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.

Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc. separately file this combined Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Information contained herein relating to any individual company is filed by such company on its own behalf. Each company reports herein only as to itself and makes no other representations whatsoever as to any other company. This combined Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q supplements and updates the Entergy Annual Report on Form 10-K for the calendar year ended December 31, 2007, the Entergy Texas Form 10, and the Entergy and Entergy Texas Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, filed by the individual registrants with the SEC, and should be read in conjunction therewith.

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 (including most recently, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike) and recovery of costs associated with restoration, including accessing funded storm reserves, federal and local recovery mechanisms, securitization, and insurance.
• 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:

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. Upon completion of the spin-off, 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 LLC, with 50% ownership by Enexus and 50% ownership by Entergy. The EquaGen board of managers 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. On August 22, 2008, the NRC issued an order denying all of the petitions to intervene based upon the petitioners' failure to demonstrate the requisite standing to pursue their hearing requests. One of the petitioner groups filed a motion for reconsideration on September 4, 2008 and on September 15,

3

Because resolution of any hearing requests is not a prerequisite to obtaining the required NRC approval, on July 28, 2008, the NRC staff approved the license transfers associated with the new ownership structure of EquaGen, the licensed operator, as well as the transfers to Enexus of the NRC licenses for Big Rock Point, FitzPatrick, Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3, Palisades, Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee. The review conducted by the NRC staff included matters such as the financial and technical qualifications of the new organizations, as well as decommissioning funding assurance. In connection with the NRC approvals, Enexus agreed to enter into a financial support agreement with the entities licensed to own the nuclear power plants in the total amount of $700 million to support the operating costs for all six operating nuclear power plants.

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, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. requested approval from the Vermont Public Service Board (VPSB) 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 VPSB 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 (VDPS), which is the public advocate in proceedings before the VPSB, prefiled its initial and rebuttal testimony in the case in which the VDPS 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' 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 VDPS 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 VPSB conducted hearings on July 28-30, 2008, during which it considered the testimony prefiled by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the VDPS, and the two distribution utilities. Post-hearing briefing is complete and a decision from the VPSB is pending.

On January 28, 2008, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and 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

4

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.

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 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.

In August 2008, Non-Utility Nuclear entered into a resolution of a dispute with NYPA over the applicability of the value sharing agreements to the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants after the separation. Under the resolution, Non-Utility Nuclear agreed not to treat the separation as a "Cessation Event" that would terminate its obligation to make the payments under the value sharing agreements. As a result, after the separation, Enexus will continue to be obligated to make payments to NYPA due under the amended and restated value sharing agreements described above. 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. On October 23, 2008, the ALJs issued notification to all parties that from their review of the submissions, all issues of fact and policy material to the relief requested by the petitioners have been thoroughly addressed by the parties, an adequate record for decision is available to the NYPSC, and no further formal proceedings are warranted. The ALJs will now submit a recommendation to the NYPSC with respect to the transaction.

In connection with, but prior to completion of, 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:

• Enexus is expected to issue approximately $3.0 billion of debt securities in partial consideration of Entergy's transfer to it of the Non-Utility Nuclear business.
• These debt securities are expected to be exchanged for approximately $3.0 billion of debt securities that Entergy plans to issue prior to the separation. As a result of the exchange (should the exchange occur), the holders of the debt securities that Entergy plans to issue prior to the separation will become holders of approximately $3.0 billion of Enexus debt securities.
   

5

• Enexus is expected to incur the balance of the debt through the issuance of debt securities directly to third parties.

Out of the proceeds Enexus receives from the issuance of up to approximately $1.5 billion of debt securities to third parties, 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 Enexus' intercompany indebtedness owed to Entergy, including indebtedness that Entergy will transfer to Enexus in the separation. Enexus will not receive any proceeds from either the issuance of the approximately $3.0 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 a proposed senior secured credit facility and certain lien-based hedging arrangements and credit support facilities in respect of hedging, and may enter into other financing arrangements meant to support Enexus' working capital and general corporate needs and credit support obligations arising from hedging and normal course of business requirements.

