AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, MP&L's, and NOPSI's and Note 5 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Long-Term Debt," and Note 8 of AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, MP&L's, and NOPSI's and Note 7 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies - Capital Requirements and Financing," each incorporated herein by reference. For further information concerning Entergy Corporation's capital requirements and resources, refer to Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' "Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis - Liquidity and Capital Resources," and Note 4 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, "Lines of Credit and Related Borrowings," incorporated herein by reference. For further information on the subsequent event, see Note 12 of AP&L's and Note 11 of MP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Subsequent Event (Unaudited)," incorporated herein by reference.)
Certain System Financial and Support Agreements
Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity and energy from System Energy's 90% ownership and leasehold interest in Grand Gulf 1 (and the costs related thereto) to AP&L (36%), LP&L (14%), MP&L (33%), and NOPSI (17%). AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI pay rates to System Energy for their respective entitlements of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered, so long as Grand Gulf 1 remains in commercial operation. Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy's only source of operating revenues. The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf 1 and upon the receipt of payments from AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI. (See "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - System Energy," below for further information with respect to proceedings relating to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.)
Availability Agreement. The Availability Agreement was entered into among System Energy and AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy of the Grand Gulf Station. The agreement provided that System Energy would join in the agreement among AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI for the sharing of generating capacity and other capacity and energy resources on or before the date on which Grand Gulf 1 was placed in commercial operation. It also provided that System Energy would make available to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI all capacity and energy available from System Energy's share of the Grand Gulf Station. System Energy and AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI further agreed that if this agreement were terminated, or if any of the parties thereto withdrew from it, then System Energy would enter into a separate agreement with all of such parties or the withdrawing party, as the case may be, with respect to the purchase of capacity and energy on the same terms as if this agreement were still controlling.
AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy available from the Grand Gulf Station in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, or otherwise) would be at least equal to System Energy's total operating expenses for the Grand Gulf Station (including depreciation at a specified rate) and interest charges.
As amended to date, the Availability Agreement provides that:
- the obligation of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI for payments for Grand Gulf 1 became effective upon commercial operation of Grand Gulf 1 on July 1, 1985;
- the sale of capacity and energy generated by the Grand Gulf Station may be governed by a separate power purchase agreement among System Energy and AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI;
- the September 1989 write-off of System Energy's investment in Grand Gulf 2, amounting to approximately $900 million, will be amortized for Availability Agreement purposes over 27 years rather than in the month the write-off was recognized on System Energy's books; and
- the allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: AP&L - 17.1%; LP&L - 26.9%; MP&L - 31.3%; and NOPSI - 24.7%.
As noted above, the Unit Power Sales Agreement provides for different allocation percentages for sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf 1. However, the allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement remain in effect and would govern payments made thereunder in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments by AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.
System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI under the Availability Agreement as security for its first mortgage bonds and reimbursement obligations to certain banks providing the letters of credit in connection with the equity funding of the sale and leaseback transactions described under "Sale and Leaseback Arrangements - System Energy," below. In these assignments, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI further agreed that in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (if, for example, FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates; see the second succeeding paragraph), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.
Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI shall make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI shall make those payments directly to the holders of indebtedness secured by such assignment agreements. The payments shall be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.
The obligations of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals. Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No filing with FERC has been required because sales of capacity and energy from the Grand Gulf Station are being made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Other aspects of the Availability Agreement, including the obligations of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to make subordinated advances, are subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC under the Holding Company Act, which approval has been obtained. If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to FERC for approval. (Refer to the second preceding paragraph.)
Amounts that have been received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement. Consequently, no payments under the Availability Agreement by AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI have ever been required. If AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, or NOPSI became unable in whole or in part to continue making payments to System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, and System Energy were unable to procure funds from other sources sufficient to cover any potential shortfall between the amount owing under the Availability Agreement and the amount of continuing payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement plus other funds then available to System Energy, LP&L and NOPSI could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement or the assignments thereof for the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments. The amount, if any, which these companies would become liable to pay or advance, over and above amounts they would be paying under the Unit Power Sales Agreement for capacity and energy from Grand Gulf 1, would depend on a variety of factors (especially the degree of any such shortfall and System Energy's access to other funds). It cannot be predicted whether any such claims or demands, if made and upheld, could be satisfied. In NOPSI's case, if any such claims or demands were upheld, the holders of certain of NOPSI's outstanding general and refunding mortgage bonds could require redemption of their bonds at par. The ability of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to sustain payments under the Availability Agreement and the assignments thereof in material amounts without substantially equivalent recovery from their customers would be limited by their respective available cash resources and financing capabilities at the time.
The ability of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to recover from their customers payments made under the Availability Agreement, or under the assignments thereof, would depend upon the outcome of regulatory proceedings before the state and local regulatory authorities having jurisdiction. In view of the controversies that arose over the allocation of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf 1 pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement, opposition to recovery would be likely and the outcome of such proceedings, should they occur, is not predictable.
Reallocation Agreement. On November 18, 1981, the SEC authorized LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI to indemnify AP&L against principally its responsibilities and obligations with respect to the Grand Gulf Station contained in the Availability Agreement and the assignments thereof. The revised percentages of allocated capacity of System Energy's share of Grand Gulf 1 and Grand Gulf 2 were, respectively: LP&L - 38.57% and 26.23%; MP&L - 31.63% and 43.97%; and NOPSI - 29.80% and 29.80%. FERC's decision allocating the capacity and energy of Grand Gulf 1 to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI supersedes the Reallocation Agreement insofar as it relates to Grand Gulf 1. However, responsibility for any Grand Gulf 2 amortization amounts (see "Availability Agreement," above) has been allocated to LP&L - 26.23%, MP&L - 43.97%, and NOPSI - 29.80% under the terms of the Reallocation Agreement. The Reallocation Agreement does not affect the obligation of AP&L to System Energy's lenders under the assignments referred to in the fifth preceding paragraph, and AP&L would be liable for its share of such amounts if LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI were unable to meet their contractual obligations. No payments of any amortization amounts will be required as long as amounts paid to System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, together with other funds available to System Energy, exceed amounts required under the Availability Agreement, which is expected to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Capital Funds Agreement. System Energy and Entergy Corporation have entered into the Capital Funds Agreement whereby Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply to System Energy sufficient capital to (1) maintain System Energy's equity capital at an amount equal to a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding short-term debt), and (2) permit the continuation of commercial operation of Grand Gulf 1 and to pay in full all indebtedness for borrowed money of System Energy when due under any circumstances.
Entergy Corporation has entered into various supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement, and System Energy has assigned its rights thereunder as security for its first mortgage bonds and reimbursement obligations to certain banks providing letters of credit in connection with the equity funding of the sale and leaseback transactions described under "Sale and Leaseback Arrangements - System Energy," below. Each such supplement provides that permitted indebtedness for borrowed money incurred by System Energy in connection with the financing of the Grand Gulf Station may be secured by System Energy's rights under the Capital Funds Agreement on a pro rata basis (except for the Specific Payments, as hereinafter defined). In addition, in the particular supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement relating to the specific indebtedness being secured, Entergy Corporation has agreed to make cash capital contributions to System Energy sufficient to enable System Energy to make payments when due on such indebtedness (Specific Payments).
Except with respect to the Specific Payments, which have been approved by the SEC under the Holding Company Act, the performance by both Entergy Corporation and System Energy of their obligations under the Capital Funds Agreement, as supplemented, is subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all governmental authorizations necessary to permit such performance, including approval by the SEC under the Holding Company Act. Each of the supplemental agreements provides that Entergy Corporation shall make its payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, Entergy Corporation shall make those payments directly to the holders of indebtedness secured by the supplemental agreements. The payments (other than the Specific Payments) shall be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured by the supplemental agreements.
Sale and Leaseback Arrangements
LP&L. On September 28, 1989, LP&L entered into arrangements for the sale and leaseback of an approximate aggregate 9.3% ownership interest in Waterford 3. LP&L has options to terminate the leases and to repurchase the sold interests in Waterford 3 at certain intervals during the basic terms of the leases. Further, at the end of the terms of the leases, LP&L has options to renew the leases or to repurchase the interests in Waterford 3. If LP&L does not exercise its options to repurchase the interests in Waterford 3 on the fifth anniversary (September 28, 1994) of the closing date of the sale and leaseback transactions, LP&L will be required to provide collateral to the owner participants for the equity portion of certain amounts payable by LP&L under the lease. The required collateral is either a bank letter or letters of credit or the pledging of new series of first mortgage bonds issued by LP&L under its first mortgage bond indenture. (For further information on LP&L's sale and leaseback arrangements, including the required maintenance by LP&L of specified capitalization and fixed charge coverage ratios, see Note 9 of LP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Leases - Waterford 3 Lease Obligations," incorporated herein by reference.)
System Energy. On December 28, 1988, System Energy entered into arrangements for the sale and leaseback of an 11.5% ownership interest in Grand Gulf 1. System Energy has options to terminate the leases and to repurchase the undivided interest in Grand Gulf 1 at certain intervals during the basic lease term. Further, System Energy has an option at the end of the basic lease term to renew the leases or to repurchase the undivided interest in Grand Gulf 1. In connection with the equity funding of the sale and leaseback arrangements, letters of credit are required to be maintained by System Energy under the leases to secure certain amounts payable for the benefit of the equity investors. The letters of credit currently maintained are effective until January 15, 1997. Under the provisions of a reimbursement agreement, dated December 1, 1988, as amended, entered into by System Energy and various banks in connection with the sale and leaseback arrangements related to the letters of credit, System Energy has agreed to a number of covenants relating to, among other things, the maintenance of certain capitalization and fixed charge ratios. In connection with an audit of System Energy by FERC, if a decision of FERC issued on August 4, 1992 (August 4 Order) is ultimately sustained and implemented, System Energy would need to obtain the consent of certain banks to waive the capitalization and fixed charge coverage covenants for a limited period of time in order to avoid violation of such covenants. System Energy has obtained the consent of the banks to waive these covenants for the twelve-month period beginning with the earlier of the write-off or the first refund, if the August 4 Order is implemented prior to December 31, 1994. Absent a waiver, failure by System Energy to perform these covenants could give rise to a draw under the letters of credit and/or an early termination of the letters of credit, and, if such letters of credit were not replaced in a timely manner, could result in a default under, or other early termination of, System Energy's leases. (For further information on the potential effects of the August 4 Order on System Energy's financial condition, see Note 2 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - FERC Audit," incorporated herein by reference, and for a further discussion of the provisions of System Energy's Reimbursement Agreement, see System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, Note 6, "Dividend Restrictions" and Note 7, "Commitments and Contingencies - Reimbursement Agreement," incorporated herein by reference.)
RATE MATTERS AND REGULATION
RATE MATTERS
The System operating companies' retail rates are regulated by their respective state and/or local regulatory authorities, as described below, and their rates for wholesale sales (including intrasystem sales pursuant to the System Agreement) and interstate transmission of electricity are regulated by FERC. Rates for System Energy's sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf 1 to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement are also regulated by FERC.
Wholesale Rate Matters
GSU. For information, see "Retail Rate Matters - GSU," below and "Regulation - Other Regulation and Litigation - GSU," below.
System Energy. As described above under "Certain System Financial and Support Agreements," System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf 1 through rates charged to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI for Grand Gulf 1 capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Several proceedings currently pending or recently concluded at FERC affect these rates.
In connection with an audit report covering a review of System Energy's books and records for the years 1986-1988, on August 4, 1992, FERC issued an opinion and order (1) finding that System Energy overstated its Grand Gulf 1 utility plant by approximately $95 million for costs included in utility plant that are related to the System's income tax allocation procedures, and (2) requiring System Energy to make adjusting accounting entries and refunds, with interest, to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI within 90 days from the date of the order. System Energy requested a rehearing of the order, and on October 5, 1992, FERC issued an order allowing additional time for its consideration of such request and deferring System Energy's refund obligation until 30 days following issuance of FERC's order on rehearing. (For further information on FERC's order and its potential effect on System Energy's and Entergy's consolidated financial position, see Note 2 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements and Note 2 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - FERC Audit," incorporated herein by reference.)
In a separate proceeding, on August 24, 1992, FERC instituted an investigation of the justness and reasonableness of certain of Entergy's formula wholesale rates, including System Energy's rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Various regulatory authorities intervened in the proceeding. On August 2, 1993, Entergy and the intervenors settled the proceeding and agreed that System Energy's rate of return on equity would be reduced from 13% to 11%, and such rate would remain in effect until at least August 1995. Refunds were payable by System Energy with respect to the period from November 2, 1992, through the effective date of the settlement. FERC approved the settlement on October 25, 1993, and System Energy credited AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI with an aggregate of $29.6 million on their October 1993 bills. This matter is now final. (See Note 2 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - FERC Return on Equity Case," incorporated herein by reference.)
Entergy Power. In 1990, authorizations were obtained from the SEC, FERC, the APSC, and the Public Service Commission of Missouri for Entergy Power to purchase AP&L's interests in Independence 2 and Ritchie 2, and to begin marketing the capacity and energy from the units in certain wholesale markets. The SEC order approving various aspects of the transaction was appealed by various intervenors in the proceeding to the D.C. Circuit, which reversed a portion of the order and remanded the case to the SEC for consideration of the effect of the transfers on the System's future costs of replacement generating capacity and fuel. In response to a June 24, 1993 SEC order setting a procedural schedule for the filing of further pleadings in the proceeding, in July 1993, the Entergy parties filed a post-effective amendment to their application addressing the issues specified in the SEC order. On September 9, 1993, the City of New Orleans and the LPSC each requested a hearing. However, on January 5, 1994, the City of New Orleans withdrew from the proceeding, as agreed in its settlement with NOPSI of various issues related to the Merger.
System Agreement. AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI engage in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generation and transmission facilities pursuant to the terms of the System Agreement (described under "Property - Generating Stations," below). GSU became a party to the System Agreement upon consummation of the merger of Entergy's and GSU's electric systems, and GSU now participates in this System-wide coordination. For further information, see Note 2 of GSU's Notes to Financial Statements and Note 2 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - Merger-Related Rate Agreements."
In connection with the Merger, FERC approved certain rate schedule changes to integrate GSU into the System Agreement. Certain commitments were adopted to provide reasonable assurance that the ratepayers of the existing Entergy operating companies will not be allocated higher costs, including, among other things: (1) a tracking mechanism to protect operating companies from certain unexpected increases in fuel costs; (2) excluding GSU from the distribution of profits from power sales contracts entered into prior to the Merger; (3) a methodology to estimate the cost of capital in future FERC proceedings; and (4) a stipulation that the operating companies will be insulated from certain direct effects on capacity equalization payments should GSU, due to a finding of imprudent GSU management prior to the Merger, be required to purchase Cajun's 30% share in River Bend. See "Regulation - Other Regulation and Litigation," for information on requests for rehearing of FERC's approval.
On August 20, l990, the City of New Orleans filed a complaint against Entergy Corporation, AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and System Energy requesting that FERC investigate AP&L's transfer of its interest in Independence 2 and Ritchie 2 to Entergy Power (see "Entergy Power," above) and the effect of the transfer on AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI and their ratepayers. Various parties, including certain of the System's state regulators, intervened in the proceeding. FERC issued an order on March 19, 1991, setting for investigation (l) the question of whether overall billings under the System Agreement will increase as a result of the transfer to Entergy Power, and (2) if so, whether such increased billings reflect prudently incurred costs that may reasonably be charged under the System Agreement. In two separate decisions with respect to these issues, the FERC ALJ assigned to the matter ruled on May 14, l992 and October 30, 1992, respectively, that there was sufficient evidence to show that overall billings would increase as a result of the transfer, but that the transfer was prudent. On December 15, 1993, FERC issued an opinion declining to address the prudence issue until a future time when replacement capacity has been added or planned and finding that, until such time, billings under the System Agreement as affected by the transfer of the two units are reasonable. The Entergy parties and the City of New Orleans each filed a request for rehearing of this order. If FERC's decision were reversed and any refunds were ordered, they would be retroactive to October 19, 1990.
Open Access Transmission. On August 2, 1991, Entergy Services, as agent for AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and Entergy Power, submitted to FERC (1) proposed tariffs that, subject to certain conditions, would provide to electric utilities "open access" to the System's integrated transmission system, and (2) rate schedules providing for sales of wholesale power at market-based rates. Under FERC policy, sales of power at market-based rates would be permitted only if FERC found, among other things, that Entergy did not have market power over transmission. Permitting "open access" to the System's transmission system helps support such a finding. Various parties, including the Council, the APSC, the MPSC, and the LPSC, intervened in the proceeding. On March 3, 1992, FERC approved the filing, with some modifications, and on August 7, l992, FERC denied rehearing of its March 1992 order. On August 24, l992, various parties filed petitions with the D.C. Circuit for review of FERC's 1992 orders, and these petitions have been consolidated. The revised tariffs, submitted by Entergy Services in response to FERC's 1992 orders, were accepted for filing and made effective, subject to further modifications, by order dated April 5, l993. Entergy Services made a further compliance filing on May 5, l993, reflecting these modifications and requesting reconsideration of certain limited matters, which is subject to approval by FERC. On December 31, 1993, Entergy Services filed revisions to the transmission service tariff to recognize GSU's inclusion in the Entergy System. These matters are pending.
