Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. There are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements, including those factors discussed or incorporated by reference in (a) Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Form 10-K and the Entergy Texas Form 10, (b) Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis in the Form 10-K, the Entergy Texas Form 10, and in this report, and (c) the following factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this combined report and in subsequent securities filings):

• resolution of pending and future rate cases and negotiations, including various performance-based rate discussions and implementation of Texas restructuring legislation, and other regulatory proceedings, including those related to Entergy's System Agreement, Entergy's utility supply plan, recovery of storm costs, and recovery of fuel and purchased power costs
• changes in utility regulation, including the beginning or end of retail and wholesale competition, the ability to recover net utility assets and other potential stranded costs, the operations of the independent coordinator of transmission that includes Entergy's utility service territory, and the application of more stringent transmission reliability requirements or market power criteria by the FERC
• changes in regulation of nuclear generating facilities and nuclear materials and fuel, including possible shutdown of nuclear generating facilities, particularly those in the Non-Utility Nuclear business
• resolution of pending or future applications for license renewals or modifications of nuclear generating facilities
• the performance of Entergy's generating plants, and particularly the capacity factors at its nuclear generating facilities
• Entergy's ability to develop and execute on a point of view regarding future prices of electricity, natural gas, and other energy-related commodities
• prices for power generated by Entergy's unregulated generating facilities, the ability to hedge, sell power forward or otherwise reduce the market price risk associated with those facilities, including the Non-Utility Nuclear plants, and the prices and availability of fuel and power Entergy must purchase for its utility customers, and Entergy's ability to meet credit support requirements for fuel and power supply contracts
• volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, uranium, and other energy-related commodities
• changes in law resulting from federal energy legislation
• changes in environmental, tax, and other laws, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, mercury, and other substances
• uncertainty regarding the establishment of interim or permanent sites for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste storage and disposal
• variations in weather and the occurrence of hurricanes and other storms and disasters, including uncertainties associated with efforts to remediate the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and recovery of costs associated with restoration
• Entergy's and its subsidiaries' ability to manage their capital projects and operation and maintenance costs
• Entergy's ability to purchase and sell assets at attractive prices and on other attractive terms
• the economic climate, and particularly growth in Entergy's service territory
• the effects of Entergy's strategies to reduce tax payments

• changes in the financial markets, particularly those affecting the availability of capital and Entergy's ability to refinance existing debt, execute its share repurchase program, and fund investments and acquisitions
• actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt and preferred stock, changes in general corporate ratings, and changes in the rating agencies' ratings criteria
• changes in inflation and interest rates
• the effect of litigation and government investigations
• advances in technology
• the potential effects of threatened or actual terrorism and war
• Entergy's ability to attract and retain talented management and directors
• changes in accounting standards and corporate governance
• and the following transactional factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this and in subsequent securities filings): (i) risks inherent in the contemplated Non-Utility Nuclear spin-off, joint venture and related transactions (including the level of debt incurred by the spun-off company and the terms and costs related thereto); (ii) legislative and regulatory actions; and (iii) conditions of the capital markets during the periods covered by the forward-looking statements.  Entergy Corporation cannot provide any assurances that the spin-off or any of the proposed transactions related thereto will be completed, nor can it give assurances as to the terms on which such transactions will be consummated. The transaction is subject to certain conditions precedent, including regulatory approvals and the final approval by the Board.

(Page left blank intentionally)

Certain abbreviations or acronyms used in the text and notes are defined below:

1

2

Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Non-Utility Nuclear.

• Utility generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electric power in a four-state service territory that includes portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans; and operates a small natural gas distribution business.
• Non-Utility Nuclear owns and operates six nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and sells the electric power produced by those plants primarily to wholesale customers. This business also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners.

In addition to its two primary, reportable, operating segments, Entergy also operates the non-nuclear wholesale assets business. The non-nuclear wholesale assets business sells to wholesale customers the electric power produced by power plants that it owns while it focuses on improving performance and exploring sales or restructuring opportunities for its power plants.

