• Regulated Electric
  • Utilities
Entergy Corporation logo
Entergy Corporation
ETR · US · NYSE
111.02
USD
+0.54
(0.49%)
Executives
Name Title Pay
Mr. Roderick K. West Group President of Utility Operations 1.69M
Mr. Andrew S. Marsh Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer 3.01M
Mr. Peter S. Norgeot Jr. Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer 1.43M
Mr. Marcus V. Brown Executive Vice President & General Counsel 1.78M
Mr. Reginald T. Jackson Senior Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer --
Mr. William Abler Vice President of Investor Relations --
Mr. Robert Hatley Group Vice President of Corporate Communications --
Mr. Michael Rhymes Chief Information Officer --
Ms. Kimberly A. Fontan Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer 1.3M
Mr. Jason Chapman Senior Vice President and Chief Technology & Business Services Officer --
Insider Transactions
Date Name Title Acquisition Or Disposition Stock / Options # of Shares Price
2024-06-11 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 2618 108.16
2024-06-01 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - M-Exempt Common Stock 6004 0
2024-06-01 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 6004 0
2024-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 195 0
2024-05-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Equity Units 195 0
2024-05-31 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-31 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 712 0
2024-05-31 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 195 0
2024-05-28 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 6199 107.53
2024-05-17 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock 14216 0
2024-05-17 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 14216 0
2024-05-08 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - S-Sale Common Stock 1500 110.23
2024-05-06 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3767 95.87
2024-05-06 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3767 108.72
2024-05-06 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5462 108.7
2024-05-06 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3767 95.87
2024-03-15 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 8500 102.84
2024-03-14 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - S-Sale Common Stock 1500 101.23
2024-03-01 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 100.35
2024-02-29 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 216 0
2024-02-29 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-02-29 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2024-01-26 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 529 99.31
2024-01-27 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 596 99.31
2024-01-28 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 608 99.31
2024-01-26 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 64 99.31
2024-01-27 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 45 99.31
2024-01-28 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 56 99.31
2024-01-26 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 61 99.31
2024-01-27 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 47 99.31
2024-01-28 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 133 99.31
2024-01-26 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 272 99.31
2024-01-27 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 153 99.31
2024-01-28 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 178 99.31
2024-01-26 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 68 99.31
2024-01-27 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 67 99.31
2024-01-28 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 69 99.31
2024-01-26 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 103 99.31
2024-01-27 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 118 99.31
2024-01-28 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 81 99.31
2024-01-26 Marsh Andrew S Chair and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 1772 99.31
2024-01-27 Marsh Andrew S Chair and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 616 99.31
2024-01-28 Marsh Andrew S Chair and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 667 99.31
2024-01-26 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 85 99.31
2024-01-27 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 62 99.31
2024-01-28 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 59 99.31
2024-01-26 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 59 99.31
2024-01-27 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 55 99.31
2024-01-28 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 57 99.31
2024-01-26 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 263 99.31
2024-01-27 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 79 99.31
2024-01-28 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 82 99.31
2024-01-26 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 104 99.31
2024-01-27 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 62 99.31
2024-01-28 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 62 99.31
2024-01-26 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 190 99.31
2024-01-27 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 108 99.31
2024-01-28 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 52 99.31
2024-01-26 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 131 99.31
2024-01-27 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 133 99.31
2024-01-28 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 148 99.31
2024-01-26 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 50 99.31
2024-01-27 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 57 99.31
2024-01-28 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 57 99.31
2024-01-26 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 419 99.31
2024-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 406 99.31
2024-01-28 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 498 99.31
2024-01-25 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 3232 0
2024-01-25 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 17755 99.08
2024-01-25 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3082 0
2024-01-25 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 16931 99.08
2024-01-25 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1322 0
2024-01-25 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 7263 99.08
2024-01-25 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 20603 99.08
2024-01-25 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3751 0
2024-01-25 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2771 0
2024-01-25 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 15222 99.08
2024-01-25 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1521 0
2024-01-25 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 8354 99.08
2024-01-25 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1404 0
2024-01-25 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 7710 99.08
2024-01-25 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 3009 0
2024-01-25 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 16531 99.08
2024-01-25 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 615 0
2024-01-25 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 3375 99.08
2024-01-25 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 661 0
2024-01-25 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 3632 99.08
2024-01-25 Marsh Andrew S Chair and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 14491 0
2024-01-25 Marsh Andrew S Chair and CEO A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 79609 99.08
2024-01-25 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 771 0
2024-01-25 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 4235 99.08
2024-01-25 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1228 0
2024-01-25 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 6746 99.08
2024-01-25 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1158 0
2024-01-25 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 6358 99.08
2024-01-25 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy 5266 99.08
2024-01-25 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 959 0
2024-01-18 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 2546 0
2024-01-18 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 807 98.86
2024-01-18 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 12632 0
2024-01-18 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 4062 98.86
2024-01-18 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 2269 0
2024-01-18 VIAMONTES ELIECER "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 634 98.86
2024-01-18 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1849 0
2024-01-18 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 610 98.86
2024-01-18 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 7506 0
2024-01-18 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 2222 98.86
2024-01-18 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 2235 0
2024-01-18 MINOR ANASTASIA "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 719 98.86
2024-01-18 Marsh Andrew S Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 23917 0
2024-01-18 Marsh Andrew S Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 9024 98.86
2024-01-18 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 2149 0
2024-01-18 Landreaux Laura R "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 688 98.86
2024-01-18 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1779 0
2024-01-18 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 591 98.86
2024-01-18 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 4777 0
2024-01-18 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 1449 98.86
2024-01-18 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 2209 0
2024-01-18 FISACKERLY HALEY "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 711 98.86
2024-01-18 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3737 0
2024-01-18 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 1162 98.86
2024-01-18 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 4651 0
2024-01-18 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 1407 98.86