Retail Rate Matters
General. AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI currently have retail rate structures sufficient to recover their costs, including costs associated with their allocated shares of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf 1 under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, and a return on equity. Certain costs related to Grand Gulf 1 (and in LP&L's case, Waterford 3 are being phased-into retail rates over a period of time, in order to avoid the "rate shock" associated with increasing rates to reflect all of such costs at once. The deferral period in which costs are incurred but not currently recovered has expired for all of these programs, and AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI are now recovering those costs that were previously deferred. Also, AP&L and LP&L have retained a portion of their shares of Grand Gulf 1 capacity and GSU is operating under a deregulated asset plan for a portion of its share of River Bend.
GSU is involved in several rate proceedings involving recovery, among other things, of costs associated with River Bend. Some rate relief has been received, but GSU has been unable to obtain recognition in rates for a substantial portion of its River Bend investment. Recovery of certain costs has been disallowed, while other costs are being deferred for future recovery, held in abeyance pending further regulatory action, or treated as investments in deregulated assets. There are ongoing rate proceedings and appeals relating to these issues (see "GSU," below).
The System is committed to taking actions that will stabilize retail rates and avoid the need for future rate increases. In the short-term, this involves containing costs to the greatest degree practicable, thereby avoiding erosion of earnings and delaying for as long as possible the need for general rate increases. In accordance with this retail rate policy, the System operating companies have agreed to retail rate caps and/or rate freezes for specified periods of time.
In the longer term, as discussed in "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning" above, and also as discussed specifically for each applicable company below, the System is pursuing implementation of least cost planning to minimize the cost of future sources of energy.
Effective January 1, 1993, the System adopted SFAS No. 106 (SFAS 106), an accounting standard that requires accrual of the costs of postretirement benefits other than pensions prior to the time these costs are actually incurred. In 1992, the System operating companies requested from their retail rate regulators authorization to recognize in rates the costs associated with implementation of SFAS 106. For further information, see Note 10 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries', Note 9 of MP&L's and NOPSI's, and Note 10 of AP&L's, GSU's, and LP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Postretirement and Postemployment Benefits," incorporated herein by reference.
AP&L
Rate Freeze. In connection with the settlement of various issues related to the Merger, AP&L agreed that it will not request any general retail rate increase that would take effect before November 3, 1998, except, among other things, for increases associated with the Least Cost Plan (discussed below); recovery of certain Grand Gulf 1- related costs, excess capacity costs, and costs related to the adoption of SFAS 106 that were previously deferred; recovery of certain taxes; fuel adjustment recoveries; recovery of nuclear decommissioning costs; and force majeure (defined to include, among other things, war, natural catastrophes, and high inflation).
Recovery of Grand Gulf 1 Costs. Under the settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, AP&L agreed to retain a portion of its Grand Gulf l-related costs, recover a portion of such costs currently, and defer a portion of such costs for future recovery. In 1994 and subsequent years, AP&L will retain 7.92% of such costs (stated as a percentage of System Energy's 90% share of the unit) and will recover 28.08% currently. Deferrals ceased in l990, and AP&L is recovering a portion of the previously deferred costs each year through l998. As of December 31, l993, the balance of deferred uncollected costs was $568.0 million. AP&L is permitted to recover on a current basis the incremental costs of financing the unrecovered deferrals.
AP&L has the right to sell capacity and energy from its retained share of Grand Gulf 1 to third parties and to sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to AP&L's avoided energy cost. Proceeds of sales to third parties of AP&L's retained share of Grand Gulf l capacity and energy generally accrue to the benefit of AP&L's stockholder; however, half of the proceeds of such sales to third parties prior to January 1, 1996, are used to reduce the balance of uncollected deferrals and thus accrue to the benefit of retail ratepayers. If AP&L makes sales to third parties prior to that date in excess of the retained share, the proceeds of such excess are also split between the stockholder and the ratepayers, except that the portion of the sale that accrues to the stockholder's benefit cannot exceed the retained share.
Least Cost Planning. On December 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, AP&L filed with the APSC the Least Cost Plan described in "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning," above. AP&L also requested authorization to recover development and implementation costs and costs and incentives related to the DSM aspects of the plan. On October 13, 1993, the APSC found AP&L's plan to be complete and directed the APSC staff to conduct a series of public forums in late 1993, including focus groups, town meetings, and collaborative workshops, before it would establish a procedural schedule that would include evidentiary hearings and the issuance of a Least Cost Plan order. Several of these meetings were delayed into 1994, but are expected to be completed by March 1994. At or before that time, AP&L expects the APSC to issue a procedural schedule that will allow the APSC to issue an order before the end of 1994. On January 19, 1994, AP&L filed a request with the APSC for permission to withdraw the CCLM portion of the filing and to continue such programs on a pilot basis at shareholder expense. The APSC has not yet ruled on AP&L's request.
Fuel Adjustment Clause. AP&L's retail rate schedules have a fuel adjustment clause that provides for recovery of the excess cost of fuel and purchased power incurred in the second preceding month. The fuel adjustment clause also contains a nuclear reserve fund designed to cover the cost of replacement energy during scheduled maintenance and refueling outages at ANO, and an incentive provision that permits over- or under-recovery of the excess cost of replacement energy when ANO is operating or down for reasons other than refueling.
GSU
Rate Cap and Other Merger-Related Rate Agreements. The LPSC and the PUCT approved separate regulatory proposals that include the following elements: (1) a five-year rate cap on GSU's retail electric base rates in the respective states, except for force majeure (defined to include, among other things, war, natural catastrophes, and high inflation); (2) a provision for passing through to retail customers in the respective states the jurisdictional portion of the fuel savings created by the Merger; and (3) a mechanism for tracking nonfuel operation and maintenance savings created by the Merger. The LPSC regulatory plan provides that such nonfuel savings will be shared 60% by the shareholder and 40% by ratepayers during the eight years following the Merger. The LPSC plan requires regulatory filings each year by the end of May through 2001. The PUCT regulatory plan provides that such savings will be shared equally by the shareholder and ratepayers, except that the shareholder's portion will be reduced by $2.6 million per year on a total company basis in years four through eight. The PUCT plan also requires a series of regulatory filings, currently anticipated to be in June 1994, and February 1996, 1998, and 2001, to ensure that the ratepayers' share of such savings be reflected in rates on a timely basis and requires Entergy Corporation to hold GSU's Texas retail customers harmless from the effects of the removal by FERC of a 40% cap on the amount of fuel savings GSU may be required to transfer to other Entergy operating companies under the FERC tracking mechanism (see "Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - System Agreement," above). On January 14, 1994, Entergy Corporation filed a request for rehearing of FERC's December 15, 1993 order approving the Merger, requesting that FERC restore the 40% cap provision in the fuel cost protection mechanism (see "Regulation - Other Litigation and Regulation," below). The matter is pending.
Recovery of River Bend Costs. GSU deferred approximately $369 million of River Bend operating costs, purchased power costs, and accrued carrying charges pursuant to a 1986 PUCT accounting order. Approximately $182 million of these costs are being amortized over a 20-year period, and the remaining $187 million are not being amortized pending the ultimate outcome of the Rate Appeal (see "Texas Jurisdiction - River Bend," below). As of December 31, 1993, the unamortized balance of these costs was $330.3 million. Further, GSU deferred approximately $400.4 million of similar costs pursuant to a 1986 LPSC accounting order. These costs, of which approximately $160.4 million are unamortized as of December 31, 1993, are being amortized over a 10-year period.
In accordance with a phase-in plan approved by the LPSC, GSU deferred $324.7 million of its River Bend costs related to the period December 1987 through February 1991. GSU has amortized $86.6 million through December 31, 1993, and the remainder of $238.1 million will be recovered over approximately 3.8 years.
Texas Jurisdiction - River Bend. In May 1988, the PUCT granted GSU a permanent increase in annual revenues of $59.9 million resulting from the inclusion in rate base of approximately $1.6 billion of company-wide River Bend plant investment and approximately $182 million of related Texas retail jurisdiction deferred River Bend costs (Allowed Deferrals). In addition, the PUCT disallowed as imprudent $63.5 million of company-wide River Bend plant costs and placed in abeyance, with no finding of prudency, approximately $1.4 billion of company-wide River Bend plant investment and approximately $157 million of Texas retail jurisdiction deferred River Bend operating and carrying costs. The PUCT affirmed that the ultimate rate treatment of such amounts would be subject to future demonstration of the prudency of such costs. GSU and intervening parties appealed this order (Rate Appeal) and GSU filed a separate rate case asking that the abeyed River Bend plant costs be found prudent (Separate Rate Case). Intervening parties filed suit in district court to prohibit the Separate Rate Case. The district court's decision was ultimately appealed to the Texas Supreme Court which ruled in 1990 that the prudence of the purported abeyed costs could not be relitigated in a separate rate proceeding. Further, the Texas Supreme Court's decision stated that all issues relating to the merits of the original order of the PUCT, including the prudence of all River Bend-related costs, should be addressed in the Rate Appeal.
In October 1991, the district court in the Rate Appeal issued an order holding that, while it was clear the PUCT made an error in assuming it could set aside $1.4 billion of the total costs of River Bend and consider them in a later proceeding, the PUCT, nevertheless, found that GSU had not met its burden of proof related to the amounts placed in abeyance. The court also ruled that the Allowed Deferrals should not be included in rate base under a 1991 decision regarding El Paso Electric Company's similar deferred costs (El Paso Case). The court further stated that the PUCT erred in reducing GSU's deferred costs by $1.50 for each $1.00 of revenue collected under the interim rate increases authorized in 1987 and 1988. The court remanded the case to the PUCT with instructions as to the proper handling of the Allowed Deferrals. GSU's motion for rehearing was denied, and in December 1991, GSU filed an appeal of the October 1991 district court order. The PUCT also appealed the October 1991 district court order, which served to supersede the district court's judgment, rendering it unenforceable under Texas law.
In August 1992, the court of appeals in the El Paso Case handed down its second opinion on rehearing modifying its previous opinion on deferred accounting. The court's second opinion concluded that the PUCT may lawfully defer operating and maintenance costs and subsequently include them in rate base, but that the Public Utility Regulatory Act prohibits such rate base treatment for deferred carrying costs. The court stated, however, its opinion would not preclude the recovery of deferred carrying costs. The August 1992 court of appeals opinion was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court where arguments were heard in September 1993. The matter is still pending.
In September 1993, the Texas Third District Court of Appeals (the Third District Court) remanded the October 1991 district court decision to the PUCT "to reexamine the record evidence to whatever extent necessary to render a final order supported by substantial evidence and not inconsistent with our opinion." The Third District Court specifically addressed the PUCT's treatment of certain costs, stating that the PUCT's order was not based on substantial evidence. The Third District Court also applied its most recent ruling in the El Paso Case to the deferred costs associated with River Bend. However, the Third District Court cautioned the PUCT to confine its deliberations to the evidence addressed in the original rate case. Certain parties to the case have indicated their position that, on remand, the PUCT may change its original order only with respect to matters specifically discussed by the Third District Court which, if allowed, would increase GSU's allowed River Bend investment, net of accumulated depreciation and related taxes, by approximately $48 million as of December 31, 1993. GSU believes that under the Third District Court's decision, the PUCT would be free to reconsider any aspect of its order concerning the abeyed $1.4 billion River Bend investment. GSU has filed a motion for rehearing asking the Third District Court to modify its order so as to permit the PUCT to take additional evidence on remand. The PUCT and other parties have also moved for rehearing on various grounds. The Third District Court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.
As of December 31, 1993, the River Bend plant costs disallowed for retail ratemaking purposes in Texas, and the River Bend plant costs held in abeyance and the related cost deferrals totaled (net of taxes) approximately $14 million, $300 million (both net of depreciation), and $171 million, respectively. Allowed Deferrals were approximately $95 million, net of taxes and amortization, as of December 31, 1993. GSU estimates it has collected approximately $139 million of revenues as of December 31, 1993, as a result of the originally ordered rate treatment of these deferred costs. However, if the PUCT adopts the most recent decision in the El Paso Case, the possible refunds approximate $28 million as a result of the inclusion of deferred carrying costs in rate base for the period July 1988 through December 1990. However, if the PUCT reverses its decision to reduce GSU's deferred costs by $1.50 for each $1.00 of revenue collected under the interim rate increases authorized in 1987 and 1988, the potential refund of amounts described above could be reduced by an amount ranging from $7 million to $19 million.
No assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the remands or appeals described above. Pending further developments in these cases, GSU has made no write-offs for the River Bend related costs. Management believes, based on advice from Clark, Thomas & Winters, a Professional Corporation, legal counsel of record in the Rate Appeal, that it is reasonably possible that the case will be remanded to the PUCT, and the PUCT will be allowed to rule on the prudence of the abeyed River Bend plant costs. Rate caps imposed by the PUCT's regulatory approval of the Merger could result in GSU being unable to use the full amount of a favorable decision to immediately increase rates; however, a favorable decision could permit some increases and/or limit or prevent decreases during the period the rate caps are in effect. At this time, management and legal counsel are unable to predict the amount, if any, of the abeyed and previously disallowed River Bend plant costs that ultimately may be disallowed by the PUCT. A net of tax write-off as of December 31, 1993, of up to $314 million could be required based on the PUCT's ultimate ruling.
In prior proceedings, the PUCT has held that the original cost of nuclear power plants will be included in rates to the extent those costs were prudently incurred. Based upon the PUCT's prior decisions, management believes that its River Bend construction costs were prudently incurred and that it is reasonably possible that it will recover in rate base, or otherwise through means such as a deregulated asset plan, all or substantially all of the abeyed River Bend plant costs. However, management also recognizes that it is reasonably possible that not all of the abeyed River Bend plant costs may ultimately be recovered.
As part of its direct case in the Separate Rate Case, GSU filed a cost reconciliation study prepared by Sandlin Associates, management consultants with expertise in the cost analysis of nuclear power plants, which supports the reasonableness of the River Bend costs held in abeyance by the PUCT. This reconciliation study determined that approximately 82% of the River Bend cost increase above the amount included by the PUCT in rate base was a result of changes in federal nuclear safety requirements and provided other support for the remainder of the abeyed amounts.
There have been four other rate proceedings in Texas involving nuclear power plants. Investment in the plants ultimately disallowed ranged from 0% to 15%. Each case was unique, and the disallowances in each were made on a case-by-case basis for different reasons. Appeals of most, if not all, of these PUCT decisions are currently pending.
The following factors support management's position that a loss contingency requiring accrual has not occurred, and its belief that all, or substantially all, of the abeyed plant costs will ultimately be recovered:
1. The $1.4 billion of abeyed River Bend plant costs have never been ruled imprudent and disallowed by the PUCT. 2. Sandlin Associates' analysis which supports the prudence of substantially all of the abeyed construction costs. 3. Historical inclusion by the PUCT of prudent construction costs in rate base. 4. The analysis of GSU's internal legal staff, which has considerable experience in Texas rate case litigation.
Additionally, management believes, based on advice from Clark, Thomas & Winters, a Professional Corporation, legal counsel of record in the Rate Appeal, that it is probable that the deferred costs will be allowed. However, assuming the August 1992 court of appeals' opinion in the El Paso Case is upheld and applied to GSU and the deferred River Bend costs currently held in abeyance are not allowed to be recovered in rates as allowable costs, a net-of-tax write-off of up to $171 million could be required. In addition, future revenues based upon the deferred costs previously allowed in rate base could also be lost and no assurance can be given as to whether or not refunds (up to $28 million as of December 31, 1993) of revenue received based upon such deferred costs previously recorded will be required.
See Note 12 of GSU's Notes to Financial Statements, "Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger," for the accounting treatment of preacquistion contingencies, including a River Bend write-down.
Texas Jurisdiction - Fuel Reconciliation. In January 1992, GSU applied with the PUCT for a new fixed fuel factor and requested a final reconciliation of fuel and purchased power costs incurred between December 1, 1986 and September 30, 1991. GSU proposed to recover net underrecoveries and interest (including underrecoveries related to NISCO, discussed below) over a twelve month period. In April 1993, the presiding PUCT ALJ issued a report which concluded that GSU incurred approximately $117 million of nonreimbursable fuel costs on a company-wide basis (approximately $50 million on a Texas retail jurisdictional basis) during the reconciliation period.
Included in the nonreimbursable fuel costs were payments above GSU's avoided cost rate for power purchased from NISCO. The PUCT ordered in 1986 that the purchased power costs from NISCO in excess of GSU's avoided costs be disallowed. The PUCT disallowance resulted in approximately $12 million to $15 million of unrecovered purchased power costs on an annual basis, which GSU continued to expense as the costs were incurred. In April 1991, the Texas Supreme Court, in the appeal of such order, ordered the PUCT to allow GSU to recover purchased power payments in excess of its avoided cost in future proceedings, if GSU established to the PUCT's satisfaction that the payments were reasonable and necessary expenses.