Plan to Pursue Separation of Non-Utility Nuclear

In November 2007, the Board approved a plan to pursue a separation of the Non-Utility Nuclear business from Entergy through a tax-free spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business to Entergy shareholders. Enexus Energy Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy and formerly referred to as SpinCo, will be a new, separate, and publicly-traded company. In addition, under the plan, Enexus and Entergy are expected to enter into a nuclear services business joint venture, EquaGen L.L.C., with 50% ownership by Enexus and 50% ownership by Entergy. The EquaGen board of members will be comprised of equal membership from both Entergy and Enexus.

Upon completion of the spin-off, Entergy Corporation's shareholders will own 100% of the common stock in both Enexus and Entergy. Entergy expects that Enexus' business will be substantially comprised of Non-Utility Nuclear's assets, including its six nuclear power plants, and Non-Utility Nuclear's power marketing operation. Entergy Corporation's remaining business will primarily be comprised of the Utility business. EquaGen is expected to operate the nuclear assets owned by Enexus, and provide certain services to the Utility's nuclear operations. EquaGen is also expected to offer nuclear services to third parties, including decommissioning, plant relicensing, plant operations, and ancillary services.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the current NRC-licensed operator of the Non-Utility Nuclear plants, filed an application in July 2007 with the NRC seeking indirect transfer of control of the operating licenses for the six Non-Utility Nuclear power plants, and supplemented that application in December 2007 to incorporate the planned business separation. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., which is expected to be wholly-owned by EquaGen, will remain the operator of the plants after the separation.  Entergy Operations, Inc., the current NRC-licensed operator of Entergy's five Utility nuclear plants, will remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy and will continue to be the operator of the Utility nuclear plants. In the December 2007 supplement to the NRC application, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. provided additional information regarding the spin-off transaction, organizational structure, technical and financial qualifications, and general corporate information. The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register establishing a period for the public to submit a request for hearing or petition to intervene in a hearing proceeding. The NRC notice period expired on February 5, 2008 and two petitions to intervene in the hearing proceeding were filed before the deadline. Each of the petitions opposes the NRC's approval of the license transfer on various grounds, including contentions that the approval request is not adequately supported regarding the basis for the proposed structure, the adequacy of decommissioning funding, and the adequacy of financial qualifications. Entergy submitted answers to the petitions on March 31 and April 8, and the NRC or a presiding officer designated by the NRC will determine whether a hearing will be granted. If a hearing is granted, the NRC is expected to issue a procedural schedule providing for limited discovery, written testimony and a legislative-type hearing. Under the NRC's procedural rules for license transfer approvals, the NRC Staff will continue to review the application,
 

3

prepare a Safety Evaluation Report and issue an approval or denial without regard to whether a hearing request is pending or has been granted. Thus, resolution of the hearing requests is not a prerequisite to obtaining the required NRC approval. On July 28, 2008 the NRC approved Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s application.

Pursuant to Federal Power Act Section 203, on February 21, 2008, an application was filed with the FERC requesting approval for the indirect disposition and transfer of control of jurisdictional facilities of a public utility. In June 2008 the FERC issued an order authorizing the requested indirect disposition and transfer of control.

On January 28, 2008, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. requested approval from the Vermont Public Service Board for the indirect transfer of control, consent to pledge assets, issue guarantees and assign material contracts, amendment to certificate of public good, and replacement of guaranty and substitution of a credit support agreement for Vermont Yankee. Two Vermont utilities that buy power from Vermont Yankee, the regional planning commission for the area served by Vermont Yankee, a municipality in which the Vermont Yankee training center is located, the union that represents certain Vermont Yankee employees, and two unions that represent certain employees at the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts petitioned to intervene. Although the Pilgrim unions' petition to intervene was denied, the Pilgrim unions filed for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for participation as amicus curiae, and the Vermont Public Service Board has allowed the unions to participate as amicus curiae. Discovery is underway in this proceeding, in which parties can ask questions about or request the production of documents related to the transaction.