2024-01-18 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - A-Award Common Stock 1895 0
2024-01-18 CHAPMAN JASON "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - F-InKind Common Stock 621 98.86
2024-01-18 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 10344 0
2024-01-18 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 3065 98.86
2023-12-11 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock 14604 95.87
2023-12-11 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock 23813 89.19
2023-12-11 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 38417 101.53
2023-12-11 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 14604 95.87
2023-12-11 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 23813 89.19
2023-11-30 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 216 0
2023-11-30 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-11-30 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 216 0
2023-09-12 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock 13500 78.08
2023-09-12 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 13500 95.4
2023-09-12 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 13500 78.08
2023-08-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 230 0
2023-08-31 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-08-31 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 230 0
2023-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 223 0
2023-05-31 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 815 0
2023-05-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 206 0
2023-05-31 BLACK JOHN H. director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-31 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 206 0
2023-05-31 ADAMS GINA F. director A - A-Award Common Stock 223 0
2023-05-24 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - I-Discretionary Common Stock 1762 99.7
2023-03-09 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - S-Sale Common Stock 300 103.96
2023-03-08 HERMAN ALEXIS M director D - S-Sale Common Stock 213 103.82
2023-03-02 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 551 103.72
2023-02-28 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 HERMAN ALEXIS M director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 213 0
2023-02-28 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-28 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 213 0
2023-02-27 MINOR ANASTASIA A - P-Purchase Common Stock 2500 107.5
2023-03-01 BLACK JOHN H. director I - Common Stock 0 0
2023-03-01 BLACK JOHN H. director D - Common Stock 0 0
2023-03-01 ADAMS GINA F. - 0 0
2023-02-27 FISACKERLY HALEY A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2200 78.08
2023-02-27 FISACKERLY HALEY D - S-Sale Common Stock 1690 108.39
2023-02-27 FISACKERLY HALEY D - S-Sale Common Stock 2200 108.45
2023-02-27 FISACKERLY HALEY D - M-Exempt Common Stock 2200 78.08
2023-02-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 12500 106.1
2023-02-21 HERMAN ALEXIS M director D - S-Sale Common Stock 189 108.64
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Common Stock 0 0
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA I - Common Stock 0 0
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4000 131.72
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4230 109.59
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4556 95.87
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3532 108.47
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 6700 89.19
2023-02-13 MINOR ANASTASIA D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 6200 78.08
2023-02-11 CHAPMAN JASON D - Common Stock 0 0
2023-02-11 CHAPMAN JASON D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2600 108.47
2023-02-11 CHAPMAN JASON D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3602 109.59
2023-02-11 CHAPMAN JASON D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3767 95.87
2023-02-11 CHAPMAN JASON D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2500 131.72
2023-02-15 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1925 0
2023-02-15 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 1925 0
2023-02-10 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 100 105.79
2023-01-30 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 357 107.69
2023-02-01 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - M-Exempt Common Stock 334 0
2023-02-01 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 334 0
2023-01-30 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 107 107.69
2023-01-30 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 142 107.69
2023-01-30 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 119 107.69
2023-01-30 Marsh Andrew S Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 409 107.69
2023-01-30 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 96 107.69
2023-01-30 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 126 107.69
2023-01-30 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 123 107.69
2023-01-30 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 106 107.69
2023-01-30 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 96 107.69
2023-01-30 DENAULT LEO P Executive Chair D - F-InKind Common Stock 2026 107.69
2023-01-30 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 84 107.69
2023-01-30 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 82 107.69
2023-01-30 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 322 107.69
2023-01-30 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Entergy Infrastructure D - F-InKind Common Stock 338 107.69
2023-01-27 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 373 108.71
2023-01-28 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 382 108.71
2023-01-27 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 52 108.71
2023-01-28 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 64 108.71
2023-01-27 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 53 108.71
2023-01-28 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 150 108.71
2023-01-27 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 144 108.71
2023-01-28 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 170 108.71
2023-01-27 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 133 108.71
2023-01-28 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 92 108.71
2023-01-27 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 388 108.71
2023-01-28 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 419 108.71
2023-01-27 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 71 108.71
2023-01-28 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 67 108.71
2023-01-27 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 62 108.71
2023-01-28 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 64 108.71
2023-01-27 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 196 108.71
2023-01-28 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 206 108.71
2023-01-27 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 89 108.71
2023-01-28 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 92 108.71
2023-01-27 DENAULT LEO P Executive Chair D - F-InKind Common Stock 2507 108.71
2023-01-28 DENAULT LEO P Executive Chair D - F-InKind Common Stock 2841 108.71
2023-01-27 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 71 108.71
2023-01-28 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 71 108.71
2023-01-27 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 59 108.71
2023-01-28 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 123 108.71
2023-01-27 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 150 108.71
2023-01-28 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 145 108.71
2023-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 255 108.71
2023-01-28 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 312 108.71
2023-01-27 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Entergy Infrastructure D - F-InKind Common Stock 287 108.71
2023-01-28 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Entergy Infrastructure D - F-InKind Common Stock 356 108.71
2023-01-26 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 3483 0
2023-01-26 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 18235 0
2023-01-26 VIAMONTES ELIECER director A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3924 0
2023-01-26 VIAMONTES ELIECER director A - A-Award Common Stock 750 0
2023-01-26 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. director A - A-Award Common Stock 609 0
2023-01-26 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. director A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3188 0
2023-01-26 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2726 0
2023-01-26 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 14272 0
2023-01-26 May Phillip R Jr director A - A-Award Common Stock 1035 0
2023-01-26 May Phillip R Jr director A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 5415 0
2023-01-26 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 11616 0
2023-01-26 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 60815 0
2023-01-26 Landreaux Laura R director A - A-Award Common Stock 849 0
2023-01-26 Landreaux Laura R director A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4444 0
2023-01-26 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 596 0
2023-01-26 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3120 0
2023-01-26 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 13733 0
2023-01-26 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2623 0
2023-01-26 FISACKERLY HALEY director A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 5346 0
2023-01-26 FISACKERLY HALEY director A - A-Award Common Stock 1022 0
2023-01-26 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1874 0
2023-01-26 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 9809 0
2023-01-26 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1313 0
2023-01-26 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 6872 0
2023-01-26 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 2762 0
2023-01-26 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 14459 0
2023-01-18 VIAMONTES ELIECER director A - A-Award Common Stock 291 0
2023-01-18 VIAMONTES ELIECER director D - F-InKind Common Stock 86 107.59
2023-01-18 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 2503 0