Entergy continues to target receiving regulatory decisions regarding the spin-off transaction in the fourth quarter 2008. Due to unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, however, it is uncertain whether financing fundamental to the spin-off transaction can be effected in the near-term. Entergy and Enexus intend to launch the financing when market conditions are favorable for such an issuance. Entergy expects the transaction to qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes for both Entergy and its shareholders, and Entergy has received a private letter ruling from the IRS 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.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike

In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to portions of Entergy's service territories in Louisiana and Texas, and to a lesser extent in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution, transmission, and generation infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy's electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike are estimated to be in the range of $1.025 billion to $1.225 billion, as follows:

The Utility operating companies are considering all reasonable avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, including, but not limited to, accessing funded storm reserves; federal and local cost recovery mechanisms, including requests for Community Development Block Grant funding; securitization; and insurance, to the extent deductibles are met. In October 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans drew a total of $229 million from their funded storm reserves. Entergy Arkansas has requested a surcharge to recover $26 million of its storm restoration costs, as discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements,

6

and the other affected Utility operating companies expect to file for recovery of their storm restoration costs no later than the spring 2009. Entergy is currently evaluating the amount of the losses covered by insurance for Entergy and each of the affected Utility operating companies. Because most of the Hurricane Gustav damage was to distribution and transmission facilities that are generally not covered by property insurance, Entergy does not expect to meet its deductibles for that storm. Because Hurricane Ike caused more damage by flooding and also caused more damage to generation facilities as compared to Hurricane Gustav, it is more likely that Entergy will meet its deductibles for that storm.

Entergy has recorded accounts payable for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service.  Entergy recorded corresponding regulatory assets of approximately $550 million and construction work in progress of approximately $430 million. Entergy recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service territories (except for Entergy Arkansas), because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, however, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Non-Utility Nuclear, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing the third quarter 2008 to the third 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.

7

Utility

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

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased electricity usage, including the effect of less favorable weather compared to the same period in 2007. Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, which hit the Utility's service territories in September 2008, also contributed an estimated $46 million to the decrease in electricity usage. Billed retail electricity usage decreased a total of 569 GWh in all sectors, a decrease of 2%.

The purchased power capacity variance is primarily due to higher purchased power capacity charges, including the Ouachita interim tolling agreement. The Ouachita acquisition is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein.

The fuel recovery variance resulted primarily from decreased recovery of higher fuel and purchased power costs from special rate customers and the timing of recovery of higher fuel and purchased power costs from retail customers.

The retail electric price variance is due to the following:

• the absence of interim storm recoveries through the formula rate plans at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana which ceased upon the Act 55 financing of storm costs in the third quarter 2008;
• a credit passed on to customers as a result of the Act 55 storm cost financings;
• a base rate credit implemented effective January 2008 at Entergy New Orleans; and
• an increase in the Attala power plant costs recovered through the power management rider by Entergy Mississippi. The net income effect of this recovery is limited to a portion representing an allowed return on equity with the remainder offset by Attala power plant costs in other operation and maintenance expenses, depreciation expenses, and taxes other than income taxes.

Refer to "Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina" below and Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein for a discussion of the interim recovery of storm costs and the Act 55 storm cost financings.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $505 million for the third quarter 2007 to $599 million for the third quarter 2008 primarily due to higher pricing in its contracts to sell power. Following are key performance measures for Non-Utility Nuclear for the third quarter 2008 and 2007:

8

When Non-Utility Nuclear acquired its six nuclear power plants it also entered into purchased power agreements with the sellers. For four of the plants, the 688 MW Pilgrim, 838 MW FitzPatrick, 1,028 MW Indian Point 2, and 1,041 MW Indian Point 3 plants, the original purchased power agreements with the sellers expired in 2004. The purchased power agreement with the seller of the 605 MW Vermont Yankee plant extends into 2012, and the purchased power agreement with the seller of the 798 MW Palisades plant extends into 2022. Prevailing market prices in the New York and New England power markets, where the five plants with original purchased power agreements that have expired or expire by 2012 are located, have increased since the purchase of these plants, and the contracts that Non-Utility Nuclear has entered after the original contracts expired, as well as realized day ahead and spot market sales, have generally been at higher prices. Non-Utility Nuclear's annual average realized price per MWh has increased from $39.40 for 2003 to $52.69 for 2007. In addition, as shown in the contracted sale of energy table in the Market and Credit Risk section below, Non-Utility Nuclear has sold forward 92% of its planned energy output for the remainder of 2008 for an average contracted energy price of $53 per MWh and 83% of its planned energy output for 2009 for an average contracted energy price of $61 per MWh. Power prices have increased primarily because of increases in the price of natural gas. Natural gas prices have increased primarily because of rising production costs and limited imports of liquefied natural gas, both caused by global demand and increases in the price of crude oil. In addition, increases in the price of power are secondarily because of rising heat rates, which in turn are caused primarily by load growth outpacing new unit additions. The majority of the existing long-term contracts on these five plants expire by the end of 2012. Most of these existing contracts have contract prices that are lower than currently prevailing market prices. For example, while the average contracted energy price for Non-Utility Nuclear's portfolio is $53 per MWh for the remainder of 2008, the twelve month rolling average price as of September 30, 2008 for the West and Hudson Valley regions of New York and the New England region were $61.93 per MWh, $89.75 per MWh and $83.10 per MWh, respectively.

Utility

Parent & Other

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased for the parent company, Entergy Corporation, primarily due to outside services costs of $23.8 million related to the planned spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business.

Interest charges decreased for Parent & Other primarily due to lower interest rates on borrowings under Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facility.

These factors were partially offset by:

• an adjustment to state income taxes for Non-Utility Nuclear to reflect the effect of a change in the methodology of computing New York state income taxes as required by that state's taxing authority;
• book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction; and
• the amortization of investment tax credits.

These factors were partially offset by book and tax differences for utility plant items and state income taxes at the Utility operating companies.

10

The purchased power capacity variance is primarily due to higher purchased power capacity charges, including the Ouachita interim tolling agreement. The Ouachita acquisition is discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein.

• an increase in the Attala power plant costs recovered through the power management rider by Entergy Mississippi. The net income effect of this recovery is limited to a portion representing an allowed return on equity with the remainder offset by Attala power plant costs in other operation and maintenance expenses, depreciation expenses, and taxes other than income taxes;
• a storm damage rider that became effective in October 2007 at Entergy Mississippi; and
• an Energy Efficiency rider that became effective in November 2007 at Entergy Arkansas.

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 retail electric price variance was partially offset by:

• the absence of interim storm recoveries through the formula rate plans at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana which ceased upon the Act 55 financing of storm costs in the third quarter 2008; and
• a credit passed on to customers as a result of the Act 55 storm cost financings.

Refer to "Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina" below and Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein for a discussion of the interim recovery of storm costs and the Act 55 storm cost financings.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Net revenue increased for Non-Utility Nuclear from $1,346 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to $1,778 million for the nine months ended September 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. See "Realized Price per MWh" in the third quarter results discussion above for a discussion of the increase in price.  In addition to refueling outages, second quarter 2007 was affected by a 28-day unplanned plant outage. Palisades contributed $228 million of net revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to $150 million of net revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. Included in the Palisades net revenue is $57 million and $33 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, of amortization of the Palisades purchased power agreement, 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 nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007:

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to a revision in the third quarter 2007 in the Utility related to depreciation on storm cost-related assets. Recoveries of the costs of those assets are now through the Act 55 financing of storm costs, as approved by the LPSC in the third quarter 2007. See "Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina" below and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the Act 55 storm cost financing.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Utility

Other operation and maintenance expenses were $1,327 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and $1,319 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008. The variance includes:

• a decrease of $22 million in payroll-related costs;
• a decrease of approximately $19 million as a result of the deferral or capitalization of storm restoration costs for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike, which hit the Utility's service territories in September 2008;
• a decrease of $11 million due to a provision for storm-related bad debts in 2007;
• a decrease of $7 million in customer service costs primarily as a result of the write-off of uncollectible customer accounts in 2007;
• a reimbursement of $7 million of costs in 2008 in connection with a litigation settlement;
• an increase of $13 million in fossil expenses primarily due to higher costs for plant maintenance outages as a result of differing outage schedules for 2008 compared to 2007; and
• an increase of $38 million in storm damage charges as a result of several storms hitting Entergy Arkansas' service territory in 2008, including Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in the third quarter 2008. Entergy Arkansas discontinued regulatory storm reserve accounting beginning July 2007 as a result of the APSC order issued in Entergy Arkansas' rate case. As a result, non-capital storm expenses are charged to other operation and maintenance expenses.

Non-Utility Nuclear

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $520 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 to $567 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to deferring costs from two refueling outages in 2008 compared to four refueling outages in 2007, in addition to the increase associated with owning the Palisades plant for the entire period. Other operation and maintenance expenses associated with the Palisades plant, which was acquired in April 2007, were $35 million higher for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2007.

Parent & Other

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased for the parent company, Entergy Corporation, primarily due to outside services costs of $47.5 million related to the planned spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business.

13

Other income decreased primarily due to approximately $35 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.

Interest charges decreased for Parent & Other primarily due to lower interest rates on borrowings under Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facility.

• A capital loss recognized for income tax purposes on the liquidation of Entergy Power Generation, LLC in the third quarter 2008, which resulted in an income tax benefit of approximately $79.5 million. Entergy Power Generation, LLC was a holding company in Entergy's non-nuclear wholesale assets business; and
• an adjustment to state income taxes for Non-Utility Nuclear to reflect the effect of a change in the methodology of computing Massachusetts state income taxes resulting from legislation passed in the third quarter 2008, which resulted in an income tax benefit of approximately $18.8 million.

These factors were partially offset by:

• income taxes recorded by Entergy Power Generation, LLC, prior to its liquidation, resulting from the redemption payments it received in connection with its investment in Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC during the third quarter 2008, which resulted in an income tax expense of approximately $16.1 million; and
• book and tax differences for utility plant items and state income taxes at the Utility operating companies.

The effective income tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was 33.5%. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 35% for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 is primarily due to:

• the resolution of tax audit issues in the 2002-2003 audit cycle;
• an adjustment to state income taxes for Non-Utility Nuclear to reflect the effect of a change in the methodology of computing New York state income taxes as required by that state's taxing authority;
• book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction; and
• the amortization of investment tax credits.

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.

14

As discussed above, Entergy is currently evaluating various avenues of recovering its Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm restoration costs. Entergy believes its total liquidity is sufficient to meet its current obligations, including the effects associated with Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. Nevertheless, each Utility operating company is responsible for its storm restoration cost obligations and for recovering its storm-related costs. At the end of the third quarter 2008, Entergy had $2.6 billion of cash and cash equivalents on hand on a consolidated basis, and believes that it has sufficient financing authority, subject to debt covenants, to meet its anticipated obligations. The Utility's short-term financing authorizations and credit facilities are discussed in more detail in Note 4 to the financial statements. As of September 30, 2008, Entergy had undrawn revolving credit facility capacity of $224 million at Entergy Corporation, $100 million at Entergy Arkansas, and $50 million at Entergy Mississippi, subject to debt covenants. Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facility requires it to maintain a consolidated debt ratio of 65 percent or less of its total capitalization. Some of the Utility operating company credit facilities have similar covenants. In addition, the Utility operating companies had a total of $262 million of funded storm reserves reflected in other property and investments as of September 30, 2008. In October 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans drew a total of $229 million from their funded storm reserves. Entergy also anticipates that operating cash flow in excess of storm restoration spending will remain a source of liquidity.