In addition, the Vermont Department of Public Service, which is the public advocate in proceedings before the Public Service Board, has prefiled its initial and rebuttal testimony in the case in which the Vermont Department of Public Service takes the position that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. have not demonstrated that the restructuring promotes the public good because its benefits do not outweigh the risks, raising concerns that the target rating for Enexus Energy's debt is below investment grade and that the company may not have the financial capability to withstand adverse financial developments, such as an extended outage. The Vermont Department of Public Service's testimony also expresses concern about the EquaGen joint venture structure and Enexus' ability, under the operating agreement between Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to ensure that Vermont Yankee is well-operated. Two distribution utilities that buy Vermont Yankee power prefiled testimony that also expresses concerns about the structure but found that there was a small net benefit to the restructuring. The Vermont Public Service Board conducted hearings on July 28-30, 2008, during which it considered the testimony prefiled by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the Vermont Department of Public Service, and the two distribution utilities. Briefing will now follow the hearings, and the Vermont Public Service Board will then issue a decision.

On January 28, 2008, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and corporate affiliate NewCo (now named Enexus) filed a petition with the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) requesting a declaratory ruling regarding corporate reorganization or in the alternative an order approving the transaction and an order approving debt financing. Petitioners also requested confirmation that the corporate reorganization will not have an effect on Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick's, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2's, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3's, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s status as lightly regulated entities in New York, given that they will continue to be competitive wholesale generators. The New York State Attorney General's Office, Westchester County, and Riverkeeper, Inc. have filed objections to the business separation and to the transfer of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plants, arguing that the debt associated with the spin-off could threaten access to adequate financial resources for those nuclear power plants, that Entergy could potentially be able to terminate revenue sharing agreements with the New York Power Authority (NYPA), the entity from which Entergy purchased the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants, and because the New York State Attorney General's Office believes Entergy must file an environmental impact statement assessing the proposed corporate restructuring. In addition to the New York State Attorney General's Office, several other parties have also requested to be added to the service list for this proceeding.

4

On May 23, 2008, the NYPSC issued its Order Establishing Further Procedures in this matter. In the order, the NYPSC determined that due to the nuclear power plants' unique role in supporting the reliability of electric service in New York, and their large size and unique operational concerns, a more searching inquiry of the transaction will be conducted than if other types of lightly-regulated generation were at issue. Accordingly, the NYPSC assigned an ALJ to preside over this proceeding and prescribed a sixty (60) day discovery period. The order provided that after at least sixty (60) days, the ALJ would establish when the discovery period would conclude. The NYPSC stated that the scope of discovery will be tightly bounded by the public interest inquiry relevant to this proceeding; namely, adequacy and security of support for the decommissioning of the New York nuclear facilities; financial sufficiency of the proposed capital structure in supporting continued operation of the facilities; and, arrangements for managing, operating and maintaining the facilities. The NYPSC also stated that during the discovery period, the NYPSC Staff may conduct technical conferences to assist in the development of a full record in this proceeding.

On July 23, 2008, the ALJs issued a ruling concerning discovery and seeking comments on a proposed process and schedule. In the ruling, the ALJs proposed a process for completing a limited, prescribed discovery process, to be followed three weeks later by the filing of initial comments addressing defined issues, with reply comments due two weeks after the initial comment deadline. Following receipt of all comments, a ruling will be made on whether, and to what extent, an evidentiary hearing is required. The ALJs' ruling acknowledged that the proposed process will not facilitate a decision by the NYPSC in September 2008. The ALJs asked the parties to address three specific topic areas: (1) the financial impacts related to the specific issues previously outlined by the NYPSC; (2) other obligations associated with the arrangement for managing, operating and maintaining the facilities; and (3) the extent that NYPA revenues from value sharing payments under the value sharing agreement between Entergy and NYPA would decrease. The ALJs have indicated that the potential financial effect of the termination of the value sharing payments on NYPA and New York electric consumers are factors the ALJs believe should be considered by the NYPSC in making its public interest determination. For further discussion of the value sharing agreements, see Note 1 to the financial statements herein. Entergy continues to seek regulatory approval from the NYPSC in a timely manner.