2023-01-18 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 777 107.59
2023-01-18 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. director A - A-Award Common Stock 159 0
2023-01-18 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. director D - F-InKind Common Stock 54 107.59
2023-01-18 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1048 0
2023-01-18 NORGEOT PETER S JR EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 356 107.59
2023-01-18 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3029 0
2023-01-18 Marsh Andrew S Chief Executive Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 928 107.59
2023-01-18 May Phillip R Jr director A - A-Award Common Stock 417 0
2023-01-18 May Phillip R Jr director D - F-InKind Common Stock 142 107.59
2023-01-18 Landreaux Laura R director A - A-Award Common Stock 300 0
2023-01-18 Landreaux Laura R director D - F-InKind Common Stock 104 107.59
2023-01-18 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 247 0
2023-01-18 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP & Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 85 107.59
2023-01-18 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 468 0
2023-01-18 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 159 107.59
2023-01-18 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services A - A-Award Common Stock 864 0
2023-01-18 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 293 107.59
2023-01-18 DENAULT LEO P Executive Chair A - A-Award Common Stock 9318 0
2023-01-18 DENAULT LEO P Executive Chair D - F-InKind Common Stock 2719 107.59
2023-01-18 FISACKERLY HALEY director A - A-Award Common Stock 300 0
2023-01-18 FISACKERLY HALEY director D - F-InKind Common Stock 104 107.59
2023-01-18 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 557 0
2023-01-18 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP & Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 189 107.59
2023-01-18 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 379 0
2023-01-18 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP & Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 132 107.59
2023-01-18 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Entergy Infrastructure A - A-Award Common Stock 2312 0
2023-01-18 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Entergy Infrastructure D - F-InKind Common Stock 741 107.59
2023-01-18 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 2256 0
2023-01-18 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 707 107.59
2022-11-30 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 HERMAN ALEXIS M director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 189 0
2022-11-30 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-30 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Common Stock 189 0
2022-11-10 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Restricted Stock Units 18012 0
2022-11-10 May Phillip R Jr director A - A-Award Restricted Stock Units 4053 0
2022-11-10 FISACKERLY HALEY director A - A-Award Restricted Stock Units 4053 0
2022-11-01 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3767 95.87
2022-11-01 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - Common Stock 0 0
2022-11-01 JACKSON REGINALD T SVP, Chief Accounting Officer I - Common Stock 0 0
2022-11-01 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 8900 89.19
2022-11-01 COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - Common Stock 0 0
2022-09-06 HERMAN ALEXIS M D - S-Sale Common Stock 190 116.56
2022-08-31 PUCKETT KAREN A A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 Lincoln Blanche L A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 LEVENICK STUART L A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 Hyland M Elise A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 HERMAN ALEXIS M A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 Ellis Brian W A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H A - A-Award Equity Units 190 0
2022-08-31 Condon Patrick J. A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-31 Burbank John R A - A-Award Common Stock 190 0
2022-08-18 HERMAN ALEXIS M D - S-Sale Common Stock 161 120.35
2022-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 PUCKETT KAREN A A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 Hyland M Elise A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-31 HERMAN ALEXIS M A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-31 Ellis Brian W A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 161 0
2022-05-31 Condon Patrick J. A - A-Award Common Stock 665 0
2022-05-31 Burbank John R A - A-Award Common Stock 161 0
2022-05-27 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 6500 120.94
2022-05-27 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 6500 0
2022-05-12 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 760 0
2022-04-29 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - S-Sale Common Stock 256 120.22
2022-04-20 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development A - M-Exempt Common Stock 4068 70.56
2022-04-20 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development D - S-Sale Common Stock 4068 125.62
2022-04-20 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4068 70.56
2022-04-06 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4435 123.6
2022-04-06 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 10000 0
2022-04-05 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 27036 63.17
2022-04-05 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 15627 120.55
2022-04-05 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 4156 121.09
2022-04-05 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 27036 0
2022-04-05 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 27036 63.17
2022-04-01 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2360 70.56
2022-04-01 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development D - S-Sale Common Stock 2360 120
2022-04-01 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2360 0
2022-04-01 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Operations & Development D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2360 70.56
2022-04-01 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3300 78.08
2022-04-01 May Phillip R Jr D - S-Sale Common Stock 3300 120
2022-04-01 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - S-Sale Common Stock 6472 120
2022-04-01 May Phillip R Jr "Officer" Under Sec. 16 Rules D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3300 78.08
2022-04-01 May Phillip R Jr D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3300 0
2022-04-01 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 35000 63.17
2022-04-01 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 35000 120.06
2022-04-01 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 35000 63.17
2022-04-01 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 35000 0
2022-04-01 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 78964 63.17
2022-04-01 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 57889 120.1
2022-04-01 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 78964 63.17
2022-03-28 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 30700 64.6
2022-03-25 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1300 64.6
2022-03-25 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 30700 115.02
2022-03-25 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 1300 64.6
2022-03-28 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 30700 64.6
2022-03-25 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 30700 0
2022-03-28 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 46149 64.6
2022-03-28 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 34761 115.02
2022-03-25 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3851 64.6
2022-03-25 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 2901 115.01
2022-03-25 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3851 64.6
2022-03-25 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 46149 0
2022-03-28 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 46149 64.6
2022-03-10 HERMAN ALEXIS M D - S-Sale Common Stock 185 108.87
2022-03-04 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5000 111.85
2022-03-04 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 1350 111.78
2022-03-04 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 4500 111.93
2022-03-02 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 577 106.62
2022-02-28 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 HERMAN ALEXIS M director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 185 0
2022-02-28 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 185 0
2022-02-28 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Equity Units 185 0
2022-02-25 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5000 105.4
2022-02-25 FISACKERLY HALEY director D - S-Sale Common Stock 750 105.42
2022-02-15 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1925 0
2022-02-15 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 1925 0
2022-02-09 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 82 111.47
2022-01-31 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 614 111.77
2022-01-31 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 125 111.77
2022-01-31 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation D - F-InKind Common Stock 135 111.77
2022-01-31 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 96 111.77
2022-01-31 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 727 111.77
2022-01-31 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 56 111.77
2022-01-31 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 539 111.77
2022-01-31 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 74 111.77
2022-01-31 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 117 111.77
2022-01-31 FISACKERLY HALEY director D - F-InKind Common Stock 65 111.77
2022-01-31 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 2491 111.77
2022-01-31 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 573 111.77
2022-01-31 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 594 111.77
2022-01-28 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 525 111.16
2022-01-28 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 561 111.16