Long-term debt maturities in the fourth quarter 2008 include $160 million at Entergy Texas and $21 million at Non-Utility Nuclear. Long-term debt maturities in 2009 occur in the fourth quarter and include $219 million at the Utility, $30 million at Non-Utility Nuclear, and $267 million at Entergy Corporation. $500 million of Entergy Corporation notes associated with the equity units are subject to remarketing provisions in November or December 2008 or February 2009. In the event remarketing efforts fail, Entergy will issue shares of stock pursuant to the equity units conversion in February 2009 and retire $500 million of notes. Should the remarketing succeed, Entergy will receive $500 million of cash, issue shares of stock pursuant to the equity units and the $500 million of notes will remain outstanding. The Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi revolving credit facilities of $100 million and $50 million expire in April and May 2009, respectively. These facilities are generally renewed on an annual basis. The remaining Utility operating company credit facilities and the Entergy Corporation credit facility expire in 2012. See Note 5 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 4 to the financial statements herein for details regarding long-term debt.

Entergy's capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital percentage from 2007 to 2008 is primarily the result of additional borrowings under Entergy Corporation's revolving credit facilities. The increase in the debt to capital percentage is in line with Entergy's financial and risk management aspirations.

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.

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 September 30, 2008, amounts outstanding under the credit facility are:

15

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.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the Little Gypsy repowering project. 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 before beginning construction a case-by-case Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) analysis for construction or reconstruction of emission units pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 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-year 2013.

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 status conference is set for December 3, 2008, at which time a procedural schedule should be established for the appeal.

The LPSC had 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 (CWIP) costs. On October 16, 2008, Entergy Louisiana, together with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, filed an application to resume Phase II of the proceeding. The Phase II filing seeks certification for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana to participate in a one-third ownership share in the

16

repowering project. In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana seek recovery of approximately 79% of their construction financing costs through the recovery of cash earnings on CWIP costs. The LPSC previously found that the recovery of CWIP for a large baseload project may be in the public interest as cash earnings may be needed to protect the utility's financial integrity, maintain an acceptable credit rating, prevent an undue increase in the utility's cost of capital, or to accomplish phasing in of the cost of a large capital project for the benefit of customers. In Phase II, the LPSC will rule on Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's certification request, determine the appropriate amount of CWIP costs, if any, to be recovered and will develop the allocation, accounting and rate recovery mechanisms for such recovery. The LPSC also will determine the appropriate procedure or mechanism for synchronizing base rate recovery of Little Gypsy's fixed or non-fuel costs with its commercial in-service date. A status conference is set for November 14, 2008, at which time a procedural schedule should be established for Phase II. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana have requested that the case be decided in time to permit the recovery of cash earnings on CWIP beginning in July 2009.

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.

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. Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion and a settlement that will resolve Phase I of the proceeding. The settlement also provides that Phase II of the proceeding will be consolidated with Phase II of the Little Gypsy proceeding described above. An ALJ will consider the settlement at a hearing scheduled for November 7, 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 the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas limits, 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 the Utility's short-term borrowing limits.

17

In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to large portions of the Utility's service territories 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 bonds. Following are updates regarding Entergy's cost recovery efforts.

Storm Cost Financings

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. In the third quarter 2008, Entergy received from its primary insurer $17.5 million of additional insurance proceeds on its Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita claims, which were allocated as follows: $1.8 million to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, $2.2 million to Entergy Louisiana, $9.7 million to Entergy New Orleans, and $3.3 million to Entergy Texas, with the remainder allocated in smaller amounts to other Entergy subsidiaries.

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, $3.0 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.

