entergy mississippi , inc . management 2019s financial discussion and analysis entergy mississippi 2019s receivables from or ( payables to ) the money pool were as follows as of december 31 for each of the following years. .

Table:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013
( in thousands ) | ( in thousands ) | ( in thousands ) | ( in thousands )
$ 10595 | $ 25930 | $ 644 | ( $ 3536 )
see note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool .
entergy mississippi has four separate credit facilities in the aggregate amount of $ 102.5 million scheduled to expire may 2017 .
no borrowings were outstanding under the credit facilities as of december 31 , 2016 .
in addition , entergy mississippi is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations under miso .
as of december 31 , 2016 , a $ 7.1 million letter of credit was outstanding under entergy mississippi 2019s uncommitted letter of credit facility .
see note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities .
entergy mississippi obtained authorizations from the ferc through october 2017 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $ 175 million at any time outstanding and long-term borrowings and security issuances .
see note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of entergy mississippi 2019s short-term borrowing limits .
state and local rate regulation and fuel-cost recovery the rates that entergy mississippi charges for electricity significantly influence its financial position , results of operations , and liquidity .
entergy mississippi is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings .
a governmental agency , the mpsc , is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers .
formula rate plan in june 2014 , entergy mississippi filed its first general rate case before the mpsc in almost 12 years .
the rate filing laid out entergy mississippi 2019s plans for improving reliability , modernizing the grid , maintaining its workforce , stabilizing rates , utilizing new technologies , and attracting new industry to its service territory .
entergy mississippi requested a net increase in revenue of $ 49 million for bills rendered during calendar year 2015 , including $ 30 million resulting from new depreciation rates to update the estimated service life of assets .
in addition , the filing proposed , among other things : 1 ) realigning cost recovery of the attala and hinds power plant acquisitions from the power management rider to base rates ; 2 ) including certain miso-related revenues and expenses in the power management rider ; 3 ) power management rider changes that reflect the changes in costs and revenues that will accompany entergy mississippi 2019s withdrawal from participation in the system agreement ; and 4 ) a formula rate plan forward test year to allow for known changes in expenses and revenues for the rate effective period .
entergy mississippi proposed maintaining the current authorized return on common equity of 10.59% ( 10.59 % ) .
in october 2014 , entergy mississippi and the mississippi public utilities staff entered into and filed joint stipulations that addressed the majority of issues in the proceeding .
the stipulations provided for : 2022 an approximate $ 16 million net increase in revenues , which reflected an agreed upon 10.07% ( 10.07 % ) return on common equity ; 2022 revision of entergy mississippi 2019s formula rate plan by providing entergy mississippi with the ability to reflect known and measurable changes to historical rate base and certain expense amounts ; resolving uncertainty around and obviating the need for an additional rate filing in connection with entergy mississippi 2019s withdrawal from participation in the system agreement ; updating depreciation rates ; and moving costs associated with the attala and hinds generating plants from the power management rider to base rates; .

Question: the company requested a net increase in revenue for bills rendered during calendar year 2015 . what would the increase have been , in millions , without the amount reflating to the new depreciation rates?
Answer: 19
Calculation: subtract(49, 30)