2022-02-01 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - M-Exempt Common Stock 333 0
2022-01-28 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 49 111.16
2022-02-01 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - M-Exempt Restricted Stock Units 333 0
2022-01-28 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 103 111.16
2022-01-28 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. D - F-InKind Common Stock 145 111.16
2022-01-28 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation D - F-InKind Common Stock 116 111.16
2022-01-28 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation D - F-InKind Common Stock 139 111.16
2022-01-28 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 113 111.16
2022-01-28 May Phillip R Jr D - F-InKind Common Stock 74 111.16
2022-01-28 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 601 111.16
2022-01-28 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 615 111.16
2022-01-28 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 81 111.16
2022-01-28 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 56 111.16
2022-01-28 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 519 111.16
2022-01-28 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 587 111.16
2022-01-28 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 119 111.16
2022-01-28 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 198 111.16
2022-01-28 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 103 111.16
2022-01-28 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 75 111.16
2022-01-28 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 79 111.16
2022-01-28 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 58 111.16
2022-01-28 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 1972 111.16
2022-01-28 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 2764 111.16
2022-01-28 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 79 111.16
2022-01-28 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 135 111.16
2022-01-28 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 474 111.16
2022-01-28 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 460 111.16
2022-01-28 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 494 111.16
2022-01-28 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 519 111.16
2022-01-27 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 3785 0
2022-01-27 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 24740 109.59
2022-01-27 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3294 109.59
2022-01-27 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - A-Award Common Stock 504 0
2022-01-27 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. A - A-Award Common Stock 455 0
2022-01-27 RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D. A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2974 109.59
2022-01-27 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation A - A-Award Common Stock 1479 0
2022-01-27 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 9668 109.59
2022-01-27 May Phillip R Jr A - A-Award Common Stock 1141 0
2022-01-27 May Phillip R Jr A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 7457 109.59
2022-01-27 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3898 0
2022-01-27 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 25480 109.59
2022-01-27 Landreaux Laura R A - A-Award Common Stock 590 0
2022-01-27 Landreaux Laura R A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3852 109.59
2022-01-27 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 3228 0
2022-01-27 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 21100 109.59
2022-01-27 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services A - A-Award Common Stock 1853 0
2022-01-27 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 12109 0
2022-01-27 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 758 0
2022-01-27 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4955 109.59
2022-01-27 FISACKERLY HALEY A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3852 109.59
2022-01-27 FISACKERLY HALEY A - A-Award Common Stock 590 0
2022-01-27 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 16638 0
2022-01-27 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 108762 109.59
2022-01-27 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 8399 109.59
2022-01-27 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1285 0
2022-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 2574 0
2022-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 2574 0
2022-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 16822 109.59
2022-01-27 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 16822 109.59
2022-01-27 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2831 0
2022-01-27 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 18505 109.59
2022-01-24 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 71.3
2022-01-24 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 108.79
2022-01-24 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy) 10000 71.3
2022-01-19 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops A - A-Award Common Stock 13296 0
2022-01-19 WEST RODERICK K Group President, Utility Ops D - F-InKind Common Stock 4675 110.35
2022-01-19 VIAMONTES ELIECER A - A-Award Common Stock 1185 0
2022-01-19 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - F-InKind Common Stock 351 110.35
2022-01-19 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation A - A-Award Common Stock 5235 0
2022-01-19 NORGEOT PETER S JR SVP, Transformation D - F-InKind Common Stock 1333 110.35
2022-01-19 May Phillip R Jr director A - A-Award Common Stock 2837 0
2022-01-19 May Phillip R Jr director D - F-InKind Common Stock 909 110.35
2022-01-19 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 15666 0
2022-01-19 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 15666 0
2022-01-19 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 5777 110.35
2022-01-19 Marsh Andrew S EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 5777 110.35
2022-01-19 Landreaux Laura R A - A-Award Common Stock 1913 0
2022-01-19 Landreaux Laura R D - F-InKind Common Stock 629 110.35
2022-01-19 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 11655 0
2022-01-19 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 3939 110.35
2022-01-19 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services A - A-Award Common Stock 3578 0
2022-01-19 HARBERT JULIE E SVP, Corp Business Services D - F-InKind Common Stock 1132 110.35
2022-01-19 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2671 0
2022-01-19 FONTAN KIMBERLY A. SVP, Chief Accounting Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 860 110.35
2022-01-19 FISACKERLY HALEY A - A-Award Common Stock 1913 0
2022-01-19 FISACKERLY HALEY D - F-InKind Common Stock 611 110.35
2022-01-19 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 53468 0
2022-01-19 DENAULT LEO P Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 22956 110.35
2022-01-19 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2496 0
2022-01-19 COLLINS KATHRYN A. SVP, Chief H.R. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 806 110.35
2022-01-19 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock 12385 0
2022-01-19 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock 4266 110.35
2022-01-19 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 12629 0
2022-01-19 BAKKEN A. CHRISTOPHER III EVP, Chief Nuclear Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4295 110.35
2021-12-08 HERMAN ALEXIS M director D - S-Sale Common Stock 193 105.18
2021-11-30 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 HERMAN ALEXIS M director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 193 0
2021-11-30 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 193 0
2021-11-30 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Equity Units 193 0
2021-11-19 Landreaux Laura R D - S-Sale Common Stock 450 105.75
2021-11-14 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - Common Stock 0 0
2021-11-14 VIAMONTES ELIECER I - Common Stock 0 0
2021-11-14 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - Restricted Stock Units 667 0
2021-11-14 VIAMONTES ELIECER D - Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4332 95.87
2021-11-10 HERMAN ALEXIS M director D - S-Sale Common Stock 176 102.81
2021-08-31 HERMAN ALEXIS M director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 Ellis Brian W director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 Condon Patrick J. director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 LEVENICK STUART L director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 FREDERICKSON PHILIP L director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 DONALD KIRKLAND H director A - A-Award Equity Units 176 0
2021-08-31 Burbank John R director A - A-Award Equity Units 176 0
2021-08-31 Lincoln Blanche L director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-31 Hyland M Elise director A - A-Award Common Stock 176 0
2021-08-19 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 111.35
2021-08-12 HERMAN ALEXIS M director D - S-Sale Common Stock 186 109
2021-06-14 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 108.51
2021-06-09 HINNENKAMP PAUL D EVP & Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 107.28
2021-06-04 Brown Marcus V EVP & General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock 8000 105.8
2021-06-01 PUCKETT KAREN A director A - A-Award Common Stock 765 0
Transcripts
Operator:
Good morning. My name is Alex, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to Entergy's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions].
I will now turn the call over to Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations for Entergy Corporation.
William Abler:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chair and CEO, Drew Marsh; and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than 2 questions.
In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. We had a very productive start to the year with progress on activities that support our near- and long-term objectives. That includes continued progress towards our growth opportunity as well as important achievements in our risk reduction efforts that will benefit our key stakeholders.