In June 1993, the PUCT, in the fuel reconciliation case, concluded that the purchased power payments made to NISCO in excess of GSU's avoided cost were not reasonably incurred. As a result of the order, GSU recorded additional fuel expenses (including interest) of $2.8 million for non-NISCO related items. The PUCT's order resulted in no additional expenses related to the NISCO issue, or for overcollections related to the fixed fuel factor, as those charges were expensed by GSU as they were incurred. The PUCT concluded that GSU had over-collected its fuel costs in Texas and ordered GSU to refund approximately $33.8 million to its Texas retail customers, including approximately $7.5 million of interest. The PUCT reduced GSU's fixed fuel factor in Texas from about 2.1 cents per KWH to approximately 1.84 cents per KWH. GSU had requested a new fixed fuel factor of about 2.02 cents per KWH. Based on current sales forecasts, adoption of the PUCT's recommended fixed fuel factor would reduce GSU's revenues by approximately $34 million annually. In October 1993, GSU appealed the PUCT's order to the Travis County District Court. No assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the appeal.
Texas - Cities Rate Settlement. In June 1993, thirteen cities within GSU's Texas service area instituted an investigation to determine whether GSU's current rates were justified. In October 1993, the general counsel of the PUCT instituted an inquiry into the reasonableness of GSU's rates. In November 1993, a settlement agreement was filed with the PUCT which provides for an initial reduction in annual retail base revenues in Texas of approximately $22.5 million effective for electric usage on or after November 1, 1993, and a second reduction of $20 million to be effective September 1994. Further, the settlement provided for GSU to reduce rates with a $20 million one-time bill credit in December 1993, and to refund approximately $3 million to Texas retail customers on bills rendered in December 1993. The cities rate inquiries had been settled earlier on the same terms.
In November 1993, in association with the settlement of the above- described rate inquiries, GSU entered into a settlement covering issues related to a March 1991 non-unanimous settlement in another proceeding. Under this settlement, a $30 million rate increase approved by the PUCT in March 1991, became final and the PUCT's treatment of GSU's federal tax expense was settled, eliminating the possibility of refunds associated with amounts collected resulting from the disputed tax calculation.
In December 1993, a large industrial customer of GSU announced its intention to oppose the settlement of the PUCT rate inquiry. The customer's opposition does not affect the cities' rate settlement. The customer's opposition requires the PUCT to conduct a hearing concerning GSU's rates charged in areas outside the corporate limits of the cities in its Texas service territory to determine whether the settlement's rates are just and reasonable. A hearing has been set for July 8, 1994. GSU believes that the PUCT will ultimately approve the settlement, but no assurance can be provided in this regard.
Louisiana Jurisdiction - River Bend. Previous rate orders of the LPSC have been appealed, and pending resolution of various appellate proceedings, GSU has made no write-off for the disallowance of $30.6 million of deferred revenue requirement that GSU recorded for the period December 16, 1987 through February 18, 1988.
In January 1992, the LPSC ordered a deregulated asset plan for $1.4 billion of River Bend plant costs not allowed in rates. The plan allows GSU to sell the generation from the approximately 22% of River Bend to Louisiana customers at 4.6 cents per KWH, or off-system at higher prices. Incremental revenues from off-system sales above 4.6 cents per KWH will be shared 60% by shareholders and 40% by ratepayers (see GSU's "Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis," incorporated herein by reference, for the effects of the plan on GSU's 1993 results of operations).
LPSC - Return on Equity Review. In the June 1993 open session, a preliminary report was made comparing the authorized and actual earned rates of return for electric and gas utilities subject to the LPSC's jurisdiction. The preliminary report indicated that several electric utilities, including GSU, may be over-earning based on current estimated costs of equity. The LPSC requested those utilities to file responses indicating whether they agreed with the preliminary report, and to provide their reasons if they did not agree. GSU provided the LPSC with information that GSU believes supports the current rate level. The LPSC decided at its September 7, 1993 open session to defer review of GSU's base rates until the first earnings analysis after the Merger, scheduled for mid-1994.
LPSC Fuel Cost Review. In November 1993, the LPSC ordered a review of GSU's fuel costs. The LPSC stated that fuel costs for the period October 1988 through September 1991 would be reviewed based on the number of outages at River Bend and the findings in the June 1993 PUCT fuel reconciliation case. Hearings are scheduled to begin in March 1994.
Least Cost Planning. Currently, the PUCT does not have least cost planning rules in place, and GSU has not filed a Least Cost Plan with the PUCT. However, the PUCT staff has begun a rulemaking process for such rules, and GSU is actively participating in this process. GSU has not yet filed a Least Cost Plan with the LPSC.
Fuel Recovery. In January 1993, the PUCT adopted a new rule for setting a fixed fuel factor that is intended to recover projected allowable fuel and purchased power costs not covered by base rates. To the extent actual costs vary from the fixed factor, the PUCT may require refunds of overcharges or permit recovery of undercharges. Under the new rule, fuel factors are to be revised every six months, and GSU is on a schedule providing for revision each March and September. The PUCT is required to act within 60 or 90 days, depending on whether or not a hearing is required, and refunds and surcharges will be required based upon a materiality threshold of 4% of Texas retail fuel revenues. Fuel charges will also be subject to reconciliation proceedings every three years, at which time additional adjustments may be required (see "Texas Jurisdiction - Fuel Reconciliation," above). All of GSU's rate schedules in Louisiana include a fuel adjustment clause to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power energy costs. The fuel adjustment reflects the delivered cost of fuel for the second preceding month.
LP&L
LPSC Jurisdiction. In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, LP&L was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Waterford 3 and LP&L's share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf l, subject to certain terms and conditions. With respect to Waterford 3, LP&L was granted an increase aggregating $170.9 million over the period 1985-1988, and LP&L agreed to permanently absorb, and not recover from retail ratepayers, $284 million of its investment in the unit and to defer $266 million of its costs related to the years 1985-1988 to be recovered over approximately 8.6 years beginning in April 1988. As of December 31, 1993, LP&L's unrecovered deferral balance was $82.5 million. With respect to Grand Gulf l, LP&L agreed to absorb, and not recover from retail ratepayers, 18% of its 14% share (approximately 2.52%) of the costs of Grand Gulf l capacity and energy. LP&L is allowed to recover, through the fuel adjustment clause, 4.6 cents per KWH (currently 2.55 cents per KWH through May 1994) for the energy related to the permanently absorbed percentage, with LP&L's permanently absorbed retained percentage to be available for sale to non-affiliated parties, subject to LPSC approval. (See Note 2 of LP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - Waterford 3 and Grand Gulf 1," incorporated herein by reference, for further information on LP&L's Grand Gulf 1 and Waterford 3-related rates.)
In a subsequent rate proceeding, on March 1, l989, the LPSC issued an order providing that, in effect, LP&L was entitled to an approximately $45.9 million annual retail rate increase, but that, in lieu of a rate increase, LP&L would be permitted to retain $188.6 million of the proceeds of a 1988 settlement of litigation with a gas supplier, and to amortize such proceeds into revenues over a period of approximately 5.3 years. The amortization of the proceeds will expire in mid-1994 and this source of revenue will no longer be available to LP&L. LP&L believes that the amortization has resulted in approximately the same amount of additional net income as an annual rate increase of $45.9 million would have provided over the same period. In connection with this order, LP&L agreed to a five-year base rate freeze scheduled to expire in March 1994 at then current levels subject to certain conditions. (See Note 2 of LP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - March 1989 Order," incorporated herein by reference, for further information on the terms of this order.)
By letter dated July 27, 1993, the LPSC requested LP&L to explain its "relatively high cost of debt" compared to other electric utilities subject to LPSC jurisdiction. LP&L responded to the request on August 11, 1993. On August 14, 1993, the LPSC's consultants acknowledged LP&L's rationale for its cost of debt and suggested that certain aspects of LP&L's cost of debt could be taken up in rate proceedings after the expiration of LP&L's rate freeze. On October 7, 1993, the LPSC approved a schedule to conduct a review of LP&L's rates and rate structure upon the expiration of the rate freeze in March 1994.
Council Jurisdiction. Under the Algiers rate settlement entered into with the Council in l989, LP&L was granted rate relief with respect to its Grand Gulf l and Waterford 3-related costs, subject to certain terms and conditions. LP&L was granted an annual rate increase of $9.5 million that was phased-in over the two-year period beginning in July 1989, and was permitted to retain $4.2 million (the Council's jurisdictional portion) of the proceeds of litigation with a gas supplier and to amortize such proceeds plus interest into revenues over the same two-year period. LP&L agreed to absorb and not recover from Algiers retail ratepayers $17 million of fixed costs associated with Grand Gulf l and Waterford 3 incurred prior to the date of the settlement, $5.9 million of its investment in Waterford 3, and 18% of the Algiers portion of LP&L's Grand Gulf l-related costs incurred after the settlement. However, LP&L is allowed to recover 4.6 cents per KWH or the avoided cost, whichever is higher, for the energy related to the permanently absorbed percentage through the fuel adjustment clause, with the permanently absorbed percentage to be available for sale to non-affiliated parties, subject to the Council's right of first refusal. LP&L also agreed to a rate freeze for Algiers customers until July 6, l994, except in the case of catastrophic events, changes in federal tax laws, or changes in LP&L's Grand Gulf l costs resulting from FERC proceedings.
Least Cost Planning. On December l, l992, and July 1, l993, LP&L filed with the LPSC and the Council the Least Cost Plan described under "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning," above. LP&L also requested authorization to recover development and implementation costs and costs and incentives related to the DSM aspects of the plan. Discovery in the LPSC review of LP&L's Least Cost Plan filing is continuing, and the current procedural schedule (which maybe extended) contemplates that, after hearings and briefings, a report of the LPSC special counsel will be issued on June 14, 1994. The LPSC could render a decision on the basis of this report. On January 19, 1994, LP&L filed a motion with the LPSC to dismiss or withdraw without prejudice the CCLM and to proceed with a pilot CCLM at shareholder expense. The LPSC granted LP&L's motion on February 2, 1994, subject to LP&L, among other things, keeping the LPSC timely informed as to LP&L's CCLM activities. (See "NOPSI - Least Cost Planning," below, for further information on LP&L's and NOPSI's proceedings pending before the Council.)
Fuel Adjustment Clause. LP&L's rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause to reflect the delivered cost of fuel in the second preceding month and purchased power energy costs. The fuel adjustment also reflects a surcharge for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel cost incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers. LP&L defers on its books fuel costs that will be reflected in customer billings in the future under the fuel adjustment clause.
MP&L
Rate Freeze. In a stipulation entered into by MP&L in connection with the settlement of various issues related to the Merger, MP&L agreed that (1) for a period of five years beginning on November 9, 1993, retail base rates under the FRP (see "Incentive Rate Plan," below) would not be increased above the level of rates in effect on November 1, 1993, and (2) MP&L would not request any general retail rate increase that would increase retail rates above the level of MP&L's rates in effect as of November l, 1993, and that would become effective in such five-year period except, among other things, for increases associated with the Least Cost Plan (discussed below), recovery of deferred Grand Gulf 1-related costs, recovery under the fuel adjustment clause, adjustments for certain taxes, and force majeure (defined to include, among other things, war, natural catastrophes, and high inflation).
Recovery of Grand Gulf 1 Costs. The MPSC's Final Order on Rehearing, issued in 1985, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1988, and subsequently revised in 1988, granted MP&L an annual base rate increase of approximately $326.5 million in connection with its allocated share of Grand Gulf 1 costs. The Final Order on Rehearing also provided for the deferral of a portion of such costs that were incurred each year through 1992, and recovery of these deferrals over a period of six years ending in 1998. As of December 31, 1993, the uncollected balance of MP&L's deferred costs was approximately $601.4 million. MP&L is permitted to recover the carrying charges on all deferred amounts on a current basis.
Incentive Rate Plan. In July 1993, the MPSC ordered MP&L to file a formulary incentive rate plan designed to allow for periodic small adjustments in rates based upon a comparison of earned to benchmark returns and upon performance factors incorporated in the plan. Pursuant to this order, on November 1, 1993, MP&L filed a proposed formula rate plan. MPSC was also expected to conduct a general review of MP&L's current rates in the course of approving an incentive rate plan.
On January 28, 1994, MP&L and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff (MPUS) entered into a Joint Stipulation in this proceeding. Under the Joint Stipulation, MP&L and the MPUS agreed on a number of accounting adjustments for the test year ending June 30, 1993, (June 30 Test Year) that resulted in a reduction to MP&L's base rate revenues in the June 30 Test Year of approximately 4.3%, or $28.1 million. This translates into approximately a 3.7% decrease in overall revenues from sales to retail customers, which include revenues related to fuel, taxes, and Grand Gulf. MP&L and the MPUS agreed on a required return on equity of 11% for the June 30 Test Year.
MP&L and the MPUS also stipulated to a revised Formula Rate Plan (FRP). The stipulated FRP is essentially the same as the proposed plan filed by MP&L on November 1, 1993. Certain of the accounting changes agreed to by the MPUS and MP&L for the June 30 Test Year are incorporated into the stipulated FRP. Also, the formula in the stipulated FRP for determining required return on equity would have produced a required return on equity for MP&L of 11.07% for the June 30 Test Year. The stipulated return on equity formula will be applied for the first time in the first Evaluation Report under the stipulated FRP. The first Evaluation Report will be filed in March 1995 for the Evaluation Period ending December 31, 1994.
On February 10, 1994, MP&L, the Mississippi Industrial Energy Group (MIEG), and the MPUS entered into and filed with the MPUS, a Joint Stipulation (MIEG Joint Stipulation) resolving the issues raised by the MIEG in the docket. On February 16, 1994, MP&L and the Mississippi Attorney General entered into a Joint Stipulation that resolved the issues raised by the Mississippi Attorney General in the docket. Other parties in the case, including two gas utility intervenors, were not parties to the Joint Stipulations.
In late February 1994, the MPSC conducted a general review of MP&L's current rates and on March 1, 1994, issued a final order in which the MPSC approved each of the Joint Stipulations. The MPSC ordered MP&L to file rates designed to provide a reduction of $28.1 million in operating revenues for the June 30 Test Year on or before March 18, 1994, to become effective for service rendered on and after March 25, 1994. The FRP also was approved and will be effective on March 25, 1994, with any initial adjustment to base rates, if any, in May 1995. Under the FRP, a formula will be established under which MP&L's earned rate of return will be calculated automatically every 12 months and compared to a benchmark rate of return calculated under a separate formula within the FRP. If MP&L's earned rate of return falls within a bandwidth around the benchmark rate of return, there will be no adjustment in rates. If MP&L's earnings are above the bandwidth, the FRP will automatically reduce MP&L's base rates. Alternatively, if MP&L's earnings are below the bandwidth, the FRP will automatically increase MP&L's base rates (see "Rate Freeze" above for information on a cap on base rates at November 1993 levels for a period of five years). The reduction or increase in base rates will be an amount representing 50% of the difference between the earned rate of return and the nearest limit of the bandwidth. In no event will the annual adjustment in rates exceed the lesser of 2% of MP&L's aggregate annual retail revenues, or $14.5 million. Under the FRP the benchmark rate of return, and consequently the bandwidth, will be adjusted slightly upward or downward based upon MP&L's performance on three performance factors: customer reliability, customer satisfaction, and customer price.
In its Final Order, the MPSC also recognized that on February 9 and 10, 1994, a severe ice storm struck northern Mississippi causing extensive and widespread damage to MP&L's transmission and distribution facilities in approximately 15 counties. Although the MPSC made no findings in the final order as to MP&L's costs associated with the ice storm and restoration of service, the MPSC acknowledged that there is precedent in Mississippi for recovery of certain costs associated with storms and natural disasters and restoration of service. The MPSC stated the recovery of MP&L's ice storm costs should be addressed in a separate docket. MP&L plans to immediately file for rate recovery of the costs related to the ice storm.
Least Cost Planning. On December 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, MP&L filed with the MPSC the Least Cost Plan described in "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning," above. MP&L also requested a finding by the MPSC that the plan's cost recovery methodology is reasonable and appropriate. MP&L will request approval of cost recovery mechanisms after the plan has been approved by the MPSC. On October 6, 1993, the MPSC, on its own motion, stayed all proceedings in this docket. The MPSC stay order regarding MP&L's Least Cost Plan filing remains in effect even though MP&L and the MPUS have stipulated to an FRP (see "Incentive Rate Plan," above). Because the stay order remains in effect, MP&L has not yet filed a request that the CCLM portion of the filing be withdrawn and that a pilot CCLM program be implemented.
Fuel Adjustment Clause. MP&L's rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause that permits recovery from customers of changes in the cost of fuel and purchased power. The monthly fuel adjustment rate is based on projected sales and costs for the month, adjusted for differences between actual and estimated costs for the second prior month.