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

Entergy's cash flow provided by operating activities increased by $1,067 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2007. Following are cash flows from operating activities by segment:

19

• Utility provided $1,885 million in cash from operating activities in 2008 compared to providing $1,212 million in 2007 primarily due to proceeds of $954 million received from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation as a result of the Louisiana Act 55 storm cost financings. The Act 55 storm cost financings are discussed in more detail in Note 2 to the financial statements. A decrease in income tax payments of $118 million also contributed to the increase. Offsetting these factors were decreased collection of fuel costs in 2008, the receipt of $181 million of Community Development Block Grant funds by Entergy New Orleans in 2007, and a $100 million increase in pension contributions in 2008. Fuel prices have been increasing and, due to the time lag before the fuel recovery rates increase in response, the Utility has under-recovered fuel costs thus far in 2008.
• Non-Utility Nuclear provided $970 million in cash from operating activities in 2008 compared to providing $535 million in 2007, primarily due to an increase in net revenue, partially offset by an increase in operation and maintenance costs, both of which are discussed in "Results of Operations."
• Parent & Other used approximately $162 million in cash in operating activities in 2008 and used approximately $120 million in cash in operating activities in 2007.

Net cash used in investing activities increased by $492 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The following significant investing cash flow activity occurred in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007:

• Construction expenditures were $373 million higher in 2008 than in 2007, primarily due to storm restoration spending caused by Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike and increased spending on various projects by the Utility that are discussed further in "Capital Expenditure Plans" in the Form 10-K.
• In April 2007, Non-Utility Nuclear purchased the 798 MW Palisades nuclear power plant located near South Haven, Michigan for a net cash payment of $336 million.
• In March 2008, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana purchased the Calcasieu Generating Facility, a 322 MW simple-cycle, gas-fired power plant located near the city of Sulphur in southwestern Louisiana, for approximately $56 million.
• In September 2008, Entergy Arkansas purchased the Ouachita Plant, a 789 MW gas-fired plant located 20 miles south of the Arkansas state line near Sterlington, Louisiana, for approximately $210 million.
• Non-Utility Nuclear made a $72 million payment to NYPA in 2008 under the value sharing agreements associated with the acquisition of the Fitzpatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants. See Note 1 to the financial statements herein for additional discussion of the value sharing agreements.
• The investment of a net total of $220 million in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's and Entergy Louisiana's storm reserve escrow accounts as a result of the Act 55 storm cost financings. The Act 55 storm cost financings are discussed in more detail in Note 2 to the financial statements.
• Entergy Mississippi realized proceeds in 2007 from $100 million of investments held in trust that were received from a bond issuance in 2006 and used to redeem bonds in 2007.

Net cash provided by financing activities increased $293 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The following significant financing cash flow activity occurred in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007:

• Entergy Corporation increased the net borrowings under its revolving credit facility by $957 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and by $1,296 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2007. See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the Entergy Corporation credit facility.
• Entergy Arkansas issued $300 million of 5.4% Series First Mortgage Bonds in July 2008.
• Entergy Louisiana issued $300 million of 6.5% Series First Mortgage Bonds in August 2008.
• Entergy Louisiana repurchased, prior to maturity, $60 million of Auction Rate governmental bonds in April 2008.
• Entergy New Orleans paid, at maturity, its $30 million 3.875% Series first mortgage bonds in August 2008.

20

• The Utility operating companies increased the borrowings outstanding on their long-term credit facilities by $400 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and increased the borrowings outstanding on their short term credit facilities by $60 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2007.
• A subsidiary of Entergy Texas issued $329.5 million of securitization bonds in June 2007. See Note 5 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for additional information regarding the securitization bonds.
• Entergy Corporation paid $237 million of notes payable at their maturities in 2008.
• Entergy Mississippi redeemed $100 million of first mortgage bonds in 2007.
• Entergy Corporation repurchased $468 million of its common stock in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and $1,024 million of its common stock in the nine months ended September 30, 2007.
• Entergy Corporation increased the dividend on its common stock in the third quarter 2007. The quarterly dividend was $0.54 per share for the first two quarters of 2007 and $0.75 per share for each quarter since then.

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 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. The proceeding is pending at the FERC.

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. The matter is now pending before the FERC for decision. In the second proceeding, a contested settlement supported by the Utility operating companies is now pending before the FERC. 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. In August 2008, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the LPSC's appeal.

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. Settlement procedures have been terminated, and a hearing is set for March 2009.

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. Settlement procedures were terminated on October 22, 2008. A procedural schedule has not yet been established in the proceeding.