Starting with our financial results for the quarter. Today, we are reporting adjusted earnings per share of $1.8. This result for the quarter is below our expectations, yet we remain firmly on track to deliver on our annual commitments. I'm confident because of actions we have already taken, our team's track record on flexible spending, and our demonstrated ability to deliver steady, predictable results. Kimberly will go over the details. Now I'll cover the business updates from the quarter. Everything we do starts with the customer, because that is the key need to create value for all our stakeholders, customers, employees, communities and owners. Our efforts on that front were recently recognized by EEI's Outstanding National Key Accounts Customer Engagement Award, which is determined by customers. Validating our customer-centric progress, hundreds of the nation's leading chain and multi-site businesses voted to recognize Entergy for delivering exceptional service. We still have more work to do, but we are grateful for this milestone. Additional evidence of progress comes from the execution of 8 new electric service agreements with industrial customers signed in the quarter, including the data center in Mississippi that we announced earlier this year. These contracts represent approximately 1.1 gigawatts of new load and more than $150 million of annual adjusted gross margin. As a reminder, our conservative planning practices assume that most rather than all volumes will come to fruition. Customer affordability remains a key focus area. Last quarter, I outlined our efforts to secure federal support for projects that would benefit our customers. Our utilities received 6 letters of encouragement from the GRIP application submitted late last year. Full applications for all 6 projects will be submitted to the Department of Energy by the end of May. We also continue to advance our $4.5 billion Part 2 application for the DOE loan program, which, if successful, will lower capital costs for our customers. Our nuclear fleet continues to make progress. And all our nuclear plants are now in Column 1 of the NRC Action Matrix. However, operational excellence must be earned every day. Waterford 3 is currently working to recover from a shutdown following a transformer failure. At approximately 20 years old, the transformer was only halfway through its expected life. And early indications point to equipment failure as the cause. We have an interim solution with a spare transformer that can support up to 90% capacity until the replacement transformer arrives. We're working diligently to bring the plant back online in the coming weeks. In Mississippi, Grand Gulf wrapped up its 28-day refueling outage in March. This is the plant's shortest refueling outage since 2007. This outcome is a result of the team's intense focus on safety and operational excellence. We and most importantly, our customers appreciate the work they put in to achieve this outcome. Stakeholder engagement remains a focus area, and important way to assess progress is through our regulatory outcomes. Starting at the federal level, System Energy reached a $116 million agreement in principle with the New Orleans City Council to resolve all current SERI claims. Several New Orleans City Council members cited near and long-term benefits to customers through the settlement. This agreement is consistent with SERI settlements with Mississippi and Arkansas, both of which were approved by FERC and determined to be fair and reasonable. It is also consistent with the reserve recorded in 2022. With the addition of New Orleans, SERI has resolved roughly 85% of its litigation risk. Turning to the retail level. Last week, the Louisiana Public Service Commission approved the first phase of Entergy Louisiana's resilience and grid hardening plan. The plan includes 2,100 projects totaling $1.9 billion of investments over 5 years. The projects will provide important resilience benefits to customers and communities. A more resilient grid will also serve as a catalyst for growth as it bolsters confidence for customers seeking to locate or expand in our service area. The approval includes a forward-looking recovery mechanism with semiannual true-ups, which will provide a solid foundation for our continued customer investment in Louisiana. There are also reporting requirements to provide transparency to our stakeholders on our progress. While the investments will take place over the next 5 years, we are getting underway immediately. For those of you attending our Analyst Day in person, we will show you some examples of the future of our system through recently installed resilience projects. Entergy Louisiana is also in settlement discussions on 2 other proceedings. The FRP renewal or alternatively a base rate case and the streamlined and enhanced renewable RFP process to add up to 3,000 megawatts of solar. Given solid progress thus far, the hearing dates for these dockets have been extended to allow time to reach settlement in these cases. Entergy Louisiana also filed for approval of Bayou Power Station, a $411 million 112-megawatt quick-start non-baseload natural gas power station. It is an innovative solution to meet the power needs in a challenging area on the edge of the Eastern Interconnect. To enhance local resilience and storm restoration speed, the unit would be situated at the top of barge in Southern Louisiana. This is an area that is critical to our nation's energy security and Louisiana's economy. Entergy New Orleans filed an updated resilience and grid hardening plan. which requests approval of Phase 1, a series of investments totaling $168 million over 3 years. This is in addition to the grid resilience project that was approved by the City Council earlier this year. We are requesting to expedite the technical conference on May 1, and we are seeking a decision around midyear, so we can get started on this important work for customers. Our gas LDC sale continues to move along smoothly. The stakeholder engagement process has been going well, and we remain on track to close the transaction by the third quarter of 2025. And lastly, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual FRP in March. Mississippi's efficient mechanism enables continued customer-centric investments, while providing appropriate credit support for Entergy Mississippi, as it makes these investments. Interim rates became effective on April 1. Finally, we are very excited about our upcoming Analyst Day in June. We'll use that opportunity to show off New Orleans, give you a look at our resilience investment, provide a more detailed dive into our multiyear strategy and outlook. That includes a significant customer growth opportunity before us, the plans to expand our clean energy portfolio and to advance reliability and resilience, and our efforts to help support customer affordability, while maintaining our credit strength and earnings growth. We've had a productive start to 2024 with solid progress and execution across key customer, operational, regulatory, and financial front. And by continuing to put our customers first, we will deliver premium value to each of our key stakeholders. I'll now turn the call over to Kimberly, who will review our financial results for the quarter.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting first quarter adjusted earnings per share of $1.08. Several items affected the quarter results, including mild weather, the timing of operating expenses, including planned generator maintenance outages, and the acceleration of education spending and lower sales to cogeneration customers. With the first quarter results under our belt, we remain firmly on track to achieve 2024 results in line with our guidance, and we are well positioned to achieve our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlook. I'll review all of this in detail.
In the quarter, we had 2 items that were considered adjustments and excluded from adjusted earnings that I'd like to mention. First, Entergy Arkansas received a decision from the U.S. District Court in a long-standing case around opportunity sales. The decision resulted in Entergy Arkansas recording a $0.46 impairment of a regulatory asset in the quarter. Second, Entergy New Orleans recorded a $0.27 regulatory charge to share incremental income tax benefits from the 2016 to 2018 IRS audit resolution. Our first quarter adjusted EPS drivers are laid out on Slide 4. Our results reflect regulatory actions that include recovery of the investments that we are making to benefit our customers. Depreciation expense is also higher as a result of those investments. For retail sales, as I noted earlier, weather was mild this year, but not as mild as 2023. Excluding weather, sales volume was not a big driver for earnings, as higher sales to residential was largely offset by lower sales to commercial. Industrial sales were down 0.6% quarter-over-quarter, driven by lower sales to cogeneration customers. We continually monitor fundamentals important to our industrial customers. As you can see in the appendix of our presentation, the metrics remain supportive, giving us confidence in our industrial growth outlook. Utility other O&M was higher this quarter than first quarter last year due to several drivers, some of which have variability throughout the year. For example, healthcare claims were higher and we had more planned maintenance outages at nonnuclear plants. We also accelerated vegetation management in advance of storm season. Compared to our guidance assumptions, other O&M in the quarter was higher than initially planned. However, we fully expect O&M to balance out over the year and ultimately be roughly in line with our original guidance assumptions. Moving to Slide 5. Operating cash flow for the quarter was $521 million, which was lower than last year. The largest driver was customer receipts, which included significant deferred fuel collections in 2023. Deferred fuel costs within operating cash flow declined approximately $350 million compared to last year. Credit is summarized on Slide 6. We maintain a strong ongoing focus on our credit as it is an important element in executing on investments for our customers. For the quarter, our metrics were impacted by timing of debt issuances that will balance out through the course of the year. Our underlying business continues to generate strong FFO and our outlook support metrics in range or better than the rating agency expectations. On Monday, S&P issued a credit update for SERI, improving its outlook to positive, and affirming its rating followed the announced settlement with the City Council of New Orleans. S&P further noted that they could raise SERI's ratings by one notch if the settlement is approved by FERC. As we have said, settlement of system energy litigation provides certainty for all stakeholders. Consistent with this, S&P noted these settlements reduce uncertainty of potential future claims and support the company's future cash flow stability and predictability. Turning to Slide 7. Our equity needs remain unchanged. We continue to make progress against our 2025 and 2026 equity needs. As of the end of the quarter, we've locked in more than 30% of our equity need for those years utilizing ATM forward. As shown on Slide 8, we are affirming our guidance and longer-term adjusted EPS outlook. Weather and lower sales to cogeneration customers have been a headwind to start the year. For the full year, we are benefiting from sales to additional industrial customers. The impact of these sales offsets this headwind. We continue to be on track for our full year expectations.