NOPSI
Electric Retail Rate Reduction. On November 18, 1993, in connection with the settlement of various issues related to the Merger, the Council adopted a resolution requiring NOPSI to reduce its annual electric base rates by $4.8 million on bills rendered on or after November 1, 1993.
Recovery of Grand Gulf 1 Costs. Under NOPSI's various Rate Settlements with the Council (which include the 1986 NOPSI Settlement, the February 4 Resolution relating to prudence issues, and the 1991 NOPSI Settlement of the issues raised in the February 4 Resolution), NOPSI agreed to absorb and not recover from ratepayers a total of $186.2 million of its Grand Gulf 1 costs. NOPSI was permitted to implement annual rate increases in decreasing amounts each year through 1995, and to defer certain costs, and related carrying charges, for recovery on a schedule extending from 1991 through 2001. As of December 31, 1993, the uncollected balance of NOPSI's deferred costs was $228.8 million. NOPSI also agreed to a base rate freeze through October 31, 1996, excluding the scheduled increases, certain changes in tax rates, and increases related to catastrophic events. (See Note 2 of NOPSI's Notes to Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters - Prudence Settlement and Finalized Phase-In Plan," incorporated herein by reference, for further information.)
Gas Rates. In May 1992, NOPSI and the Council settled a pending application for gas rate increases. The settlement provided for annual rate increases of approximately $3.8 million in May 1992 and 1993, and the deferral of an additional $3 million for recovery in the years beginning in May 1993 through May 1996. NOPSI also agreed to a base rate freeze, except for the scheduled increases and certain other exceptions, through October 31, 1996.
Least Cost Planning. On December 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993, NOPSI filed with the Council the Least Cost Plan described under "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning," above. NOPSI also requested authorization to recover development and implementation costs and costs and incentives related to DSM aspects of the plan. After hearings and briefings, the Council issued, on November 22, 1993, a resolution that requires NOPSI and LP&L to provide, within certain time frames, additional information, among other things, on how the seven full scale DSM programs approved by the Council in the resolution will be implemented. Such programs are estimated to cost approximately $13 million over the next three years. The Council provided in the resolution certain assurances regarding recovery of costs associated with these programs. Discovery is proceeding and testimony is being filed, with the second round of hearings to begin in February 1994. After the hearings are concluded and briefs have been filed, the Council will address the second round issues in early April 1994. On February 3, 1994, the Council issued a resolution and order granting the motions of NOPSI and LP&L to dismiss without prejudice the CCLM portion of the filing, authorizing NOPSI and LP&L to proceed with a pilot CCLM (other than the construction of a fiber optics/coaxial cable network) in New Orleans at shareholder expense (subject to certain conditions). The Council also opened a new docket to expeditiously address issues related to the CCLM pilot, and directing NOPSI and LP&L to obtain Council authorization in the new docket before constructing such a fiber optics/coaxial cable network.
In connection with the settlement of various issues related to the Merger, the Council adopted a resolution on November 18, 1993, that provides that the Council will not disallow the first $3.5 million of costs incurred by NOPSI through October 31, 1993, in connection with the Least Cost Plan.
Fuel Adjustment Clause. NOPSI's electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause to reflect the delivered cost of fuel in the second preceding month, adjusted by a surcharge for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel cost incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers. The adjustment clause, on a monthly basis, also reflects the difference between nonfuel Grand Gulf 1 costs paid by NOPSI and the estimate of such costs provided in NOPSI's Grand Gulf 1 Rate Settlements. NOPSI's gas rate schedules include a gas cost adjustment to reflect gas costs in excess of those collected in rates, adjusted by a surcharge similar to that included in the electric adjustment clause. NOPSI defers on its books fuel and purchased gas costs to be reflected in billings to customers in the future under the fuel adjustment clause.
REGULATION
Federal Regulation
Holding Company Act. Entergy Corporation is a registered public utility holding company under the Holding Company Act. As such, Entergy Corporation and its various direct and indirect subsidiaries (with the exception of its independent power/EWG subsidiaries) are subject to the broad regulatory provisions of that Act. Except with respect to investments in certain EWG projects and foreign utility company projects (see "Business of Entergy - Competition - General," above for a discussion of the Energy Act), Section 11(b)(1) of the Holding Company Act limits the operations of a registered holding company system to a single, integrated public utility system, plus additional systems and businesses as provided by that section.
Federal Power Act. The System operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Power are subject to the Federal Power Act as administered by FERC and the DOE. The Federal Power Act provides for regulatory jurisdiction over the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects, the business of, and facilities for, the transmission and sale at wholesale of electric energy in interstate commerce and certain other activities of the System operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Power as interstate electric utilities, including accounting policies and practices. Such regulation includes jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for capacity and energy provided to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI, or others, from Grand Gulf 1.
AP&L holds a license for two hydroelectric projects (70 MW) that was renewed on July 2, 1980. This license, granted by FERC, will expire in February 2003.
Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry
General. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, operation of nuclear plants is intensively regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements. In the event of non-compliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, as owners of all or a portion of ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Revised safety requirements promulgated by the NRC have, in the past, necessitated substantial capital expenditures at System nuclear plants and additional such expenditures could be required in the future.
The nuclear power industry faces uncertainties with respect to the cost and availability of long-term arrangements for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste, nuclear plant operational issues, the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning plants at the end of their licensed lives, and the effect of certain requirements relating to nuclear insurance. These matters are briefly discussed below.
Spent Fuel and Other High-Level Radioactive Waste. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. The NRC, pursuant to this Act, also requires operators of nuclear power reactors to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, and the affected System companies have entered into such disposal contracts. However, the DOE has not yet identified a permanent storage repository and, as a result, future expenditures may be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the plant sites. (For further information concerning spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, schedules for initial shipments of spent nuclear fuel, current on-site storage capacity, and costs of providing additional on-site storage capacity, with respect to AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, respectively, see Note 8 of AP&L's, GSU's, and LP&L's, and Note 7 of System Energy's, Notes to Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies - Spent Nuclear Fuel and Decommissioning Costs," incorporated herein by reference.)
Low-Level Radioactive Waste. The availability and cost of disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste resulting from normal operation of nuclear units are subject to a number of uncertainties. Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended, each state is responsible for disposal of its own waste, and states may join in regional compacts to jointly fulfill their responsibilities. The States of Arkansas and Louisiana participate in the Central States Compact, and the State of Mississippi participates in the Southeast Compact. Two disposal sites are currently operating in the United States, and one of them, which is located in Washington, is closed to out-of-region generators. The second site, the Barnwell Disposal Facility (Barnwell) located in South Carolina, is operated by the Southeast Compact and the State of Mississippi is expected to have access to this site through December 1995. Barnwell had been open to out-of-region generators (including generators in Arkansas and Louisiana) in the past; however, on April 14, 1993, the Southeast Compact voted to deny access to Barnwell to members of the Central States Compact. Such access was reinstated for the period from October 1993 through June 1994, at which time legislative action by the State of South Carolina would be required to permit further access to out-of-region generators. Beginning in July 1994, low-level radioactive waste generators in the Central States Compact, including AP&L, GSU, and LP&L, will be required to store such waste on-site until a Central States Compact facility becomes operational or another site becomes accessible.
Both the Central States Compact and the Southeast Compact are working to establish additional disposal sites. The System, along with other waste generators, funds the development costs for new disposal facilities. The System's expenditures to date are approximately $30 million; and future levels of expenditures cannot be predicted. Until such facilities are established, the System will continue to seek access to existing facilities, which may be available at costs that are higher than those incurred in the past, or which may be unavailable. If such access is unavailable, the System will store low-level waste on-site at the affected units. ANO has on-site storage that is estimated to be sufficient until 1999. Construction of on-site storage at the other nuclear units is being considered, along with other alternatives. A coordinated design concept that can be utilized at both Waterford 3 and River Bend is being evaluated. Grand Gulf 1 will have continued disposal access through December 1995; therefore, no immediate plans for on-site storage are needed for Grand Gulf 1. The estimated construction costs for storage sufficient for approximately five years at Grand Gulf 1, Waterford 3, and River Bend are in the range of $2.0 million to $5.0 million for each site. As an alternative to on-site storage, Entergy is working with other industry groups to influence the continued operation of the Barnwell disposal facility for out-of-region generators.
Decommissioning. AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy are recovering portions of their estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1, respectively. These amounts are being deposited in external trust funds that, together with the earnings thereon, can only be used for future decommissioning costs. Estimated decommissioning costs are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and applications will be made to appropriate regulatory authorities to recover in rates any projected increase in decommissioning costs above that currently being recovered. (For additional information with respect to decommissioning costs for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1, respectively, see Note 8 of AP&L's, GSU's, and LP&L's and Note 7 of System Energy's Notes to Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies - Spent Nuclear Fuel and Decommissioning Costs," incorporated herein by reference.)
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fees. The Energy Act requires all electric utilities (including AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy) that have purchased uranium enrichment services from the DOE to contribute up to a total of $150 million annually, adjusted for inflation, up to a total of $2.25 billion over approximately 15 years, for decommissioning and decontamination of enrichment facilities. AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, and System Energy's estimated annual contributions to this fund are $3.3 million, $0.6 million, $1.2 million, and $1.3 million, respectively, in 1993 dollars over approximately 15 years. Contributions to this fund are to be recovered through rates in the same manner as other fuel costs.
Nuclear Insurance. The Price-Anderson Act provides for a limit of public liability for a single nuclear incident. As of December 31, 1993, the limit of public liability for such type of incident was approximately $9.4 billion. AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy have protection with respect to this liability through a combination of private insurance and an industry assessment program, and also have insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units. (For a discussion of insurance applicable to nuclear programs of AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, see Note 7 of System Energy's and Note 8 of AP&L's, GSU's, and LP&L's Notes to Financial Statements, and Note 8 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, "Commitments and Contingencies - Nuclear Insurance," incorporated herein by reference.)
Nuclear Operations
General. Entergy Operations operates ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1, subject to the owner oversight of AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, respectively. AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy, and the other Grand Gulf 1, Waterford 3, and River Bend co- owners, have retained their ownership interests in their respective nuclear generating units. AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy have also retained their associated capacity and energy entitlements, and pay directly or reimburse Entergy Operations at cost for its operation of the units.
On June 24, 1992, the NRC issued a bulletin requiring all utilities using a certain fire barrier material in a nuclear power plant to take certain actions related to the material. This material may have been used in as many as 87 nuclear plants in the United States, including ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1 (see "River Bend," below for additional information).
ANO. In 1990, in response to a special diagnostic evaluation report by the NRC, AP&L implemented a comprehensive action plan for ANO designed to correct certain management, organizational, and technical problems, and to improve the long-term operational effectiveness and safety of the units. This action plan was largely completed in 1993.
Leaks in certain steam generator tubes at ANO 2 were discovered and repaired during an outage in March 1992; and during a refueling outage in September 1992, a comprehensive inspection of all steam generator tubing was conducted and necessary repairs were made. During a mid-cycle outage in May 1993, a scheduled special inspection of certain steam generator tubing was conducted by Entergy Operations and additional repairs were made. Entergy Operations proposes to operate ANO 2 with no further steam generator inspections until the next refueling outage, which is scheduled for the spring of 1994, and the NRC has concurred with this proposal. The operations and power output of the unit have not been adversely affected to date by these repairs.
River Bend. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service petitioned the NRC to shut down the River Bend plant in July 1992 because of alleged defects in a fire barrier material. GSU has used this material in its River Bend plant and is in compliance with the requirements of the bulletin. On August 19, 1992, the NRC denied the petitioner's request. In a December 1993 letter, the NRC requested additional technical information on the use of the material in the plant, and requested GSU's plans and schedules for resolving technical issues associated with the use of the material in certain configurations. GSU has provided the information requested in the NRC letter.
On January 13, 1993, in connection with the Merger, GSU filed two applications with the NRC to amend the River Bend operating license. The applications sought the NRC's consent to the Merger and to a change in the licensed operator of the facility from GSU to Entergy Operations. On August 6, 1993, Cajun filed a petition to intervene and request for a hearing in the proceedings. On January 27, 1994, the presiding NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued an order granting Cajun's petition to intervene and ordered a hearing on one of Cajun's contentions. On February 15, 1994, GSU filed an appeal of the ASLB Order with the NRC. On December 16, 1993, prior to this ASLB ruling, the NRC Staff issued the two license amendments for River Bend, making them effective immediately upon consummation of the Merger. On February 16, 1994, Cajun filed with the D.C. Circuit petitions for review of the two license amendments issued by the NRC. These two amendments are in full force and effect, but are subject to the outcome of the two proceedings. A hearing on the proceeding before the ALSB is not expected to begin prior to the fall of 1994.
In February 1993, GSU and the other affected utilities were served with a federal grand jury subpoena to produce documents and other information relating to the fire barrier material used in the plant. Nothing in the subpoena indicates that GSU or any employee is a target of the grand jury investigation. GSU is cooperating fully with the government in its investigation. The requested documentation and other information were produced in March 1993, and no additional requests have been received.
On October 25, 1993, the NRC staff began an operational safety team inspection at River Bend that was concluded by mid-November 1993. The NRC held the inspection to verify that the plant is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements. The team's findings were discussed at a public meeting in November 1993, and a written inspection report was issued in January 1994. The inspection team found apparent violations in two categories: (1) procedure adequacy, and (2) concerns with the corrective action program. Due to the nature of these apparent violations, an enforcement conference was not warranted and no fine was proposed.
State Regulation
General. Each of the System operating companies is subject to regulation by its respective state and/or local regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the service areas in which each company operates. Such regulation includes authority to set rates for electric and gas service provided at retail. (See "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters," above)
AP&L is subject to regulation by the APSC and the Tennessee Public Service Commission (TPSC). APSC regulation includes the authority to set rates, determine reasonable and adequate service, fix the value of property used and useful, require proper accounting, control leasing, control the acquisition or sale of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system, set rates of depreciation, issue certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, and control the issuance and sale of securities. Regulation by the TPSC includes the authority to set standards of service and rates for service to customers in the state, require proper accounting, control the issuance and sale of securities, and issue certificates of convenience and necessity.
GSU is subject to the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of incorporated cities in Texas as to retail rates and services within their boundaries, with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT. GSU is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to retail rates and services in rural areas, certification of new generating plants, and extensions of service into new areas. GSU is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to electric and gas service, rates and charges, certification of generating facilities and power or capacity purchase contracts, and other matters.
LP&L is subject to the jurisdiction of the LPSC as to rates and charges, standards of service, depreciation, accounting, and other matters, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Council with respect to such matters within Algiers.
MP&L is subject to regulation as to service, service areas, facilities, and retail rates by the MPSC. MP&L is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station.
NOPSI is subject to regulation as to electric and gas service, rates and charges, standards of service, depreciation, accounting, issuance of certain securities, and other matters by the Council.
Franchises. AP&L holds franchises to provide electric service in 301 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas, all of which are unlimited in duration and terminable by either party.
GSU holds non-exclusive franchises, permits, or certificates of convenience and necessity to provide electric and gas service in 55 incorporated villages, cities, and towns in Louisiana and 64 incorporated cities and towns in Texas. GSU ordinarily holds 50-year franchises in Texas towns and 60-year franchises in Louisiana towns. The present terms of GSU's electric franchises will expire in the years 2007-2036 in Texas and in the years 2015-2046 in Louisiana. The natural gas franchise in the City of Baton Rouge will expire in the year 2015.
LP&L holds franchises to provide electric service in 116 incorporated villages, cities, and towns. Most of these franchises have 25-year terms expiring during the period 1995-2015. However, six of these municipalities have granted 60-year franchises, with the last one expiring in the year 2040. Of these franchises, none has expired to date, one is scheduled to expire as early as 1995, and 37 are scheduled to expire by year-end 2000. LP&L also supplies electric service in 353 unincorporated communities, all of which are located in parishes (counties) from which LP&L holds franchises to serve the areas in which the unincorporated communities are located.
MP&L has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to the areas of Mississippi that MP&L serves, which include a number of municipalities. MP&L continues to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.
NOPSI provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to city ordinances, which state, among other things, that the City has a continuing option to purchase NOPSI's electric and gas utility properties.
System Energy has no franchises from any municipality or state. Its business is currently limited to wholesale sales of power.
Environmental Regulation
General. In the areas of air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters, the System operating companies, System Energy, Entergy Power, and Entergy Operations are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities. Each of the Entergy companies considers itself to be in substantial compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to its business and operations. Entergy has incurred increased costs of construction and other increased costs in meeting environmental protection standards. Because environmental regulations are continually changing, the ultimate compliance costs to Entergy cannot be precisely estimated at any one time. However, Entergy currently estimates that its potential capital expenditures for environmental control purposes, including those discussed in "Clean Air Legislation," below, will not be material for the System as a whole.
