entergy arkansas , inc . management's financial discussion and analysis fuel and purchased power expenses increased primarily due to increased recovery of deferred fuel and purchased power costs primarily due to an increase in april 2004 in the energy cost recovery rider and the true-ups to the 2003 and 2002 energy cost recovery rider filings . other regulatory credits decreased primarily due to the over-recovery of grand gulf costs due to an increase in the grand gulf rider effective january 2004 . 2003 compared to 2002 net revenue , which is entergy arkansas' measure of gross margin , consists of operating revenues net of : 1 ) fuel , fuel-related , and purchased power expenses and 2 ) other regulatory credits . following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2003 to 2002. .

Row 1: , ( in millions )
Row 2: 2002 net revenue, $ 1095.9
Row 3: march 2002 settlement agreement, -154.0 ( 154.0 )
Row 4: volume/weather, -7.7 ( 7.7 )
Row 5: asset retirement obligation, 30.1
Row 6: net wholesale revenue, 16.6
Row 7: deferred fuel cost revisions, 10.2
Row 8: other, 7.6
Row 9: 2003 net revenue, $ 998.7

the march 2002 settlement agreement resolved a request for recovery of ice storm costs incurred in december 2000 with an offset of those costs for funds contributed to pay for future stranded costs . a 1997 settlement provided for the collection of earnings in excess of an 11% ( 11 % ) return on equity in a transition cost account ( tca ) to offset stranded costs if retail open access were implemented . in mid- and late december 2000 , two separate ice storms left 226000 and 212500 entergy arkansas customers , respectively , without electric power in its service area . entergy arkansas filed a proposal to recover costs plus carrying charges associated with power restoration caused by the ice storms . entergy arkansas' final storm damage cost determination reflected costs of approximately $ 195 million . the apsc approved a settlement agreement submitted in march 2002 by entergy arkansas , the apsc staff , and the arkansas attorney general . in the march 2002 settlement , the parties agreed that $ 153 million of the ice storm costs would be classified as incremental ice storm expenses that can be offset against the tca on a rate class basis , and any excess of ice storm costs over the amount available in the tca would be deferred and amortized over 30 years , although such excess costs were not allowed to be included as a separate component of rate base . the allocated ice storm expenses exceeded the available tca funds by $ 15.8 million which was recorded as a regulatory asset in june 2002 . in accordance with the settlement agreement and following the apsc's approval of the 2001 earnings review related to the tca , entergy arkansas filed to return $ 18.1 million of the tca to certain large general service class customers that paid more into the tca than their allocation of storm costs . the apsc approved the return of funds to the large general service customer class in the form of refund checks in august 2002 . as part of the implementation of the march 2002 settlement agreement provisions , the tca procedure ceased with the 2001 earnings evaluation . of the remaining ice storm costs , $ 32.2 million was addressed through established ratemaking procedures , including $ 22.2 million classified as capital additions , while $ 3.8 million of the ice storm costs was not recovered through rates . the effect on net income of the march 2002 settlement agreement and 2001 earnings review was a $ 2.2 million increase in 2003 , because the decrease in net revenue was offset by the decrease in operation and maintenance expenses discussed below. .

Question: what is the storm damage cost as a percentage of 2002 net revenue?
Program: divide(195, 1095.9)
Answer: 0.17794