In connection with the separation, Enexus is currently expected to incur up to $4.5 billion of debt in the form of debt securities. The debt will be incurred in the following transactions:

Out of the proceeds Enexus receives from the public or private offerings, it expects to retain approximately $500 million, which it intends to use for working capital and other general corporate purposes. All of the remaining proceeds are expected to be transferred to Entergy to settle intercompany debt. Enexus will not receive any proceeds from either the issuance of up to $3.5 billion of its debt securities or the exchange of its debt securities for Entergy debt securities. Entergy expects to use the proceeds that it receives from the issuance of its debt securities to reduce outstanding Entergy debt or repurchase Entergy shares. The amount to be paid to Entergy, the amount and term of the debt Enexus will incur, and the type of debt and entity that will incur the debt have not been finally determined, but will be determined prior to the separation. A number of factors could affect this final determination, and the amount of debt ultimately incurred could be different from the amount disclosed. Additionally, Entergy expects Enexus to enter into one or more credit facilities or other financing arrangements intended to support Enexus' working capital needs, collateral obligations, and other corporate needs arising from hedging and normal course of business requirements.

5

Entergy is targeting the fourth quarter 2008 as the effective date for the spin-off and EquaGen transactions to be completed. Entergy expects the transactions to qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes for both Entergy and its shareholders, and Entergy submitted a private letter ruling request to the IRS in April 2008 regarding the tax-free treatment. Final terms of the transactions and spin-off completion are subject to several conditions, including the final approval of the Board.

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Non-Utility Nuclear, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing the second quarter 2008 to the second quarter 2007 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period:

Refer to "ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES - SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS" for further information with respect to operating statistics.

6

Utility

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the second quarter 2008 to the second quarter 2007.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to increased electricity usage, including the effect of more favorable weather compared to the same period in 2007 and higher sales during the unbilled period. Billed retail electricity usage increased a total of 594 GWh in the residential and commercial sectors, an increase of 4.4%.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $419 million for the second quarter 2007 to $553 million for the second quarter 2008 primarily due to higher pricing in its contracts to sell power and increased production resulting from fewer outage days and the acquisition of the Palisades plant on April 11, 2007. In addition to refueling outages, second quarter 2007 was affected by a 28 day unplanned outage. Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the second quarter 2008 and 2007:

Utility

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $461 million for the second quarter 2007 to $479 million for the second quarter 2008 primarily due to:

7

These increases were partially offset by a reimbursement of $7 million of costs in connection with a litigation settlement.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $175 million for the second quarter 2007 to $201 million for the second quarter 2008 primarily due to deferring costs from one refueling outage in 2008 compared to two refueling outages in second quarter 2007, in addition to the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007. Other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Palisades plant were $31 million for the second quarter 2008 compared to $24 million for the second quarter 2007.

Parent & Other

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased for the parent company, Entergy Corporation, for the second quarter 2008 primarily due to outside services costs related to the planned spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business.

Other income decreased primarily due to a $24.4 million charge to interest income in the second quarter 2008 resulting from the recognition of the other than temporary impairment of certain securities held in Non-Utility Nuclear's decommissioning trust funds.

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Non-Utility Nuclear, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing the six months ended June 30, 2008 to the six months ended June 30, 2007 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period:

Utility

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing the six months ended June 30, 2008 to the six months ended June 30, 2007.

The fuel recovery variance resulted primarily from a reserve for potential rate refunds in the first quarter 2007 in Texas as a result of a PUCT ruling related to the application of past PUCT rulings addressing transition to competition in Texas.

The establishment of the storm damage rider and the Energy Efficiency rider results in an increase in rider revenue and a corresponding increase in other operation and maintenance expense with no impact on net income.

The base revenues variance is primarily due to the interim surcharge to collect $10 million in under-recovered incremental purchased capacity costs incurred through July 2007 in Texas. The surcharge was collected over a two-month period beginning February 2008. The incremental capacity recovery rider and PUCT approval is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The variance is also due to a formula rate plan increase effective July 2007 at Entergy Mississippi.

The purchased power capacity variance is due to the amortization of deferred capacity costs and is partially offset in base revenues due to the incremental purchased capacity costs recovered through the interim surcharge, as discussed above.