Clean Air Legislation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Act) place limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from fossil-fueled generating plants. Entergy has evaluated the Act to determine the impact on the System's overall cost of emission control and monitoring equipment. Based upon such evaluation in connection with existing generating facilities, the System has determined that no additional control equipment will be required to control sulfur dioxide. In the area served by GSU, control equipment will be required for nitrogen oxide reductions due to the ozone nonattainment status of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Beaumont and Houston, Texas air quality control regions no later than May 1995. The cost of such control equipment is estimated at $16.0 million. The remainder of the System may be required to install nitrogen oxide emission controls on its coal units by the year 2000. The EPA is currently drafting rules that will determine the levels of nitrogen oxide emissions that will be allowed by affected units. Under the latest EPA-proposed regulations on nitrogen oxide, Entergy would not have to install additional controls. It is not possible to determine at this time if the final regulations promulgated by EPA would require the System's coal units to install nitrogen oxide emission controls. Should additional controls be required, the overall cost would vary depending on the eventual emission levels that are set.
In addition, the System will be required to install additional continuous emission monitoring equipment at its coal units to comply with final EPA regulations. It is estimated that the continuous emission monitoring systems could cost as much as $1.0 million for all of the coal units. Final EPA regulations established the acceptable continuous monitoring methods, as well as alternative monitoring methods, that make it possible to determine the compliance of the units with respect to emission levels through fuel sampling and other estimation methods. Capital expenditures of approximately $11.0 million are estimated for continuous emission monitoring systems at the other fossil-fueled units.
The authority to impose permit fees has been delegated to the states by EPA and, depending on the extent of the state program and the fees imposed by each state regulatory authority, permit fees for the System could range from $1.6 to $5.0 million annually.
There are several other areas, such as air toxins and visibility, that will require regulatory study and rule promulgation to determine whether pollution control equipment is necessary.
Regarding sulfur dioxide emissions, the Act provides "allowances" to most Entergy units based upon past emission levels and operating characteristics. Each unit of allowance is an entitlement to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide per year. Under the Act, utilities will be required to possess allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions from affected units. Based on Entergy's past operating history, it is considered a "clean" utility and as such will receive more allowances than are currently necessary for normal operations. The System believes that it will be able to operate its units efficiently without installing scrubbers or purchasing allowances from outside sources, and the System may have excess allowances available for sale to other utilities.
Entergy currently estimates that total capital costs of approximately $39.4 million could be required to comply with the Act. These estimated costs for each legal entity are as follows:
Nitrogen Continuous Company Oxide Emissions Control Monitors Total ---------------------- -------- ---------- ----- (In Thousands)
AP&L $ 7,275 $ 3,300 $10,575 GSU 16,000 4,900 20,900 LP&L - 2,300 2,300 MP&L 2,500 1,500 4,000 NOPSI - - - System Energy - - - Entergy Power 1,575 - 1,575 ------- ------- ------- Total Entergy System $27,350 $12,000 $39,350 ======= ======= =======
Other Environmental Matters. The provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (Superfund), among other things, authorize the EPA and, indirectly, the states to require the generators and certain transporters of certain hazardous substances released from or at a site, and the owners or operators of such site, to clean up the site or reimburse the costs therefor. This statute has been interpreted to impose joint and several liability on responsible parties. In compliance with applicable laws and regulations at the time, the System operating companies have sent waste materials to various disposal sites over the years. Also, past operating procedures and maintenance practices, which were not subject to regulation at that time, are now regulated by various environmental laws. Some of these sites have been the subject of governmental action, thereby causing one or more of the System operating companies to be involved with site cleanup activities. The System operating companies have participated to various degrees in accordance with their potential liability with these site cleanups and have, therefore, developed experience with cleanup costs. Their experience in these matters, and their judgments related thereto, are utilized by them in evaluating these sites. In addition, the System operating companies have established reserves for environmental clean-up/restoration activities.
AP&L. AP&L has received notices from time to time between 1989 and 1993, from the EPA, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E), and others that it (among numerous others, including various utilities, municipalities and other governmental units, and major corporations) may be a PRP for cleanup costs associated with various sites in Arkansas. Most of these sites are neither owned nor operated by any System company. Contaminants at the sites include principally polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), lead, and other hazardous wastes. These sites and others are described below.
AP&L received notices from the EPA and ADPC&E in 1990 and 1991, identifying it as one of 30 PRP's (along with LP&L and GSU) at two Saline County sites in Arkansas. Both sites are believed to be contaminated with PCB's and lead. Cleanup costs for both sites are estimated at $6.0 million, with AP&L's total share of the costs being estimated at approximately $2.0 million. AP&L to date has expended approximately $1.0 million for remediation at one of these sites. The total liability cannot be precisely determined until remediation is complete at both sites. AP&L believes its potential liability for these sites will not be material.
Reynolds Metals Company (RMC) and AP&L notified the EPA in 1989, of possible PCB contamination at two former RMC plant sites in Arkansas to which AP&L had supplied power. AP&L completed remediation at the substations serving the plant sites at a cost of $1.7 million. Additional PCB contamination was found in a portion of a drainage ditch that flows from the RMC's Patterson facility to the Ouachita River. RMC has demanded that AP&L participate in the remediation efforts with respect to the ditch. AP&L and independent contractors engaged by AP&L conducted an investigation of the ditch contamination and the potential migration of PCB's from the electrical equipment that AP&L maintained at the plant. The investigation concluded that little, if any, of the contamination was caused by AP&L. AP&L's expenditures thus far on the ditch have been approximately $150,000. It is AP&L's understanding that RMC has spent approximately $10.0 million to complete remediation of the ditch contamination. AP&L has not received a notice from the EPA that it may be a PRP with respect to remediation costs for this site. However, RMC is seeking reimbursement of $5.0 million (50% of expenditures) from AP&L. AP&L continues to deny responsibility for any of such remediation costs and believes that its potential liability, if any, for this site will not be material.
AP&L entered into a Consent Administrative Order dated February 21, 1991, with the ADPC&E that named AP&L as a PRP for cleanup of contamination associated with the Utilities Services, Inc. state Superfund site located near Rison, Arkansas. Such site was found to have soil contaminated by PCB's and pentachlorophenol (a wood preservative chemical). Also, containers and drums that contained PCB's and other hazardous substances were found at the site. AP&L's share of total remediation costs are estimated to range between $3.0 million and $5.0 million. AP&L is attempting to identify and notify other PRP's. AP&L has received assurances from the ADPC&E that it will use its enforcement authority to allocate remediation expenses among AP&L and any other PRP's that can be identified (approximately 30 - 35 have been identified to date). AP&L has performed the activities necessary to stabilize the site, which to date has cost approximately $114,000. AP&L believes that its potential liability for this site will not be material.
AP&L received Notice of Potential Liability and a Demand for Payment in November 1992 from the EPA in conjunction with a contaminated site in Union County, Arkansas. AP&L was identified as one of eleven PRP's, which also include LP&L. The EPA has already completed cleanup of the site. An agreement has been negotiated with the EPA which determined AP&L to be a de minimis party with total liability of approximately $47,000.
As a result of an internal investigation, AP&L has discovered soil contamination at two AP&L-owned sites located in Blytheville, Arkansas and Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The contamination appears to be a result of past operating procedures that were performed prior to any applicable environmental regulation. AP&L is still investigating these sites to determine the full extent of the contamination. Until the investigations are complete, AP&L cannot estimate the liabilities associated with these sites. However, AP&L believes its potential liability for both of the sites should not be material.
For all of these sites and for certain sites in which remediation has been completed, AP&L has expended approximately $3.2 million for cleanup costs since 1989.
GSU. GSU has been notified by the EPA that it has been designated as a PRP for the cleanup of sites on which GSU and others have, or have been alleged to have, disposed of hazardous materials. GSU is currently negotiating with the EPA and various state authorities regarding the cleanup of some of these sites. Several class action and other suits have been filed seeking relief from GSU and others for damages caused by the disposal of hazardous waste and for asbestos-related disease that allegedly occurred from exposure on GSU premises or on premises on which GSU allegedly disposed of materials (see "Other Regulation and Litigation - GSU," below). While the amounts at issue in the cleanup efforts and suits may be very substantial sums, management believes that its financial condition and results of operations will not be materially affected by the outcome of the suits. These environmental liabilities are described below.
In 1971, GSU purchased certain property near its Sabine generating station for possible cooling water capability expansion. Although it was not known to GSU at the time of the purchase, the property was utilized by area industries in the 1950's and 1960's as an industrial waste dump. GSU sold the property in 1984. In October 1984 the abandoned waste site on the property was included on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) by the EPA. The EPA has indicated that it believes GSU to be a PRP for cleanup of the site based on its past ownership. GSU has advised the EPA that it does not believe that it has such responsibility. GSU has pursued negotiations with the EPA and is a member of a task force made up of other PRP's for the voluntary cleanup of the waste site. A Consent Decree has been signed by all parties. Because additional wastes have been discovered at the site since the original cleanup costs were estimated, the total costs for the voluntary cleanup are unknown. However, it is estimated that cleanup will exceed $15.0 million. GSU has negotiated a responsible share of 2.26% of the estimated cleanup cost. Federal and state agencies are presently examining potential liabilities associated with natural resource damages. This matter is currently under negotiation with the other PRP's and the agencies. Remediation of the site is expected to be completed in 1996.
In March 1993, GSU completed its cleanup activities at a site in Houston, Texas, which is included in the NPL. On September 20, 1993, GSU received formal notification from the EPA of its acceptance of the remedial activities conducted at the site. Currently, other parties are conducting cleanup activities at the site. However, these cleanup activities are unrelated to GSU's involvement at the site. Through 1993, GSU incurred cleanup costs of approximately $3.3 million. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, GSU is responsible for oversight costs incurred by the EPA. GSU has not received a reimbursement request for outstanding oversight costs, but anticipates these costs may total between $250,000 and $500,000. GSU is pursuing contribution for the cleanup costs at the site from other parties believed to be potentially responsible.
GSU is currently involved in a multi-phased remedial investigation of an abandoned manufactured gas plant (MGP) site located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The property was the site of an MGP that is believed to have operated during the period from approximately 1916 to 1931. Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process, was apparently routed to a portion of the property for disposal. Since GSU purchased the property in 1926, the same area has been filled with soil and used as a landfill for miscellaneous items including electrical poles, electrical equipment, and other debris. Under an Order by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), which is currently stayed, GSU was required to investigate and, if necessary, take remedial action at the site. The EPA has notified GSU that it is performing an independent review and ranking of the site to determine whether the site should be listed on the NPL. Another PRP has been identified and is believed to have had a role in the ownership and operation of the MGP. Negotiations with that company for joint participation and any remedial action are expected to continue. GSU currently is awaiting notification from the EPA before initiating additional cleanup negotiations or actions. While studies to determine the location of the coal tar have been conducted, the cleanup costs of the site are unknown. GSU does not presently believe that its ultimate responsibility with respect to this site will be material.
GSU has also been advised that it has been named as a PRP, along with a number of other companies (including LP&L), for an abandoned waste oil recycling plant site in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, which is included on the NPL. Although significant remediation has been completed, additional studies are expected to continue in 1994. GSU and LP&L have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit lodged against a group of PRP's associated with the site. (For information regarding litigation in connection with the Livingston Parish site, see "Other Regulation and Litigation - GSU," below.) GSU does not presently believe that its ultimate responsibility with respect to this site will be material.
GSU received notification in 1992 from the EPA of potential liability at a site located in Iota, Louisiana. This site accepted a variety of wastes, including medical and chemical wastes. In addition to GSU, over 200 parties have been named as PRP's. The EPA is continuing its investigation of the site and has notified the PRP's of the possibility of this site being linked to another site. To date, GSU has not received notification of liability with regard to the other site. GSU does not presently believe its ultimate responsibility with respect to this site will be material.
GSU has also been notified by the EPA of potential liability at two sites located in Saline County, Arkansas. It is believed that both sites served as a salvaging facility for transformers and batteries. In addition to GSU, 32 other parties (including AP&L and LP&L) have been named as PRP's. At this time, GSU's involvement with the site is unknown. GSU does not presently believe that its ultimate responsibility with respect to this site will be material.
In November 1993, GSU received informal notification from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management regarding a site at which electrical capacitors had been located. The State traced several of these capacitors to GSU. GSU records indicate these capacitors were returned under warranty to the manufacturer in the 1960's due to defects. GSU does not presently believe it is responsible for any alleged activities occurring at this site.
As of December 31, 1993, GSU had expended $7.0 million toward the cleanup of such sites.
In 1990, GSU received an order from the LDEQ to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive hydrocarbons at its Willow Glen and Louisiana Station plants located near Baton Rouge, Louisiana. GSU has requested an adjudicatory hearing on the matter, which the LDEQ secretary has deemed as staying the order. In the interim, GSU has joined several other Baton Rouge industries to develop and submit to LDEQ a comprehensive set of short- and long-range reduction plans. In 1993, LDEQ adopted regulations requiring permanent reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions at Willow Glen and Louisiana Station and is considering requirements for further reductions. The estimates for actions necessary to comply with these regulations are included in the discussion under "Clean Air Legislation," above. GSU believes these regulations implement the intent of the 1990 order, and actions beyond those required by the regulations will not be required.
LP&L and NOPSI. LP&L and NOPSI have received notices from time to time between 1986 and 1993 from the EPA and/or the states of Louisiana and Mississippi that each or either of the companies may be a PRP for cleanup costs associated with disposal sites that are currently in various stages of remediation in Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri that are neither owned nor operated by any System company.
As to one Missouri site, LP&L's and NOPSI's aggregate liability is currently estimated not to exceed $558,000, and because of the type and the large number of PRP's (over 700, including many large utilities and national and international corporations), LP&L and NOPSI do not expect liabilities in excess of this amount. For the other Missouri site, LP&L and the other 64 PRP's (including several large, creditworthy utility companies) have received an EPA demand to pay approximately $1.2 million expended by the EPA. In June of 1993, LP&L paid $12,392 in full payment of its share of the cleanup costs. LP&L considers cleanup at this site to be complete.
As to the two Saline County, Arkansas sites (involving AP&L, GSU, and LP&L), LP&L has been advised that current estimates for total cleanup are approximately $6.0 million. LP&L believes that, because of the number and nature of the PRP's, its exposure for these sites will not be material. Initial indications are that LP&L was involved in the Saline sites, but LP&L believes that because of the limited scope of its involvement and the number and nature of PRP's, its exposure for these sites will not be material.
LP&L received notice from the EPA in November 1992, that it (along with AP&L) was involved in the Union County, Arkansas site. An agreement has been negotiated with the EPA that determined LP&L to be a de minimis party with a total liability of approximately $47,000 (see "AP&L," above.)
As to the Mississippi site, LP&L (along with System Energy) understands that EPA has expended approximately $740,000 for this site (three separate locations being treated administratively as one). The State of Mississippi has indicated it intends to have PRP's conduct a cleanup of the site but has not yet taken formal action. LP&L has expended $22,300 to settle with the EPA for its costs for this site and, because there are 44 PRP's for this site (including a number of major oil companies), does not expect its share of future costs to be material.
For a Livingston Parish, Louisiana site (involving at least 70 PRP's, including GSU and many other large and creditworthy corporations), LP&L has found in its records no evidence of its involvement. (For information regarding litigation in connection with the Livingston Parish site, see "Other Regulation and Litigation - LP&L," below.) At a second Louisiana site (also included on the NPL and involving 57 PRP's, including a number of major corporations), NOPSI believes it has no liability for the site because the material it sent to the site was not a hazardous substance.
For the Illinois site, NOPSI, upon its review of the site documentation and of its own records, has asserted to the EPA that it has no involvement in this site. However, NOPSI is participating with other PRP's (including many large and creditworthy corporations) as a prudent means of resolving potential liability, if any.
For all these sites, LP&L has expended approximately $349,000 and NOPSI has expended approximately $172,000 for cleanup costs (commencing in 1986) to date.
During 1993, LP&L performed preliminary site assessments at the locations of two retired power plants previously owned and operated by two Louisiana municipalities. LP&L had purchased the power plants by agreement (as part of the municipal electric systems) after operating them for the last few years of their useful lives. The assessments indicated some subsurface contamination from fuel oil. LP&L and the LDEQ are now reviewing site remediation procedures that LP&L estimates will not exceed $650,000 in the aggregate.
During 1993, the LDEQ issued new rules for solid waste regulation, including waste water impoundments. LP&L has determined that certain of its power plant waste water impoundments are affected by these regulations and has chosen to close them rather than retrofit and permit them. The aggregate cost of the impoundment closures, to be completed by 1996, is estimated to be $7.3 million.
System Energy. In February 1990, System Energy received an EPA notice that it (among numerous other companies) may be a PRP for cleanup costs associated with the same site in Mississippi in which LP&L is involved. Potential liability is based on the alleged shipment of waste oil to the site from 1981 to 1985. System Energy does not expect its share of the total expenditures to be material because there are 44 PRP's for this site, including a number of major oil companies.