Regarding utility O&M, quarterly timing can vary significantly, especially when compared to a prior year where we deployed significant flex spending for the benefit of customers following a very hot summer. As we look to second quarter this year, we expect O&M to be higher than last year with the increase roughly in line with the first quarter variance. Key drivers of the timing of our spending in 2024 include the following:
In 2023, all of our flex spending increases were in the back end of the year. So we expect corresponding reductions in spending this year in that same time frame. In second quarter last year, we received significant prescription rebates covering multiple years, which we don't expect to recur at that level or in the same time frame this year.
I noted earlier that our first quarter variance includes accelerated vegetation spending. We expect that acceleration to continue in advance of storm season in 2024. This acceleration reduces spending in the back half of 2024, assuming normal weather. While we have variability in the quarters in spending, I want to reiterate that we fully expect O&M to balance out over the year, consistent with our outlook, and we are confident we will deliver on our financial commitments. We continue to prioritize the needs of our customers to create value for our key stakeholders. We're well positioned to execute and deliver successful customer, operational and regulatory outcomes along with steady, predictable financial results. As Drew said, we're excited about our Analyst Day in June, where we'll provide a long-term in-depth view of our plans for the future. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We have our first question from Shar Pourreza from Guggenheim Partners.
Konstantin Lednev:
It's actually Constantine for Shar. Can we start on the updated thoughts around the CapEx plan given the data points around resiliency and additional industrial customers. You had about $900 million in plan with a bigger number now approved. Is that pushing CapEx higher in the near term? And how should we think about the moving pieces there?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. From a capital plan, we did get $1.9 million approved. We had $900 million through this outlook period. Of the $1.9 billion approved, about $1.5 million of that is in that same 3-year period. So that's an increment of about $700 million for Louisiana. The Louisiana portion of that $900 million was $800 million. So that's an incremental $700 million. How that rolls out through the capital plan, we'll update all that at the Analyst Day along with the effects of the rider and any other changes to our capital and our financing plan.
Konstantin Lednev:
Okay. Perfect. And maybe can you help us reconcile some of the charges taken in the quarter and how the refunds may impact cash and financing needs in the near term? Just do you anticipate any pull forward of equity issuance? Or are there offsetting factors that we should think about?
Kimberly Fontan:
We don't see any needed change in equity. We had already reserved a substantial portion of the income tax or the deferred tax effect for New Orleans. We did increase that, but the return period is a pretty long period, and so there's no material effect on the outlook period.
Konstantin Lednev:
Perfect. And maybe just one last follow-up on some of your commentary around regulatory outcomes. Do you have any updated thoughts around the FRP process and rate case process in Louisiana? And is the period after the direct testimony of the make it right for the kind of more intense settlement discussions? Any kind of lessons learned that you can implement?
Roderick West:
It's Rod. I think I can say, look, 5 weeks ago, we suspended the procedural schedule to facilitate settlement. If you think about the date of May 21, when staff and intervenor testimonies do, in the next 3 weeks, I think it's reasonable to assume that 1 of 3 things will happen. We'll either announce the settlement, we'll mutually agree to extend the dates procedurally to facilitate settlement, or pivot back to a procedural schedule. With the resiliency docket addressed last week, I think the next 3 weeks will be telling about the progress we'll make. But we're comfortable that the stakeholders in Louisiana are now focused on settlement discussions.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet from JPMorgan.
Jeremy Tonet:
I just wanted to dig in a little bit more on plus $0.15 revised weather-normal sales, just a stronger industrial sales outlook as you put out there. If you could kind of bucket whether that's more the pet chems benefiting from cheap ethane and the outlook improving there, or chief methane benefiting ammonia or other industries, or whether that's data centers? Just wondering which one of the industrial activities out there are you seeing, I guess, more upside?
Roderick West:
This is Rod. I can touch on that and certainly Kimberly can follow. But beyond the AWS transaction in Mississippi, we're continuing to see significant interest in the data center sectors, both hyperscale as well as colocation in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But we continue to see strong interest from the metal sector as well, specifically aluminum and steel. With projects in various stages of development, you can add in there with the RRA, developments showing up in blue ammonia in addition to the conversations around carbon capture. And that's not to exclude what we would consider to be our traditional sectors of growth in the service territory around refining and petrochemicals. We plan to give more color, of course, at Analyst Day, but I didn't want to suggest that there was one specific sector. There's a fair amount of diversity in our backlog and growth outlook.
Kimberly Fontan:
And Jeremy, just to add to that for the $0.15 for this year, you can think about that specifically as our historic industry along the Gulf Coast, and those industrial customers are online and taking power currently.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That makes sense. It's very helpful there. That kind of leads into my next question. I was just wondering for the Analyst Day, obviously, you're not going to give us all the details here, but just wondering any broad parameters of what we should expect on that day.
Andrew Marsh:
Well, I mentioned a few of them in my remarks earlier around some of the things that Rod just discussed and the opportunities that we see for growth from a sales perspective and where that's coming from. So more color and depth to that conversation. Certainly, more clarity around the kinds of investments that we plan to make. And that includes the generation side as well as the golden wire side, we're talking about reliability and resilience. Some of the work that we are doing to drive productivity internally.