9

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $840 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 to $1,178 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 primarily due to higher pricing in its contracts to sell power, additional production resulting from the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007, and fewer outage days. In addition to refueling outages, second quarter 2007 was affected by a 28 day unplanned outage. Palisades contributed $154 million of net revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2008 compared to $70 million of net revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2007. Included in the Palisades net revenue is $38 million and $15 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, of amortization of the Palisades purchased power agreement liability, which is non-cash revenue and is discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007:

Utility

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $870 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 to $899 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 primarily due to:

The increase was partially offset by a reimbursement of $7 million of costs in connection with a litigation settlement.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $322 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 to $382 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 primarily due to deferring costs from one refueling outage in 2008 compared to three refueling outages in 2007, in addition to the acquisition of the Palisades plant in April 2007. Other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Palisades plant were $60 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 compared to $24 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007.

10

Parent & Other

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased for the parent company, Entergy Corporation, for the six months ended June 30, 2008 primarily due to outside services costs related to the planned spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business, including approximately $23.7 million of such costs in the second quarter 2008.

Other income decreased primarily due to approximately $27 million in charges to interest income in 2008 resulting from the recognition of the other than temporary impairment of certain securities held in Non-Utility Nuclear's decommissioning trust funds. Other factors contributing to the decrease were a reduction in the allowance for equity funds used during construction in the Utility due to a revision in the first quarter 2007 related to removal costs and a reduction in carrying charges on storm costs as recovery of some of those costs has been completed.

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy's capital structure, capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital, and sources of capital. Following are updates to that discussion.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of notes payable, capital lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt, common shareholders' equity, and preferred stock without sinking fund. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy's financial condition.

11

As discussed in the Form 10-K, Entergy Corporation has in place a $3.5 billion credit facility that expires in August 2012. Entergy Corporation has the ability to issue letters of credit against the total borrowing capacity of the facility. As of June 30, 2008, amounts outstanding under the credit facility are:

Entergy Corporation's credit facility requires it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65% or less of its total capitalization. If Entergy fails to meet this ratio, or if Entergy or one of the Utility operating companies (except Entergy New Orleans) defaults on other indebtedness or is in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, an acceleration of the facility's maturity date may occur.

See the table and discussion in the Form 10-K under "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital," that sets forth the amounts of planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for 2008 through 2010. Following is an update to the discussion in the Form 10-K.

The preconstruction and operating air permits for the Little Gypsy repowering project were issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) in November 2007 under then-effective federal and state air regulations, including the EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule that had been issued in 2005 (CAMR 2005). As discussed in more detail in part I, Item 1, "Environmental Regulation, Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments, Hazardous Air Pollutants" in the Form 10-K, in February 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down CAMR 2005. The D.C. Circuit decision requires utilities that have not yet begun construction of the facility in question to undergo a case-by-case Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) analysis for construction or reconstruction of emission units pursuant to the Clean Air Act before beginning construction. The Little Gypsy project as currently configured is expected to meet MACT standards. Little Gypsy received its construction permit before a formal MACT analysis was required, however, and Entergy Louisiana has sought a MACT determination from the LDEQ. The filing was made in June 2008, and the LDEQ has certified that the filing is complete. A decision on the MACT determination is expected by first quarter 2009. Entergy Louisiana also is awaiting permit determinations from several additional agencies. These permits are unrelated to CAMR 2005 and always have been part of the construction process. Onsite construction of the project was scheduled to begin in July 2008, but obtaining the MACT determination will cause a delay in the start of construction, which Entergy Louisiana now expects to begin in mid-year 2009. This delays the expected commercial operation date of the project to mid-2013. The LPSC approved the temporary suspension of Phase II of the Little Gypsy proceedings because Entergy Louisiana must update its estimated project cost and schedule in order to support the request to recover cash earnings on its construction work in progress costs. Entergy Louisiana plans to refile the Phase II case in September 2008, and a decision is expected in the first quarter 2009. The LPSC Phase I order has been appealed to the state district court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana by a group led by the Sierra Club and represented by the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. A procedural schedule for the appeal has not been set.

The delayed construction of the Little Gypsy repowering project is expected to increase the total project cost from approximately $1.55 billion to $1.76 billion, primarily due to price escalation on non-contracted equipment and material and increased carrying cost due to the extended construction period.