Other Regulation and Litigation
Entergy Corporation and GSU. In July and August 1992, Entergy Corporation and GSU filed applications with FERC, the LPSC, and the PUCT, and Entergy Corporation, Entergy Operations, and Entergy Services filed an application with the SEC under the Holding Company Act, seeking authorization of various aspects of the Merger. In January 1993, GSU filed two applications with the NRC seeking approval of the change in ownership of GSU and an amendment to the operating license for River Bend to reflect its operation by Entergy Operations. All regulatory approvals were obtained in 1993 and the Merger was consummated on December 31, 1993 (see "Business of Entergy - Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger," above, for further information).
Requests for rehearing of certain aspects of the FERC order were filed on January 14, 1994, by 14 parties, including Entergy Corporation, the APSC, the Mississippi Attorney General, the LPSC, the MPSC, the Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the PUCT. Entergy Corporation, the LPSC, the Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the PUCT are requesting FERC to restore a 40% cap on the amount of fuel savings GSU may be required to transfer to other Entergy operating companies under a tracking mechanism designed to protect the other companies from certain unexpected increases in fuel costs. The other parties are seeking to overturn FERC's decision on various grounds. Requests for rehearing of the SEC order were filed with the SEC by Houston Industries Incorporated and Houston Lighting & Power Company on December 28, 1993, and petitions for review seeking to set aside the SEC order were filed with the D.C. Circuit by these parties on February 15, 1994 and by Cajun on February 14, 1994.
See "Nuclear Operations - River Bend," above for information on challenges to the NRC's approval of GSU's applications.
Appeals seeking to set aside the LPSC order related to the Merger were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, by Houston Lighting & Power Company on August 13, 1993, and by the Alliance for Affordable Energy, Inc. on August 20, 1993. Subsequently, on February 9, 1994, Houston Lighting & Power Company filed a motion voluntarily dismissing its appeal.
AP&L. Three lawsuits (which have been consolidated) were filed in the Arkansas District Court by numerous plaintiffs against AP&L and Entergy Services in connection with the operation of two dams during a period of heavy rainfall and flooding in May 1990. The consolidated lawsuits sought approximately $14.4 million in property losses and other compensatory damages, and $500 million in punitive damages. In their responses to these complaints, AP&L and Entergy Services asserted, among other things, that AP&L owns flowage easements giving it the permanent right to inundate the lands owned or occupied by the plaintiffs in connection with the operation of the dams. In June 1991, the Arkansas District Court granted summary judgment to AP&L with respect to the enforceability of its flowage easements. In November 1991, the Arkansas District Court ruled that Entergy Services was entitled to the benefit of AP&L's flowage easements, in effect, removing from consideration damages in the approximate amount of $13.5 million alleged to have occurred within the areas covered by the easements. As a result, over 300 plaintiffs claiming damage within the easements were dismissed from the consolidated case in December 1991. Certain plaintiffs appealed these orders to the Eighth Circuit, which appeal was denied in March 1992. Following the Eighth Circuit's denial of their interlocutory appeal from the Arkansas District Court's orders, certain of the plaintiffs, without prejudice to their right to refile, voluntarily dismissed their claims which had not been disposed of in the Arkansas District Court's orders, thus making the orders a final adjudication, and appealed these orders to the Eighth Circuit. The remaining plaintiffs obtained a stay and an administrative termination of their claims, pending the outcome of the appeal. In December 1993, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit filed its opinion affirming the judgment of the Arkansas District Court and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiffs appealing the Arkansas District Court's orders filed petitions with the Eighth Circuit for a rehearing by the entire Court sitting en banc, which petitions were denied. The plaintiffs may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari to permit its review of the Eighth Circuit's decisions. Neither AP&L nor Entergy Services can predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant such a petition, if one is filed.
GSU. Between 1986 and 1993, GSU and approximately 70 other defendants, including many national and international corporations, including LP&L, have been sued in 17 suits in the Livingston Parish, Louisiana District Court (State District Court) by a number of plaintiffs who allegedly suffered damage or injury, or are survivors of persons who allegedly died, as a result of exposure to "hazardous toxic waste" that emanated from a site in Livingston Parish. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants generated, transported, or participated in the storage of such wastes at the facility, which was previously operated as a waste oil recycling facility. These State District Court suits, which seek damages in total amounts ranging from $1.0 million to $10.0 billion and are now consolidated in a class action, and three federal suits in three states other than Louisiana involving issues arising from the same facility, have been removed and transferred, respectively, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (Federal District Court). Motions to remand the class action to the State District Court have been filed, and procedural issues regarding the federal suits are being considered as well. It is not known what effect any action taken on these motions and issues, whenever taken by the Federal District Court, would have on the April 11, 1994 State District Court trial date that was established before the suits were removed to Federal District Court; but it is unlikely such trial date will be met. The matter is pending.
In October 1989, an amended lawsuit petition was filed on behalf of 985 plaintiffs in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, 60th Judicial District in Beaumont, Texas, naming 55 defendants including GSU. In February 1990, another amended lawsuit petition was filed in a different state District Court in Jefferson County, Texas, on behalf of over 200 plaintiffs (subsequently amended to include a total of 660) naming 127 defendants including GSU. Possibly 300 to 400 or more of the plaintiffs in Texas may have worked at GSU's premises. At least five other individual suits have been filed in Beaumont against GSU and others, seeking damages for alleged asbestos exposure. All of the plaintiffs in such suits are also suing GSU and all other defendants on a conspiracy count. There are 25 asbestos- related law suits filed in the 14th Judicial District Court of Calcasieu Parish in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on behalf of an aggregate of 53 plaintiffs naming from 16 to 24 defendants including GSU, and GSU is aware of as many as 61 additional cases that may be filed. The suits allege that each plaintiff contracted an asbestos-related disease from exposure to asbestos insulation products on the premises of such defendants. Management believes that GSU has meritorious defenses, but there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these cases or that additional claims may not be asserted. In asbestos- related suits against the manufacturers, very substantial recoveries have been achieved by large groups of claimants. GSU does not presently believe that the ultimate resolution of these cases will materially adversely affect the financial position of GSU.
On February 3, 1984, Dow Chemical Company filed a request with the LPSC for a hearing to consider issues related to the purchase of cogenerated power by GSU. Other industries subsequently filed similar requests and the matters were consolidated. In November 1984, the LPSC completed hearings on rules, policies, and pricing methodologies applicable to cogeneration. Key issues were whether or not (1) GSU should be required to pay the industries for avoided capacity costs, and (2) GSU should be required to wheel power to or from the industrial plants. While the matter is still pending before the LPSC, the LPSC did set interim rates, subject to refund by either Dow or GSU, which exclude capacity costs.
GSU has significant business relationships with Cajun, primarily co-ownership of River Bend and Big Cajun 2 Unit 3. GSU and Cajun own 70% and 30% of River Bend, respectively, while Big Cajun 2 Unit 3 is owned 42% and 58% by GSU and Cajun, respectively. GSU operates River Bend and Cajun operates Big Cajun 2 Unit 3.
GSU was requested by Cajun and Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc., (Jefferson Davis) to provide transmission of power over GSU's system for delivery to the Industrial Road area near Lake Charles, Louisiana. GSU provides electric service to industrial and other customers in such area, and Cajun and Jefferson Davis do not. On October 10, 1989, Cajun filed a complaint at FERC contending that GSU wrongfully refused to provide Cajun certain transmission services so that its member, Jefferson Davis, could provide service to certain industrial customers, and it requested FERC to order GSU to provide the service. On October 26, 1989, FERC summarily dismissed Cajun's complaint, but the D.C. Circuit reversed FERC's summary determination and remanded the case to FERC for a hearing. On June 24, 1992, after a hearing, an ALJ issued an Initial Decision, again dismissing Cajun's complaint. The ALJ found that the parties' contract did not require GSU to provide the service and that Cajun's member, Jefferson Davis, had not sought permission from the LPSC to serve the end-use customers in question. If Jefferson Davis secured permission from the LPSC, the ALJ believed (but did not decide) that FERC would require GSU to provide the requested transmission service. Both Cajun and GSU have filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision, and the matter is pending before FERC.
Cajun and Jefferson Davis also brought a related action in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana alleging that GSU breached its obligations under the parties' contract and violated the antitrust laws by refusing to provide the transmission service described above. Cajun and Jefferson Davis seek an injunction requiring GSU to provide the requested service and unspecified treble damages for GSU's refusal to provide the service. On November 9, 1989, the district court judge denied Cajun's and Jefferson Davis' motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 3, 1991, the judge stayed the proceeding pending final resolution of the matters still pending before FERC.
GSU and Cajun are parties to FERC proceedings regarding certain long-standing disputes relating to transmission service charges. Cajun asserts that GSU has improperly applied the terms of a rate schedule, Service Schedule CTOC, to its billings to Cajun and it seeks an order from FERC directing GSU to recompute the bills. GSU asserts that Cajun underpaid its bills, and it seeks an order directing Cajun to pay surcharges to make up the underpayments. On April 10, 1992, FERC issued an order affirming in part and reversing in part an ALJ's recommendations. Both GSU and Cajun have requested rehearing, and the requests are still pending. In addition, on August 25, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed portions of FERC's order previously decided adversely to GSU, and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings. On January 13, 1994, FERC rejected GSU's proposal to collect an interim surcharge while FERC considers the court's remand. GSU interprets FERC's 1992 order and the Court of Appeals decision to mean that Cajun owes GSU approximately $85 million through December 31, 1993. If GSU also prevails on all of the issues raised in its pending request for rehearing of FERC's earlier orders, then GSU estimates that Cajun would owe GSU approximately $118 million through December 31, 1993. If GSU does not prevail on its rehearing request, and Cajun prevails on its rehearing request, and if FERC rejects the modifications GSU interprets the court of appeals to have directed, then GSU would owe Cajun an estimated $76 million through December 31, 1993. Pending FERC's ruling on the May 1992 motions for rehearing, GSU has continued to bill Cajun utilizing the historical billing methodology and has booked underpaid transmission charges, including interest, in the amount of $140.8 million as of December 31, 1993. This amount is reflected in long-term receivables and in other deferred credits, with no effect on net income.
On December 7, 1993, Cajun filed a complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging that GSU failed to provide Cajun an opportunity to construct certain facilities that allegedly would have reduced its rates under Service Schedule CTOC, and Cajun seeks an order compelling the conveyance of certain facilities and unspecified damages. GSU has moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis, among others, that FERC has already addressed the matter in the proceedings described above.
In May 1990, GSU received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General - Investigations, United States Department of Agriculture, seeking production of documents relating to the construction costs of River Bend. Such office is authorized to investigate matters relating to programs of the Department of Agriculture. GSU has been sued by Cajun with respect to its participation in River Bend with funds made available through Department programs administered by the REA. GSU has failed in its efforts to have the REA made a party to the Cajun litigation. GSU does not know the purpose of such Office's investigation, but presently assumes that it relates to the Cajun civil litigation since the production of documents sought by such Office is similar to that sought by Cajun in its action against GSU. However, there can be no assurance given by GSU as to the real purpose of such Office's investigation. Among other areas of responsibility, such office is authorized to investigate possible violations of law. GSU believes the subpoena proceeding has been administratively dismissed without prejudice to the parties.
On December 2, 1991, Cajun filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The complaint concerns GSU's position that Cajun is in default with respect to paying its share of certain expenditures to repair corrosion damage in the service water system, to repair a feedwater nozzle crack, and to repair a turbine rotor. Cajun alleges that it has no obligation to pay its share of such costs and seeks a declaration that it may elect not to participate in the funding of such costs and enjoining GSU from demanding payment therefor or attempting to implement default provisions in the Operating Agreement with respect thereto. Cajun alleges that if it is required to pay its share of such costs it would be forced to default on other obligations and would be forced to seek relief in bankruptcy. GSU believes that Cajun is in default under the provisions of the Operating Agreement. No assurance can be given as to the outcome or timing of this action brought by Cajun.
On November 25, 1992, Dixie Electric Membership Corporation and Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corporation, both members of Cajun, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana seeking a declaration that the River Bend Joint Ownership Agreement between GSU and Cajun is void because an allegedly required approval of the LPSC was not obtained. This suit has been transferred from the Western District to the Middle District, and is being processed in conjunction with the suit described in the following paragraph. GSU believes the suit is without merit.
In June 1989, Cajun filed a civil action against GSU in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Cajun stated in its complaint that the object of the suit is to annul, rescind, terminate, and/or dissolve the Joint Ownership Participation and Operating Agreement entered into on August 28, 1979 (Operating Agreement), related to River Bend. Cajun alleges fraud and error by GSU, breach of its fiduciary duties owed to Cajun, and/or GSU's repudiation, renunciation, abandonment, or dissolution of its core obligations under the Operating Agreement, as well as the lack or failure of cause and/or consideration for Cajun's performance under the Operating Agreement. The suit seeks to recover Cajun's alleged $1.6 billion investment in the unit as damages, plus attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. In March 1992, the district court appointed a mediator to engage in settlement discussions and to schedule settlement conferences between the parties. Discussions with the mediator began in July 1992, however, GSU cannot predict what effect, if any, such discussions will have on the timing or outcome of the case. A trial without a jury is set for April 12, 1994, on the portion of the suit by Cajun to rescind the Operating Agreement. GSU believes the suits are without merit and is contesting them vigorously. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of this litigation. If GSU were ultimately unsuccessful in this litigation and were required to make substantial payments, GSU would probably be unable to make such payments and would probably have to seek relief from its creditors under the Bankruptcy Code.
See Note 12 of GSU's Notes to Financial Statements, "Entergy Corporation-GSU Merger," for the accounting treatment of preacquisition contingencies, including a charge resulting from an adverse resolution of the litigation with Cajun related to River Bend.
In July 1992, Cajun notified GSU that it would fund a limited amount of costs related to the fourth refueling outage at River Bend, completed in September 1992. Cajun has also not funded its share of the costs associated with certain additional repairs and improvements at River Bend completed during the refueling outage. GSU has paid the costs associated with such repairs and improvements without waiving any rights against Cajun. GSU believes that Cajun is obligated to pay its share of such costs under the terms of the applicable contract. Cajun has filed a suit seeking a declaration that it does not owe such funds and seeking injunctive relief against GSU. GSU is contesting such suit and is reviewing its available legal remedies.
In September 1992, GSU received a letter from Cajun alleging that the operating and maintenance costs for River Bend are "far in excess of industry averages" and that "it would be imprudent for Cajun to fund these excessive costs." Cajun further stated that until it is satisfied it would fund a maximum of $700,000 per week under protest for the remainder of 1992. In a December 1992 letter, Cajun stated that it would also withhold costs associated with certain additional repairs, of which the majority will be incurred during the next refueling outage, currently scheduled for April 1994. GSU believes that Cajun's allegations are without merit and is considering its legal and other remedies available with respect to the underpayments by Cajun. The total resulting from Cajun's failure to fund repair projects, Cajun's funding limitation on the fourth refueling outage, and the weekly funding limitation by Cajun was $33.3 million as of December 31, 1993, compared with a $28.4 million unfunded balance as of December 31, 1992.
During 1994, and for the next several years, it is expected that Cajun's share of River Bend-related costs will be in the range of $60 million to $70 million per year. Cajun's weak financial condition could have a material adverse effect on GSU, including a possible NRC action with respect to the operation of River Bend and a need to bear additional costs associated with the co-owned facilities. If GSU were required to fund Cajun's share of costs, there can be no assurance that such payments could be recovered. Cajun's weak financial condition could also affect the ultimate collectibility of amounts owed to GSU.
Since 1986, GSU had been in litigation with the Southern Company regarding unit power and long-term power purchase contracts with the Southern Company. GSU entered into a settlement agreement dated December 21, 1990, which was consummated on November 7, 1991, and the settlement obligations were fully satisfied in 1993.
In 1986, the PUCT and the LPSC disallowed the pass-through by GSU in its retail rates of the costs of the capacity purchases from the Southern Company, which were being incurred by GSU. GSU appealed the actions of the PUCT and the LPSC disallowing pass-through of Southern Company capacity charges to the appropriate state courts. The appeal from the LPSC is pending. As part of a settlement of a retail rate case in Texas during the fourth quarter of 1993, GSU has discontinued its appeal of the PUCT disallowance.
Following the announcement of the execution of the Reorganization Agreement, a purported class action complaint was filed on June 9, 1992, in the District Court 60th Judicial District in Jefferson County, Texas (District Court) against GSU and its directors relating to the then proposed business combination with Entergy Corporation. On June 11, 1992, two additional purported class action complaints were filed against such defendants in the District Court. All three of the complaints (the Shareholder Actions) were filed by persons alleged to be shareholders of GSU and seeking declaration of a class action on behalf of all persons owning common stock of GSU.
GSU has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs in these suits agreeing in principle to settle such actions subject to execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, approval by the court, and certain other conditions. In the Memorandum, the defendants have denied any actionable acts or omissions and state that they have entered into the Memorandum solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to facilitate the consummation of the business combination. The Memorandum memorialized certain agreements by GSU and Entergy Corporation for the benefit of shareholders principally in the event the business combination were not consummated, including a covenant to consider reinstitution of dividends on the common stock of GSU in such event. The business combination was consummated on December 31, 1993. Incident to the settlement, the defendants agreed not to oppose an application for attorneys' fees by plaintiffs' counsel that do not exceed $500,000 or for an award of expenses not to exceed $50,000. The individual directors named as defendants in these complaints are entitled to indemnification pursuant to GSU's Restated Articles of Incorporation, By-laws, and individual indemnity agreements, provided that the terms and conditions of the indemnities are satisfied.