From a data perspective, we'll be giving a more robust outlook that goes out to 5 years. That will include capital and earnings, and we'll make clear, as Kimberly just mentioned, about our expectations from a financing perspective. And also, since we'll be in New Orleans, we'll have a number of our leaders here with us, and you'll get the ability to access the broader segments of our management and leadership team that you normally do when you just see Rod and Kimberly and Bill Abler and myself out on the road. So you'll get to see what we are seeing in our various jurisdictions and getting more boots on the ground view of how things are progressing.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Sounds great there. And if I could, I just want to finish with SERI real quick. It seems like a lot of meaningful progress over the past year or so. And just wondering your thoughts on, I guess, the prospects for continued positive momentum here in settlements given all the ground that's been covered so far.
Roderick West:
Yes. You're right, being in a position where we can say comfortably that roughly 85% of the SERI risk has been addressed through settlement, it does lend itself to what I would think would be a compelling case to resolve the risk with the state of Louisiana. We can't speak and don't speak around the nuances of negotiations in any period. But we do believe that the fact that New Orleans is now off the table, it gives us a shot to pursue that with Louisiana near term.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Lonegan from Evercore ISI.
Michael Lonegan:
I was wondering if you could provide a preview of your planned resiliency filing in Texas. You laid out a cadence of spending for Texas at the EEI conference. And I was just wondering if the Texas Resiliency Act since then has changed how you're thinking about it in terms of the amount and timing of planned investments?
Roderick West:
Yes. It's Rod again. We're going to make that filing in the second quarter. And some of the considerations around the amount will be influenced by how we think about the contribution to the resilient spend from the state grant program, not to mention, to your earlier point, how the capital would flow through the recovery mechanisms affecting both affordability and credit. But we'll make that filing before the end of second quarter.
Andrew Marsh:
And I'll add that as you probably recall, the Texas part of the resilience investment was pushed back a little bit, because we had a lot of growth upfront. And so you probably won't see as much and that's where the grant piece comes in. And also the mechanism, as we've talked about before, since we have all of this growth in our service territory, mechanism doesn't work as well from a credit perspective for us. So we're working on that. We have another legislative session coming up, but you'll see all of that reflected in our ultimate resilience filing.
Michael Lonegan:
Great. And then secondly for me, on the Bayou Power Station, is the $411 million of investment included in your base capital plan? And also, given that it would be floating off the Louisiana coast, I was just wondering if you could talk about the protections in place for the plant from severe weather with work crews and equipment potentially being impacted. I know sometimes you see that with oil rigs off the coast.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. As far as the $411 million that is included in our capital plan from a protection, it's a technology that's been used elsewhere and certainly just not necessarily in this area along the East Coast. And certainly, it's expected to be resilient in heavy winds and storms.
Andrew Marsh:
And just to be clear, it's not out in the middle of the ocean, it is on land, but it's in a canal, so that it can float with the storm surge. And so that's really what we're talking about here, not an oil rigging out in the middle of Gulf.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Nick Campanella from Barclays.
Nicholas Campanella:
Going back to the data center discussion, just you gave the stat on 1.1 gigawatts of new load, is going to be about $150 million of new gross margin, and this relates to the Mississippi Center. But just thinking about how that drops to the bottom line when you're kind of taking the financing costs or other items there. Can you kind of help us understand how it translates to EPS? Just I'm thinking about there's clearly more opportunity like this on the horizon and trying to see what those are worth?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. Thanks for the question, Nick. When you think about the Mississippi Data Center, it ramps up over time. So you're not going to see a lot of that in the 3-year outlook period. We can talk more about what that means over the 5 years that Drew referenced at the Analyst Day. But you're right, when you think about AGM on that sort of customer, you are also putting in infrastructure to support it. So you saw a shift in spending in the fourth quarter update, where we added incremental renewables, for example, in Mississippi, because those investments and the associated costs associated with those investments will offset some of that from a bottom line perspective and then financing costs for those type of things as well. But again, you'll see most of that effect outside the 3-year outlook period.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. The investment is the thing that will ultimately go to the bottom line. The AGM is there to support that incremental investment. So we think it's really important and it demonstrates the growth opportunity at the time in front of us and the demand from our customers to help them meet what they want to do.
Nicholas Campanella:
Great. That's really helpful. Appreciate it. And then, I guess, you mentioned in your remarks and you have it on slides here, you've been above the 14% FFO-to-debt target that the agencies put you at. I'm just thinking about Moody's continuing to be a negative outlook. Do you think that there's a window to kind of address that ahead of summer? And what's your latest conversations been there?
Kimberly Fontan:
We certainly have regular conversations with the rating agencies, and they are constructive conversations about what's happening in the business. If you look at our underlying calculation, the FFO trailing 12 months for the quarter was similarly strong to what it was at the end of the year. And then we issued more debt in this quarter, as I mentioned in my comments, that would balance out over the course of the year, putting us strongly in the rating agency's expectation at the 14% or better.
So strong discussions. Certainly, the rating agencies have to do their evaluations and make those decisions, but hitting that threshold for 2023, which we did, and then continuing to execute on that as we work to build towards 15% are important to us.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Anthony Crowdell from Mizuho.
Anthony Crowdell:
I guess just quickly, if I could get Rod busy here. Just on SERI, Rod, I know you're working with the Louisiana Public Service Commission on maybe settling there. Separately, there's the formula rate plan issue. Is there anything that prevents both of those being settled together, meaning one is a FERC issue and one may be more of a state issue?
Roderick West:
Short answer is no. We're pursuing our efforts with stakeholders on selling both and the interest being avoiding any litigation associated with either. So short answer is no, there's nothing preventing us from pursuing a settlement on both issues regardless of federal versus state jurisdiction.
Anthony Crowdell:
Great. And then just an easy one, I guess, Drew, on the gas sale update. I know it's a very long window for approval. Just any update or timing or procedural schedule you can provide us?
Andrew Marsh:
So the gas LDC, as I mentioned, is on schedule. There's more details in the appendix. And so I think that at the LPSC, it's moving on quite quickly. The time line is a little longer in New Orleans. But at this point, we don't see anything that's impeding the progress and the ultimate completion of the transaction. So we're firmly confident there is a possibility that it could move up a little bit. But at this point, we're sticking with our third quarter 2025 time line.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research.
Steven Fleishman:
Most of my questions were answered. Just wanted to get a little more information on this Waterford trip. Do you expect that you'll have the new transformer by kind of summertime?
Andrew Marsh:
Probably not. That's a new transformer. And as I know you're aware, there's a backlog for large transformers like that. And we don't have one of that size as a spare. So we do have the interim transformer ready to go, and it should be ready by summertime. That gets us back to about 90%. And so the plant should be online this summer, but we won't have full deliverability out of the plant that we get a new transformer in place. But you can run 90% just with the spare. So it's kind of most of the way. So...