12

Waterford 3 Steam Generator Replacement Project

As discussed in more detail in the Form 10-K, Entergy Louisiana plans to replace the Waterford 3 steam generators, along with the reactor vessel closure head and control element drive mechanisms, in 2011.  In June 2008, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC for approval of the project, including full cost recovery. Entergy Louisiana estimates in the filing that it will spend approximately $511 million on this project. The filing seeks relief in two phases. Phase I seeks certification within 120 days that the public convenience and necessity would be served by undertaking this project. Among other relief requested, Entergy Louisiana is also seeking approval for a procedure to synchronize permanent base rate recovery when the project is placed in service, either by a formula rate plan or base rate filing. In Phase II, Entergy Louisiana will seek cash earnings on construction work in progress. A status conference was held on July 31, 2008, and a procedural schedule for Phase I was adopted providing for hearings in October 2008 and LPSC consideration in December 2008.

The planned construction and other capital investments disclosure in the Form 10-K includes approximately $24 million for initial spending during the 2008-2010 period on installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners at Entergy Arkansas' White Bluff coal plant, which under current environmental regulations must be operational by September 2013. The project remains in the planning stages and has not been fully designed, but the latest conceptual cost estimate has gone up significantly from previous estimates due to increases in equipment, commodity, and labor costs. These estimates indicate that Entergy Arkansas' share of the project could cost approximately $630 million compared to the $375 million reported in the Form 10-K. Entergy continues to review potential environmental spending needs and financing alternatives for any such spending, and future spending estimates could change based on the results of this continuing analysis.

The short-term borrowings of the Registrant Subsidiaries and certain other Entergy subsidiaries are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The current FERC-authorized limits are effective through March 31, 2010, as established by a FERC order issued March 31, 2008 (except for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas, which are effective through November 8, 2009, as established by an earlier FERC order). See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy's short-term borrowing limits.

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility's service territory in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the effect of extensive flooding that resulted from levee breaks in and around the greater New Orleans area. The storms and flooding resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to electric distribution, transmission, and generation and gas infrastructure, and the loss of sales and customers due to mandatory evacuations and the destruction of homes and businesses. Entergy has pursued a broad range of initiatives to recover storm restoration and business continuity costs, including obtaining reimbursement of certain costs covered by insurance and pursuing recovery through existing or new rate mechanisms regulated by the FERC and local regulatory bodies, including the issuance of securitization or bonds. Following are updates regarding Entergy's cost recovery efforts.

In March 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant financing orders authorizing the financing of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature (Act 55 financings). The Act 55 financings are expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to Act 64 traditional securitization.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow
 

13

charges and savings to customers via a Storm Cost Offset rider.  On April 3, 2008, the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted preliminary approval for the Act 55 financings.  On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financings, approved requests for the Act 55 financings.  On April 10, 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC Staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that includes Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana's proposals under the Act 55 financings, which includes a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $10 million and $30 million of customer benefits, respectively.  On April 16, 2008, the LPSC approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financings.  On May 6, 2008, the State Bond Commission voted to approve the Act 55 financings.

On July 29, 2008, the LPFA issued $679 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $527 million in affiliate securities.  The LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana.  As approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, Entergy Louisiana withdrew $17.8 million from the restricted escrow account and also invested this amount in affiliate securities.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana expects that in September 2008 the LPFA will issue $273 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the bond proceeds expected to be received by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is expected to invest $186 million in affiliate securities.  In addition, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana expects the LURC to deposit $87 million to a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  As approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, it is expected that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana will withdraw $1.7 million from the restricted escrow account and will also invest this amount in affiliate securities.

See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy's conventional property insurance program and its Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita claims.

In April 2008, Entergy received from its primary insurer $53.6 million of additional insurance proceeds on its Hurricane Katrina claim, and almost all of the April 2008 proceeds were allocated to Entergy New Orleans.

Entergy has settled its lawsuit against one of its excess insurers on the Hurricane Katrina claim, and in July 2008 received $71.5 million in proceeds on the claim. The July 2008 proceeds were allocated as follows: $2.0 million to Entergy Arkansas, $3.7 million to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, $12.4 million to Entergy Louisiana, $1.8 million to Entergy Mississippi, and $48.4 million to Entergy New Orleans, with the remainder allocated in smaller amounts to other Entergy subsidiaries.