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.

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC's appeal of the FERC's March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies' interruptible loads.  In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds. The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directs Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change. In addition, the order directs the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996. Entergy, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council have requested rehearing of the FERC's order on remand. The FERC granted the Utility operating companies' request to delay the payment of refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996 until 30 days following a FERC order on rehearing. The FERC issued in September 2008 an order denying rehearing. The refunds were made to the Utility operating companies that were due a refund on October 15, 2008. The APSC has appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.

AEEC Complaint Regarding the Ouachita Acquisition

23

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. Entergy submitted a proposed tariff amendment in August 2008, and on October 10, 2008 the FERC issued an order accepting the amendment. The amendment establishes that the WPP shall take effect at a date to be determined, after completion of successful simulation trials and the ICT's endorsement of the WPP's implementation.

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 September 30, 2008 under physical or financial contracts (2008 represents the remaining quarter 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. In August 2008, Non-Utility Nuclear entered into a resolution of a dispute with NYPA over the applicability of the value sharing agreements to its FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants after the planned spin-off of the Non-Utility Nuclear business. Under the resolution, Non-Utility Nuclear agreed not to treat the separation as a "Cessation Event" that would terminate its obligation to make the payments under the value sharing agreements. As a result, after the spin-off transaction, Non-Utility Nuclear will continue to be obligated to make payments to NYPA under the amended and restated value sharing agreements.

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 collateral to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty.  Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of collateral.  At September 30, 2008, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had in place as collateral $631 million of Entergy Corporation guarantees for wholesale transactions, including $60 million of guarantees that support letters of credit and $11 million of cash collateral. The assurance requirement associated with Non-Utility Nuclear is estimated to increase by an amount of up to $217 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.

For the planned energy output under contract through 2012, 56% of the planned energy output is under contract with counterparties with public investment grade credit ratings; 28% is with counterparties with public non-investment grade credit ratings, primarily Consumers Energy, the BB+ rated company from which Entergy purchased the Palisades power plant and entered into a long-term fixed-price purchased power agreement; and 16% is with load-serving entities without public credit ratings.

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 September 30, 2008 (2008 represents the remaining quarter of the year):

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. Following is an update to that discussion.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, the intent of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 is to require companies to fund 100% of their pension liability; and then for companies to fund, on a going-forward basis, an amount generally estimated to be the amount that the pension liability increases each year due to an additional year of service by the employees eligible for pension benefits. The legislation requires that funding shortfalls be eliminated by companies over a seven-year period, beginning in 2008. The Pension Protection Act also extended the provisions of the Pension Funding Equity Act that would have expired in 2006 had the Pension Protection Act not been enacted, which increased the allowed discount rate used to calculate the pension funding liability.

The recent decline in stock market prices may affect Entergy's planned levels of contributions.  Minimum required funding calculations as determined under Pension Protection Act guidance are performed annually as of January 1 of each year and are based on measurements of the market-related values of assets and funding liabilities as measured at that date.  An excess of the funding liability over the market-related value of assets, as determined under the Pension Protection Act, would result in a funding shortfall which, under the Pension Protection Act, must be funded over a seven-year rolling period.  Entergy's minimum required contributions for the 2009 plan year are generally payable in installments throughout 2009 and 2010 and will be based on the funding calculations as of January 1, 2009.  The final date at which 2009 plan year contributions may be made is September 15, 2010.  Absent a significant recovery in stock market prices by January 1, it is likely that the minimum required contributions for the 2009 plan year, payable in 2009 or 2010, will increase although the level of increase or timing of that increase cannot be determined until the January 1, 2009 valuation is performed.  If the required discount rate to calculate the funding liabilities  increases , it would result in a decrease in the liability, which would somewhat offset the increase in the level of the minimum required contributions caused by the decline in the market related values of assets. Entergy does not anticipate any significant additional pension funding contributions in 2008, and contributions for the 2008 plan year that remain to be paid in 2009 are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the current market conditions.

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.

26

27

29