LP&L. For information regarding litigation in connection with an abandoned waste oil recycling plant site in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, in which LP&L and GSU are defendants, see "GSU," above. LP&L does not believe that it was a generator of any material delivered to this facility and is defending vigorously against the claims in these suits.
Since the mid-1980's, LP&L and the tax authorities of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana (Parish), in which Parish Waterford 3 is located, have disputed use taxes paid on nuclear fuel ($4.9 million through 1989) under protest by LP&L. LP&L has been successful in a lawsuit in the Parish with regard to recovering these taxes, plus interest, and also with regard to Parish lease tax issues pertaining to fuel financing arrangements. On the grounds of the previous favorable court decisions, LP&L continues to challenge in the courts additional use tax assessments that it has paid to the Parish and to seek additional interest that LP&L claims it is due. Also, in early procedural stages are (1) suits by LP&L with regard to the state use tax on nuclear fuel, and (2) LP&L's defense (and indemnification, if necessary) of nuclear fuel lessors under LP&L's fuel financing arrangements in the suits filed by the Parish use tax authorities claiming approximately $64.0 million in lease and use taxes. These matters are pending.
System Energy. In connection with an IRS audit of Entergy's 1988, 1989, and 1990 consolidated federal income tax returns, the IRS is proposing that adjustments be made to the Grand Gulf 2 abandonment loss deduction claimed on Entergy's 1989 consolidated federal income tax return. If any such adjustments are necessary, the effect on System Energy's net income should be immaterial. Entergy intends to contest the proposed adjustments if finalized by the IRS. The outcome of such proceedings cannot be predicted at this time.
EARNINGS RATIOS OF SYSTEM OPERATING COMPANIES AND SYSTEM ENERGY
The System operating companies and System Energy have calculated ratios of earnings to fixed charges and ratios of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends pursuant to Item 503 of Regulation S-K of the SEC as follows:
____________________
(a) "Earnings" as defined by SEC Regulation S-K represent the aggregate of (1) net income, (2) taxes based on income, (3) investment tax credit adjustments-net, and (4) fixed charges. "Fixed Charges" include interest (whether expensed or capitalized), related amortization, and interest applicable to rentals charged to operating expenses.
(b) "Preferred Dividends" as defined by SEC Regulation S-K are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
(c) System Energy's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation do not currently provide for the issuance of preferred stock.
(d) "Preferred Dividends" in the case of GSU also include dividends on preference stock.
(e) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1989, include the impact of the write-off of $60 million of deferred Grand Gulf 1-related costs pursuant to an agreement between MP&L and the MPSC.
(f) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1989, were inadequate to cover fixed charges due to System Energy's cancellation and write- off of its investment in Grand Gulf 2 in September 1989. The amount of the coverage deficiency for fixed charges was $745.2 million.
(g) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1991, include the $90 million effect of the 1991 NOPSI Settlement.
(h) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1993, include approximately $81 million, $52 million, and $18 million for AP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI, respectively, related to the change in accounting principle to provide for the accrual of estimated unbilled revenues.
(i) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1990, for GSU were not adequate to cover fixed charges by $60.6 million. Earnings for the years ended December 31, 1990 and 1989, were not adequate to cover fixed charges and preferred dividends by $165.1 million and $190.8 million, respectively. Earnings in 1990 include a $205 million charge for the settlement of a purchased power dispute.
INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
NOPSI
Narrative Description of NOPSI Industry Segments
Electric Service. NOPSI supplied electric service to 190,613 customers as of December 31, 1993. During 1993, 36% of electric operating revenues was derived from residential sales, 40% from commercial sales, 6% from industrial sales, 15% from sales to governmental and municipal customers, and 3% from sales to public utilities and other sources.
Natural Gas Service. NOPSI supplied natural gas service to 154,251 customers as of December 31, 1993. During 1993, 56% of gas operating revenues was derived from residential sales, 18% from commercial sales, 9% from industrial sales, and 17% from sales to governmental and municipal customers. (See "Fuel Supply - Natural Gas Purchased for Resale," incorporated herein by reference.)
Selected Financial Information Relating to Industry Segments
For selected financial information relating to NOPSI's industry segments, see NOPSI's financial statements and Note 11 of NOPSI's Notes to Financial Statements, "Business Segment Information," incorporated herein by reference.
Employees by Segment
NOPSI's full-time employees by industry segment as of December 31, 1993, were as follows:
Electric 568 Natural Gas 148 --- Total 716
(For further information with respect to NOPSI's segments, see "Property.")
GSU
For the year ended December 31, 1993, 96% of GSU's operating revenues were derived from the electric utility business. The remainder of operating revenues were derived 2% from the steam business and 2% from the natural gas business. Segment information for GSU is not provided.
PROPERTY
Generating Stations
The total capability of Entergy 's owned and leased generating stations as of December 31, 1993, by company, is indicated below:
_______________________
(1) "Owned and Leased Capability" is the dependable load carrying capability of the stations, as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.
(2) Excludes the capacity of fossil-fueled generating stations placed on extended reserve as follows: AP&L - 506 MW; GSU - 405 MW; LP&L - 19 MW; MP&L - 73 MW; and NOPSI - 143 MW. Generating stations that are not expected to be utilized in the near-term to meet load requirements are placed in extended reserve shutdown in order to minimize operating expenses.
(3) Excludes net capability of Entergy Power, which owns 809 MW of fossil-fueled capacity (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - Entergy Power," above).
(4) Independence 2, a coal unit operated by AP&L and jointly owned 25% by MP&L (210 MW), 31.5% by Entergy Power (265 MW), and the balance by various municipalities and a cooperative. The unit was out of service, due to an explosion from August 11, 1993 to February 18, 1994.
(5) GSU's nuclear capability represents its 70% ownership interest in River Bend; Cajun owns the remaining 30% undivided interest.
(6) LP&L's nuclear capability represents its 90.7% ownership interest and 9.3% leasehold interest in Waterford 3.
(7) System Energy's capability represents its 90% interest in Grand Gulf 1 (78.5% ownership interest and 11.5% leasehold interest). South Mississippi Electric Power Association has the remaining 10% undivided ownership interest in Grand Gulf 1. Entitlement to System Energy's capacity has been allocated to AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.
(8) Includes 188 MW of capacity leased by AP&L through 1999.
Representatives of the System regularly review load and capacity projections in order to coordinate and recommend the location and time of installation of additional generating capacity and of interconnections in light of the availability of power, the location of new loads, and maximum economy to the System. Based on load and capability projections, the System has no need to install additional generating capacity until 1999. To delay the need for new capacity, the System is engaging in conservation and DSM programs, as discussed in "Business of Entergy - Competition - Least Cost Planning," above. When new generation resources are needed, the System plans to meet this need with a variety of sources other than construction of new base load generating capacity. In the meantime, the System will meet capacity needs by, among other things, removing generating stations from extended reserve shutdown. Generating stations brought out of extended reserve shutdown during 1993 added 248 MW to meet operating requirements.
Under the terms of the System Agreement, some of the generating capacity and other power resources are shared among the System operating companies. Among other things, the System Agreement provides that parties having generating capacity greater than their load requirements sell such capacity to those parties having deficiencies in generating capacity and that the purchasers pay to the sellers a charge sufficient to cover certain of the sellers' ownership costs, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred and preference stock, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment. Under the System Agreement, these charges are based on costs associated with the sellers' steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas. In addition, for all energy to be exchanged among the System operating companies under the System Agreement, the purchasers are required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Wholesale Rate Matters - System Agreement," above, for a discussion of FERC proceedings relating to the System Agreement).
The System's business is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak period occurring in the summer months. Excluding GSU, Entergy 's 1993 peak demand of 12,858 MW occurred on August 19, 1993. The net System capability at the time of peak was 14,029 MW, which reflects a reduction of the System's total 14,765 MW of owned and leased capability by net off-system firm sales of 736 MW. The capacity margin at the time of the peak was approximately 8.4%, not including units placed on extended reserve and capacity owned by Entergy Power.
GSU's 1993 peak demand of 5,612 MW occurred on August 18, 1993. The net GSU capability at the time of peak was 6,704 MW, which reflects an increase of GSU's total 6,420 MW of owned and leased capability by net off-system purchases of 284 MW. The capacity margin at the time of the peak was approximately 18.2%, not including units placed on extended reserve.
Interconnections
The electric power supply facilities of Entergy consist principally of steam-electric production facilities strategically located with reference to availability of fuel, protection of local loads, and other controlling economic factors. These are interconnected by a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 KV. Generally, with the exception of Grand Gulf 1, Entergy Power's capacity and a small portion of MP&L's capacity, operating facilities or interests therein are owned by the System operating company serving the area in which the facilities are located. However, all of the System's generating facilities are centrally dispatched and operated with a view to realizing the greatest economy. This operation seeks, among other things, the lowest cost sources of energy from hour to hour. The minimum of investment and the most efficient use of plant are sought to be achieved, in part, through the coordinated scheduling of maintenance, inspection, and overhaul.
The System operating companies have direct interconnections with neighboring utilities including, in individual cases, Mississippi Power Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company, Southwest Power Administration, Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc., Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, The Empire District Electric Company, Union Electric Company, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Cajun, Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., SRG&T, SRMPA, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Municipal Energy Agency of Mississippi, Louisiana Energy and Power Authority, Farmers Electric Cooperative, South Mississippi Electric Power Authority, and the cities of Lafayette, Plaquemine, and New Roads, Louisiana. GSU also has an interconnection agreement with Houston Lighting and Power Company providing a minor amount of emergency service only. The System operating companies also have interchange agreements with Alabama Electric Cooperative, Big Rivers Electric Cooperative, Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc., Florida Power Corporation, Florida Power & Light Company, Jacksonville Electric Authority, Oglethorpe Power Cooperative, the City of Lafayette, Louisiana, the City of Springfield, Missouri, and East Kentucky Electric Cooperative.
The System operating companies are members of the Southwest Power Pool, the primary purpose of which is to ensure the reliability and adequacy of the electric bulk power supply in the southwest region of the United States. The Southwest Power Pool is a member of the North American Electric Reliability Council. AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI are also members of the Western Systems Power Pool.
Gas Property
As of December 31, 1993, NOPSI distributed and transported natural gas for distribution solely within the limits of the City of New Orleans through a total of 1,422 miles of gas distribution mains and 32 miles of gas transmission lines. NOPSI receives deliveries of natural gas for distribution purposes at 14 separate locations, including deliveries from United Gas Pipe Line Company (United) at six of these locations. Of the remaining delivery points, two are principally served by interstate suppliers and the remaining are served by intrastate suppliers.
As of December 31, 1993, the gas property of GSU was not material to GSU.
Titles
The System's generating stations are generally located on lands owned in fee simple. The greater portion of the transmission and distribution lines of the System operating companies has been constructed over lands of private owners pursuant to easements or on public highways and streets pursuant to appropriate permits. The rights of each company in the realty on which its properties are located are considered by it to be adequate for its use in the conduct of its business. Minor defects and irregularities customarily found in properties of like size and character exist, but such defects and irregularities do not materially impair the use of the properties affected thereby. The System operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain whereby they may, if necessary, perfect or secure titles to, or easements or servitudes on, privately-held lands used or to be used in their utility operations.
Substantially all the physical properties owned by each System operating company and System Energy are subject to the lien of the mortgage and deed of trust securing the first mortgage bonds of such company. The Lewis Creek generating station is owned by GSG&T, Inc., and is not subject to the lien of the GSU mortgage securing the first mortgage bonds of GSU, but is leased and operated by GSU. In the case of LP&L, certain properties are subject to the liens of second mortgages securing other obligations of LP&L. In the case of MP&L and NOPSI, substantially all of their properties and assets are subject to the second mortgage lien of their respective general and refunding mortgage bond indentures.
FUEL SUPPLY
The following tabulation shows the percentages of natural gas, fuel oil, nuclear fuel, and coal used in generation, excluding that of Entergy Power, during the past three years. It also shows the average fuel cost per KWH generated by each type of fuel during that period. The balance of generation, which was immaterial, was provided by hydroelectric power.
ENTERGY EXCLUDING GSU
GSU
The following tabulation shows the percentages of generation by fuel type used in generation, excluding that of Entergy Power, for 1993 (actual) and 1994 (projected).
_______________________
(a) The System's 1993 actual generation by fuel type excludes GSU; 1994 estimated generation by fuel type includes GSU.
(b) Capacity and energy from System Energy's interest in Grand Gulf 1 is allocated as follows: AP&L - 36%; LP&L - 14%; MP&L - 33%; and NOPSI - 17%.
Natural Gas
The System operating companies have various long-term gas contracts that will satisfy a significant percentage of each operating company's needs; however, such contracts typically require the operating companies to purchase less than half of their annual gas requirements under such contracts. Additional gas requirements are satisfied under less expensive short-term contracts and spot-market purchases. In November 1992, GSU entered into a transportation service agreement with a gas supplier that obligates such supplier to provide GSU with flexible natural gas swing service to certain generating stations by using such supplier's pipeline and salt dome gas storage facility.
Many factors influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants including wellhead deliverability, storage and pipeline capacity, and the demand requirements of the end users. This demand is closely tied to the severity of the weather conditions in the region. Furthermore, pricing relative to other energy sources (i.e. fuel oil, coal, purchased power, etc.) will affect the demand for natural gas for power plants. Supplies of natural gas are expected to be adequate in 1994.
Pursuant to FERC and state regulations, gas supplies may be interrupted to power plants during periods of shortage. To the extent natural gas supplies may be disrupted, the System operating companies will use alternate sources of energy such as fuel oil.
Coal
AP&L has long-term contracts for the supply of low-sulfur coal for the White Bluff Steam Electric Generating Station and the Independence Steam Electric Station (which is owned 25% by MP&L). Coal for the White Bluff Station is supplied under a contract from a mine in the State of Wyoming. The coal contract provides for the delivery of sufficient coal to operate the White Bluff Station through approximately 2002. Coal for the Independence Station is also supplied under a contract from a mine in the State of Wyoming. Coal supplied under this contract is expected to meet the requirements of the Independence Station through at least 2014. GSU has a contract for a supply of low-sulfur Wyoming coal for Nelson Unit 6, which should be sufficient to satisfy the fuel requirements at Nelson Unit 6 through 2004. Cajun has advised GSU that it has contracts that should provide an adequate supply of coal until 1997 for the operation of Big Cajun 2, Unit 3 (which is operated by Cajun and of which GSU owns 42%).
Nuclear Fuel
Generally, the supply of fuel for nuclear generating units involves the mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate, the conversion of uranium concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas, enrichment of that gas, fabrication of the nuclear fuel assemblies, and disposal of the spent fuel.
System Fuels is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear fuel to be used in AP&L's, LP&L's, and System Energy's nuclear units and for maintaining inventories of such materials during the various stages of processing. Each of these companies is currently responsible for contracting for the fabrication of its own nuclear fuel and for purchasing the required enriched uranium hexafluoride from System Fuels. Currently, the requirements for GSU's River Bend plant are covered by contracts made by GSU.
On October 3, 1989, System Fuels entered into a revolving credit agreement with banks permitting it to borrow up to $45 million to finance its nuclear materials and services inventory. AP&L, LP&L, and System Energy agreed to purchase from System Fuels the nuclear materials and services financed under the agreement if System Fuels should default in its obligations thereunder. Such purchases would be allocated based on percentages agreed upon among the parties. In the absence of such agreement, AP&L, LP&L, and System Energy would each be obligated to purchase one-third of the nuclear materials and services.
Based upon the planned fuel cycles for the System's nuclear units, the following tabulation shows the years through which existing contracts and inventory will provide materials and services:
Acquisition of or Conversion Spent Uranium to Uranium Enrich- Fabri- Fuel Concentrate Hexafluoride ment(3) cation Disposal ----------- ------------ ------- ------ -------- ANO 1 (1) (1) 1995 1997 (4) ANO 2 (1) (1) 1995 1994 (4) River Bend (2) (2) 2000 1995 (4) Waterford 3 (1) (1) 1995 1999 (4) Grand Gulf 1 (1) (1) 1995 1995 (4) __________________________
(1) Current contracts will provide these materials and services through termination dates ranging from 1994-1997. Additional materials and services required beyond these dates are estimated to be available for the foreseeable future.
(2) Current GSU contracts will provide a significant percentage of these materials and services for River Bend through 1995.
(3) Enrichment services for ANO 1, ANO 2, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1 are provided by a System Fuels contract with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The contract has been terminated after 1995 to permit flexibility on future pricing and terms that could be obtained. Enrichment services for River Bend are provided by a GSU contract with USEC that may be partially terminated after 1998 and fully terminated after 2000. (See "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - Decommissioning," above for information on annual contributions to a federal decontamination and decommissioning fund required by the Energy Act to be made by AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy as a result of their enrichment contracts with DOE.)