14

As shown in Entergy's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 were as follows:

Entergy's cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $50 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2007. Following are cash flows from operating activities by segment:

Net cash used in investing activities decreased by $8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2007. The following significant investing cash flow activity occurred in the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007:

Financing activities used $73 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and provided $339 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The following significant financing cash flow activity occurred in the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007:

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Significant Factors and Known Trends" in the Form 10-K for discussions of rate regulation, federal regulation, and market and credit risk sensitive instruments. Following are updates to the information provided in the Form 10-K.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of federal regulatory proceedings. Following are updates to that discussion.

Production Cost Equalization Proceeding Commenced by the LPSC

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the June 2005 FERC decision in the System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, which was essentially affirmed in the FERC's decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing. The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the AEEC appealed the FERC's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals. The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the FERC's decision in most respects, but remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings and reconsideration of its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds and its determination to

16

implement the bandwidth remedy commencing with calendar year 2006 production costs (with the first payments/receipts commencing in June 2007), rather than commencing the remedy on June 1, 2005. The D.C. Circuit concluded the FERC had failed so far in the proceeding to offer a reasoned explanation regarding these issues. On July 17, 2008, the Utility operating companies filed with FERC a motion proposing additional procedures on the remanded issues.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

2007 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2006 Production Costs

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the Utility operating companies had also filed with the FERC during 2007 certain proposed modifications to the rough production cost equalization calculation. The FERC rejected certain of the proposed modifications, accepted certain of the proposed modifications without further proceedings, and set two of the proposed modifications for hearing and settlement procedures. With respect to the proceeding involving changes to the functionalization of costs to the production function, a hearing was held in March 2008 and the ALJ issued an Initial Decision in June 2008 finding the modifications proposed by the Utility operating companies to be just and reasonable. Following briefing, the matter will be submitted to the FERC for decision. In the second proceeding, a contested settlement supported by the Utility operating companies has been submitted to the Settlement ALJ. In conjunction with the second proceeding, the LPSC has appealed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the FERC's determination that changes proposed by the Utility operating companies and accepted by the FERC can become effective for the next bandwidth calculation even though such bandwidth calculation may include production costs incurred prior to the date the change is proposed by the Utility operating companies.

The intervenor AmerenUE has argued that its current wholesale power contract with Entergy Arkansas, pursuant to which Entergy Arkansas sells power to AmerenUE, does not permit Entergy Arkansas to flow through to AmerenUE any portion of Entergy Arkansas' bandwidth payment.  According to AmerenUE, Entergy Arkansas has sought to collect from AmerenUE approximately $14.5 million of the 2007 Entergy Arkansas bandwidth payment.  The AmerenUE contract is scheduled to expire in August 2009. In April 2008, AmerenUE filed a complaint with the FERC seeking refunds of this amount, plus interest, in the event the FERC ultimately determines that bandwidth payments are not properly recovered under the AmerenUE contract.

On March 31, 2008, the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC seeking, among other things, three amendments to the rough production cost equalization bandwidth formula. On April 22, 2008, the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the LPSC complaint urging the FERC to reject two of the proposed amendments and not opposing the third. On July 2, 2008, the FERC issued an order that, among other things, ordered the Utility operating companies to implement the LPSC's proposed amendment that they did not oppose and setting two of the LPSC's proposed amendments for hearing and settlement proceedings.

17

2008 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2007 Production Costs

Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the APSC, the LPSC, and AmerenUE, which have also filed protests. Several other parties, including the MPSC and the City Council, have intervened in the proceeding without filing a protest. On July 29, 2008, the FERC set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures. A settlement judge should be appointed and a conference scheduled in August 2008.

Entergy Arkansas will pay $36 million per month for seven months in 2008, and began making the payments in June 2008. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the APSC has approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.