(4) The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high level waste by the DOE. Under this Act, the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel in 1998 and to continue until the disposal of all spent fuel from reactor sites has been accomplished. In November 1989, the DOE indicated that the repository program will be delayed. Current on-site spent fuel storage capacity at ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf 1 is estimated to be sufficient to store fuel from normal operations until 1995, 2003, 2000, and 2004, respectively. It is expected that any additional storage capacity required, due to delay of the DOE repository program, will have to be provided by the affected companies (see "Rate Matters and Regulation - Regulation - Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - Spent Fuel and Other High-Level Radioactive Waste," above).
The System will require additional arrangements for segments of the nuclear fuel cycle beyond the dates shown above. Except as noted above, Entergy cannot predict the ultimate availability or cost of such arrangements at this time.
AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy currently have nuclear fuel leasing arrangements that provide that AP&L, GSU, LP&L, and System Energy may lease up to $125 million, $105 million, $95 million, and $105 million of nuclear fuel, respectively. As of December 31, 1993, the unrecovered cost base of AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, and System Energy's nuclear fuel leases amounted to approximately $93.6 million, $96.5 million, $61.3 million, and $79.7 million, respectively. Each lessor finances its acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel under a credit agreement and through the issuance of intermediate-term notes. The credit agreements, which were entered into by AP&L in 1988, by LP&L and System Energy in 1989, and GSU in 1993, had initial terms of five years, with the exception of GSU, which has an initial term of three years. These agreements are subject to annual renewal with, in LP&L's and GSU's case, the consent of the lenders. The credit agreements for AP&L, LP&L, and System Energy have all been extended and now have termination dates of December 1996, January 1997, and February 1997, respectively. The credit agreement for GSU was entered into in December 1993 and has a termination date of December 1996. The intermediate-term notes have varying maturities through January 31, 1999. It is expected that the credit agreements will be extended, or alternative financing will be secured by each lessor, based on the particular lessee's nuclear fuel requirements. If extensions or alternative financing cannot be arranged, the particular lessee must purchase sufficient nuclear fuel to allow the lessor to retire such borrowings.
Natural Gas Purchased for Resale
NOPSI has several suppliers of natural gas for resale. Its system is interconnected with three interstate and three intrastate pipelines. Presently, NOPSI's primary suppliers of natural gas for resale are United, an interstate pipeline, and Bridgeline and Pontchartrain, intrastate pipelines. NOPSI has a firm gas purchase contract with United and receives this service subject to FERC- approved rates pursuant to a certificate granted by FERC. NOPSI also has firm contracts with its two intrastate suppliers and also makes interruptible spot market purchases when economically attractive. In recent years, natural gas deliveries have been subject primarily to weather-related curtailments. However, NOPSI has experienced no such curtailments.
In April 1992, FERC issued Order No. 636, which mandated interstate pipeline restructuring. The order requires interstate pipelines to cease selling gas to local distribution customers at the city-gate interconnection although transportation service can be provided in lieu of the former sale. As a result, in the future, NOPSI must substitute sources upstream of the United system for its current gas supply from United. NOPSI is considering purchases from independent intrastate or interstate supply aggregators and/or from intrastate pipeline sources in a manner consistent with its economic and supply reliability objectives.
Prior to the effectiveness of Order No. 636, discussed above, in the event of a natural gas shortage on the United system, NOPSI would have received a portion of the available gas supply from United and its other suppliers. After Order No. 636 mandated restructuring (October 31, 1993), curtailments of supply could occur if NOPSI's suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements with NOPSI. United could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints. Based on the current supply of natural gas, and absent extreme weather related curtailments, NOPSI does not anticipate that there will be any interruptions in natural gas deliveries to its customers.
GSU purchases natural gas for resale from a single interstate supplier. Abandonment of service by the present supplier would be subject to abandonment proceedings by FERC.
Research
AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L, and NOPSI are members of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI conducts a broad range of research in major technical fields related to the electric utility industry. Entergy participates in various EPRI projects, based on its needs and available resources. During 1991, 1992, and 1993, the System, including GSU, contributed approximately $12 million, $16 million, and $17 million, respectively, for the various research programs in which Entergy was involved.
Item 2.



Item 2. Properties
Refer to Item 1. "Business - Property," incorporated herein by reference, for information regarding the properties of the registrants.
Item 3.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Refer to Item 1. "Business - Rate Matters and Regulation," incorporated herein by reference, for details of the registrants' material rate proceedings and other regulatory proceedings and litigation that are pending or that terminated in the fourth quarter of 1993.
Item 4.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
A consent in lieu of a special meeting of common stockholders of Entergy-GSU Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) was executed on December 30, 1993, pursuant to a Delaware statute that permits such a procedure. The consent was signed on behalf of Entergy Corporation and GSU, which at that time owned all of the outstanding common stock of Holdings. The common stockholders acted to: (1) increase the number of directors from 2 to 18 upon the occurrence of the combination of Entergy Corporation and GSU, such expanded board to consist of Edwin Lupberger and Joseph Donnelly, who continued as directors, and the following new directors: W. Frank Blount; John A. Cooper, Jr.; Brooke H. Duncan; Lucie J. Fjeldstad; Kaneaster Hodges, Jr.; Robert v.d. Luft; Adm. Kinnaird R. McKee; Paul W. Murrill; James R. Nichols; Eugene H. Owen; John N. Palmer, Sr.; Robert D. Pugh; H. Duke Shackelford; Wm. Clifford Smith; Bismark A. Steinhagen; and Dr. Walter Washington; (2) approve the terms and provisions of certain agreements related to such combination; (3) approve the actions of the officers in connection with those agreements and the transactions contemplated thereby; (4) approve the assumption and adoption by Holdings of certain benefit plans of Entergy Corporation; and (5) approve the taking of actions to issue stock with respect to such plans, including the listing of Holdings' common stock on the New York, Pacific, and Midwest Stock Exchanges and the filing of registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. After the consummation of the transactions involved in the combination, the name of Holdings was changed to Entergy Corporation. On January 22, 1994, Mr. Donnelly resigned from the position of director of Entergy Corporation.
PART II
Item 5.

Item 5. Market for Registrants' Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters
Entergy Corporation. The shares of Entergy Corporation's common stock are listed on the New York, Midwest, and Pacific Stock Exchanges.
The high and low prices for each quarterly period in 1993 and 1992, were as follows:
1993 1992 --------------- ---------------- High Low High Low ------ ------ ------ ------ (In Dollars) First 36 1/2 32 1/2 29 5/8 27 1/8 Second 38 1/4 33 1/4 28 1/2 26 1/8 Third 39 7/8 36 1/4 31 7/8 28 1/4 Fourth 39 1/4 35 1/8 33 5/8 30 1/2
Four consecutive quarterly cash dividends on common stock were paid to stockholders of Entergy Corporation in each of 1993 and 1992. In 1993, dividends of 40 cents per share were paid in each of the first three quarters and dividends of 45 cents per share were paid in the last quarter. Dividends of 35 cents per share were paid in each of the first three quarters of 1992, and dividends of 40 cents per share were paid in the last quarter of 1992.
As of February 24, 1994, there were 63,779 stockholders of record of Entergy Corporation.
For information with respect to Entergy Corporation's future ability to pay dividends, refer to Note 7 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries' Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, "Dividend Restrictions," incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the restrictions described in Note 7, the Holding Company Act provides that, without approval of the SEC, the unrestricted, undistributed retained earnings of any Entergy Corporation subsidiary are not available for distribution to Entergy Corporation's common stockholders until such earnings are made available to Entergy Corporation through the declaration of dividends by such subsidiaries.
AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and System Energy. There is no market for the common stock of System Energy and the System operating companies, all of which is owned by Entergy Corporation. Prior to December 31, 1993, GSU's common stock was publicly held. Effective with the Merger, all shares of GSU common stock were acquired by Entergy Corporation. No cash dividends on common stock were paid by GSU to its stockholders in 1992-1993. Cash dividends on common stock paid by AP&L, LP&L, MP&L, NOPSI, and System Energy to Entergy Corporation during 1993 and 1992, were as follows:
1993 1992 ------ ------ (In Millions)
AP&L $156.3 $ 75.0 LP&L 167.6 174.6 MP&L 85.8 68.4 NOPSI 43.9 32.2 System Energy 233.1 137.7
For information with respect to restrictions that limit the ability of System Energy and the System operating companies to pay dividends, and for information with respect to dividends paid to Entergy Corporation by its subsidiaries subsequent to December 31, 1993, refer respectively, to Note 6 of System Energy's and Note 7 of AP&L's, GSU's, LP&L's, MP&L's, and NOPSI's Notes to Financial Statements, "Dividend Restrictions," incorporated herein by reference.
Item 6.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data
Entergy Corporation. Refer to information under the heading "Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Selected Financial Data - Five- Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
AP&L. Refer to information under the heading "Arkansas Power & Light Company Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
GSU. Refer to information under the heading "Gulf States Utilities Company Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
LP&L. Refer to information under the heading "Louisiana Power & Light Company Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
MP&L. Refer to information under the heading "Mississippi Power & Light Company Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
NOPSI. Refer to information under the heading "New Orleans Public Service Inc. Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
System Energy. Refer to information under the heading "System Energy Resources, Inc. Selected Financial Data - Five-Year Comparison," which information is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7.

Item 7 "Financial Statements and Exhibits".
A current report on Form 8-K, dated January 18, 1994, was filed with the SEC on January 18, 1994, reporting information under Item 5 "Other Materially Important Events".
A current report on Form 8-K, dated February 1, 1994, was filed with the SEC on February 8, 1994, reporting information under Items 2 and 7.
Entergy Corporation, AP&L, GSU, LP&L, MP&L and NOPSI
Current Reports on Form 8-K, dated December 31, 1993, were filed by these companies on January 3, 1994 reporting the consummation of the Entergy Corporation - GSU merger under Item 5 (in the case of AP&L, LP&L, MP&L and NOPSI), Items 2 and 7 (in the case of Entergy Corporation and GSU).
EXPERTS
All statements in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K as to matters of law and legal conclusions, based on the belief or opinion of System Energy or any System operating company or otherwise, pertaining to the titles to properties, franchises and other operating rights of certain of the registrants filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and their subsidiaries, the regulations to which they are subject and any legal proceedings to which they are parties are made on the authority of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas, as to AP&L and as to Entergy Services in regards to flood litigation; Monroe & Lemann (A Professional Corporation), 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3300, New Orleans, Louisiana, as to LP&L and NOPSI; and Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Professional Association, Heritage Building, Jackson, Mississippi, as to MP&L and System Energy.
The statements attributed to Clark, Thomas & Winters, a professional corporation, as to legal conclusions with respect to GSU's rate regulation in Texas under Item 1. "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters - GSU" and in Note 2 to Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements and GSU's Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters," have been reviewed by such firm and are included herein upon the authority of such firm as experts.
The statements attributed to Sandlin Associates regarding the analysis of River Bend Construction costs of GSU under Item 1. "Rate Matters and Regulation - Rate Matters - Retail Rate Matters - GSU" and in Note 2 to Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements and GSU's Financial Statements, "Rate and Regulatory Matters", have been reviewed by such firm and are included herein upon the authority of such firm as experts.
ENTERGY CORPORATION
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
ENTERGY CORPORATION
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Vice President and March 14, 1994 Lee W. Randall Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); W. Frank Blount, John A. Cooper, Jr., Brooke H. Duncan, Lucie J. Fjeldstad, Kaneaster Hodges, Jr., Robert v.d. Luft, Kinnaird R. McKee, Paul W. Murrill, James R. Nichols, Eugene H. Owen, John N. Palmer, Robert D. Pugh, H. Duke Shackelford, Wm. Clifford Smith, Bismark A. Steinhagen, and Walter Washington (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall Vice President and Chief March 14, 1994 Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Michael B. Bemis, John A. Cooper, Jr., Cathy Cunningham, Richard P. Herget, Jr., Tommy H. Hillman, Donald C. Hintz, Kaneaster Hodges, Jr., Jerry D. Jackson, R. Drake Keith, Jerry L. Maulden, Raymond P. Miller, Sr., Roy L. Murphy, William C. Nolan, Jr., Robert D. Pugh, Woodson D. Walker, Gus B. Walton, Jr., Michael E. Wilson (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Vice President and March 14, 1994 Lee W. Randall Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Robert H. Barrow, Frank F. Gallaher, Frank W. Harrison, Jr., Donald C. Hintz, Jerry L. Maulden, Paul W. Murrill, Eugene H. Owen, M. Bookman Peters, Monroe J. Rathbone, Jr., Sam F. Segnar, Bismark A. Steinhagen, James E. Taussig, II. (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall Vice President and Chief March 14, 1994 Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Michael B. Bemis, John J. Cordaro, Donald C. Hintz, William K. Hood, Jerry D. Jackson, Tex R. Kilpatrick, Joseph J. Krebs, Jr., Jerry L. Maulden, H. Duke Shackelford, Wm. Clifford Smith (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall Vice President and Chief March 14, 1994 Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Michael B. Bemis, Frank R. Day, John O. Emmerich, Jr., Norman B. Gillis, Jr., Donald C. Hintz, Jerry D. Jackson, Robert E. Kennington, II, Jerry L. Maulden, Donald E. Meiners, John N. Palmer, Sr., Clyda S. Rent, Walter Washington, Robert M. Williams, Jr. (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC.
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall Vice President and Chief March 14, 1994 Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Michael B. Bemis, James M. Cain, John J. Cordaro, Brooke H. Duncan, Norman C. Francis, Donald C. Hintz, Jerry D. Jackson, Jerry L. Maulden, Anne M. Milling, John B. Smallpage, Charles C. Teamer, Sr. (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
By /s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: March 14, 1994
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.
Signature Title Date
/s/ Lee W. Randall Lee W. Randall Vice President and Chief March 14, 1994 Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Donald C. Hintz (President, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Gerald D. McInvale (Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Edwin Lupberger (Chairman of the Board), Jerry D. Jackson, Jerry L. Maulden (Directors).
By: /s/ Lee W. Randall March 14, 1994 (Lee W. Randall, Attorney-in-fact)
EXHIBIT 23(a)
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment Nos. 2, 3, 4A, and 5A on Form S-8 to Registration Statement No. 33-54298 of Entergy Corporation on Form S-4, and the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated February 11, 1994 (which express an unqualified opinion and include explanatory paragraphs as to uncertainties because of certain regulatory and litigation matters), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Entergy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1993.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-36149, 33-48356 and 33-50289 of Arkansas Power & Light Company on Form S-3, and the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated February 11, 1994, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arkansas Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 1993.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-46085, 33-39221 and 33-50937 of Louisiana Power & Light Company on Form S-3, and the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated February 11, 1994, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Louisiana Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 1993.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-53004, 33-55826 and 33-50507 of Mississippi Power & Light Company on Form S-3, and the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated February 11, 1994, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mississippi Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 1993.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-57926 of New Orleans Public Service Inc. on Form S-3, and the related Prospectus, of our reports dated February 11, 1994, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of New Orleans Public Service Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1993.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-47662 of System Energy Resources, Inc. on Form S-3, and the related Prospectus, of our reports dated February 11, 1994 (which express an unqualified opinion and include an explanatory paragraph as to an uncertainty resulting from a regulatory proceeding), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of System Energy Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1993.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche
DELOITTE & TOUCHE New Orleans, Louisiana March 14, 1994
EXHIBIT 23(b)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Gulf States Utilities Company on Form S-3 (File Numbers 33-49739 and 33-51181) and Form S-8 (File Numbers 2-76551 and 2-98011) of our reports, dated February 11, 1994, on our audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Gulf States Utilities Company as of December 31, 1993 and 1992, and for the years ended December 31, 1993, 1992 and 1991, which reports include explanatory paragraphs related to rate-related contingencies, legal proceedings and changes in accounting for income taxes, postretirement benefits, unbilled revenue and power plant materials and supplies and are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
/s/ Coopers & Lybrand
Coopers & Lybrand
Houston, Texas March 14, 1994
EXHIBIT 23(c)
CONSENT OF EXPERTS
We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We further consent to the incorporation by reference of such reference to our firm into Arkansas Power & Light Company's ("AP&L") Registration Statements (Form S-3, File Nos. 33-36149, 33-48356 and 33-50289) and related Prospectuses, pertaining to AP&L's First Mortgage Bonds and Preferred Stock.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Friday, Eldredge & Clark
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK
Date: March 14, 1994
EXHIBIT 23(d)
CONSENT
We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts", and to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf States Utilities Company ("GSU") of the statements of legal conclusions attributed to us herein (the Statements of Legal Conclusions) under Part I, Item 1. Business - "Rate Matters and Regulation" and in the discussion of Texas jurisdictional matters set forth in Note 2 to GSU's Financial Statements and Note 2 to Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements appearing as Item 8.