In the FERC's April 2006 order that approved Entergy's ICT proposal, the FERC stated that the weekly procurement process (WPP) must be operational within approximately 14 months of the FERC order, or June 24, 2007, or the FERC may reevaluate all approvals to proceed with the ICT.  The Utility operating companies have been working with the ICT and a software vendor to develop the software and systems necessary to implement the WPP. The Utility operating companies also filed with the FERC in April 2007 a request to make certain corrections and limited modifications to the current WPP tariff provisions. The Utility operating companies have filed status reports with the FERC notifying the FERC that, due to unexpected issues with the development of the WPP software and testing, the WPP is still not operational. The Utility operating companies filed a revised tariff with the FERC on January 31, 2008 to address issues identified during the testing of the WPP. The Utility operating companies requested the FERC to rule on the proposed amendments by April 30, 2008 and allow them to go into effect May 11, 2008, following which the WPP would be expected to become operational. In May 2008, the FERC determined it would be premature to implement the WPP on May 11, 2008 as the WPP has not been shown to be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the FERC conditionally accepted and suspended Entergy's proposed tariff amendments for five months from the requested effective date, to become effective October 11, 2008, or on an earlier date, subject to refund and subject to a further order on proposed tariff revisions directed to be filed in the order. The FERC stated that it will consider allowing an effective date earlier than October 11, 2008, if the ICT agrees that the model is ready and Entergy files the required tariff revisions no later than 60 days before that date. The FERC also denied the requests for a technical conference at this time and indicated it will reassess the need for such a technical conference after the WPP is functioning.

18

Power Generation

As discussed more fully in the Form 10-K, the sale of electricity from the power generation plants owned by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. Following is an updated summary of the amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' output that is sold forward as of June 30, 2008 under physical or financial contracts (2008 represents the remaining two quarters of the year):

Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business' purchase of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants from NYPA included value sharing agreements with NYPA. In October 2007, NYPA and the subsidiaries that own the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms. Under the amended value sharing agreements, Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business agreed to make annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014. Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business will pay NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual cap of $24 million. The annual payment for each year is due by January 15 of the following year. If Entergy or an Entergy affiliate ceases to own the plants, then, after January 2009, the annual payment obligation terminates for generation after the date that Entergy ownership ceases. We believe that the contractual obligation to make value sharing payments to NYPA, other than for 2008 generation output, will terminate if the Non-Utility Nuclear spin-off transaction is completed. On June 3, 2008, NYPA informed Entergy in writing that it disagrees with Entergy's interpretation of the termination provisions of the agreement. In addition, in regulatory proceedings in New York, the Administrative Law Judges have indicated that the potential financial effect of the termination of the value sharing payments on NYPA and New York electric consumers are factors the Administrative Law Judges believe should be considered by the New York Public Service Commission in making its public interest determination.

Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide collateral to secure its obligations under the agreements. The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide collateral based upon the difference between the current market and contracted power prices in the regions where Non-Utility Nuclear sells power. The primary form of

19

collateral to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty. Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of collateral. At June 30, 2008, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had in place as collateral $1,501 million of Entergy Corporation guarantees for wholesale transactions, including $64 million of guarantees that support letters of credit and $102 million of cash collateral. The assurance requirement associated with Non-Utility Nuclear is estimated to increase by an amount of up to $302 million if gas prices increase $1 per MMBtu in both the short- and long-term markets. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation's credit rating to below investment grade, Entergy will be required to replace Entergy Corporation guarantees with cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements.

In addition to selling the power produced by its plants, the Non-Utility Nuclear business sells installed capacity to load-serving distribution companies in order for those companies to meet requirements placed on them by the ISO in their area. Following is a summary of the amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' installed capacity that is currently sold forward, and the blended amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' planned generation output and installed capacity that is currently sold forward as of June 30, 2008 (2008 represents the remaining two quarters of the year):

As of June 30, 2008, approximately 96% of Non-Utility Nuclear's counterparty exposure from energy and capacity contracts is with counterparties with public investment grade credit ratings.

See "MANAGEMENT'S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy's accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, unbilled revenue, impairment of long-lived assets, qualified pension and other postretirement benefits, and other contingencies.

In March 2008 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 161 "Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133" (SFAS 161), which requires enhanced disclosures about an entity's derivative and hedging activities. SFAS 161 requires qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative agreements. SFAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008.

20

21

22

23