Steven Fleishman:
Correct. Okay. And then maybe just on MISO transmission. When are we going to get -- I know they're going through the different tranches, like when are we going to get to the Entergy zone area for MISO transmission?
Andrew Marsh:
I believe that they are expecting to put something out late this year, but the time lines have moved around a little bit for them, but I think that was the previous expectation. Just to be clear, you're talking about the long-term planning piece of it, right?
Steven Fleishman:
That's right. That's right.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. As you know, they've been in MISO North for a while working on stuff. And I do believe that they plan to put out some expectations later this year.
Steven Fleishman:
Okay. And then I guess just on the Cogent sales. Are you expecting industrial growth for the year? Cogent sales, if I recall, are pretty low margin.
Kimberly Fontan:
That's absolutely correct, Steve. And the Cogent sales were for the quarter, but that's really a volume difference, slight EPS difference. But as we discussed, the incremental industrial sales certainly support that, helping us achieve our objectives at the end of the year.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Seaport Research Partners.
Agnieszka Storozynski:
So two questions. First, as you see this data center load materializing in your service territory, is there any discussion about potential changes in like T&D tariffs that these big users would be paying? I'm mostly trying to see if there's any way to shield residential customers from payments for any sort of T&D upgrades that will be needed to accommodate this load.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, when you think about data centers, they certainly are requiring infrastructure to support them. And so we are ensuring that the pricing of those customers price in a way that support those customer coming, but also support the rest of our customers in the infrastructure build that's needed. When you referenced Mississippi specifically, we worked closely with the legislature to ensure that we had the ability to add the infrastructure that we needed, but also that we protected all of our other customers through the contract. So it was a benefit both to add the customer to the system, but also to the state of Mississippi and all of our other customers. And I would think about it the same way for future data centers that add to our service territory.
Agnieszka Storozynski:
Good. And speaking of Mississippi, and I'm just thinking about SERI, all of these issues that are related to the Grand Gulf nuclear plant. I mean, as you are basically trying to finish all of the litigations associated with that plant, is there -- I mean, would you, for example, consider signing like a long-term contract with a data center instead of having the sort of disputes on the regulated level just to make this asset dedicated to an industrial or commercial user as opposed to having it, again, it seems to have led to a number of regulatory disputes in the past.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, that's a good question, Angie. We are thinking about various potential solutions there. Right now, the output of those facilities are contracted for the life of the unit to each of the operating companies that participate. So I don't think that there's any room for data center pieces, but we are looking at all other alternatives in order to try to mitigate that future potential litigation risk, but that is definitely on our radar screen, although we don't have anything to discuss about that right now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Levine from Citi.
Ryan Levine:
I was wondering if you could touch on how you may approach attracting data centers outside of Mississippi. You mentioned Arkansas and some other locations. Can you just provide us some context or some color around the regulatory attractiveness of those states on a comparison basis?
Roderick West:
Yes, this is Rod, again. And I think Kimberly alluded to it. The example in Mississippi, I think, serves as a blueprint for other states when you think about how we shape both the legislation from the actual state, the contractual guarantees, if you will, from AWS, and the regulatory outcomes that facilitated our ability to meet AWS' needs, I think, plays well.
It would certainly focus around job creation and economic development from a stakeholder engagement standpoint, similar to the way that we did in Mississippi. I see that being very relevant in, say, Louisiana and Arkansas. Certainly, there's going to be an expectation regardless of where these data centers are cited, that there's rate protection for the other customers in the service territory. Notwithstanding any conversation around the green or the clean dynamics, we are going to serve that customer's needs and the attributes that are important to them. But here's the piece that I think becomes really important as we're engaging our regulators and our customer stakeholders. What Mississippi was able to do was to expedite the CCN approval process to help us build the infrastructure around transmission and generation to serve that load, and also providing credit accretive, for instance, in Mississippi, line for cash, CWIP, during the construction of those facilities, allowing us to finance those projects and lower the overall cost for customers. If you think about those dimensions, the rest of the states are taking notice of the success in Mississippi, and from purely a competitive standpoint are trying to figure out how to replicate those types of frameworks in their jurisdictions. But we think it's a blueprint that really projects well for our other states.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. And I'll just add that given what Rod just outlined, our regulators and our communities are excited about these potential investments. There are large investments that are going to throw off a bunch of tax holders and provide some really good jobs. There are areas in Central and Northern Mississippi, Northern Louisiana and in Arkansas, there's a lot of rural space out there that data centers can go to. And those jobs are meaningful in those areas. So they're really excited about the opportunity for those investments and the economic activity that comes along with them. That's why, as Ross said, they're competing to figure out how they can serve these potential customers.
Ryan Levine:
Great to hear. And then on one other topic, just in terms of the Texas resiliency filing, given your service territory, is there any opportunity to add fire mitigation or wildfire mitigation risk management in the plan?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, that's a great question. And where we are along the coast in Texas, a lot of the resilience investments and the wildfire investments is going to be very similar and overlapping. So yes, that is going to be part of it. I'm sure that wildfire is going to be a part of the conversation or legislature coming up early next year.
And so we do anticipate that there will be some overlap there. I'll just mention, further away from the coast in Mississippi, Northern Louisiana, Arkansas, we are also thinking about wildfire mitigation investment there to complement all the things that we've already done to monitor and prepare and respond to potential wildfires and all the community work they were doing. But we realize that the next piece of that is investment to mitigate or eliminate wildfire risk. And so that's conversation is ongoing with our stakeholders. And so we'll be looking to create opportunities to manage those risks for all of our stakeholders in the near future.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Travis Miller from Morningstar.
Travis Miller:
One on the new industrial customers, including both data centers and the other industrial customers, what's the general split in terms of the CapEx between T&D and generation that you're anticipating?
Kimberly Fontan:
There's both there, Travis. The transmission certainly generally is less than the generation, but some of it is timing. When you think about it, we have long-term supply plans where we may have had generation in a plan and perhaps there's some earlier execution of it in order to meet that demand. And as you know, we're in MISO. So transmission is playing through MISO as well.
So we also have long-range cleaning on the transmission. So I don't have the exact split, and I know you can get with Bill and get that specifically. But generally, when you think about the data centers, probably heavier weighted to generation than to transmission.
Travis Miller:
Okay. And then do you anticipate, on that generation piece, doing an RFP? Or would you have first rights to any kind of new generation build?
Kimberly Fontan:
In Mississippi, the legislation enabled us to -- it effectively gave us CCN authority to build what was needed for that data center to meet their time line. So that doesn't require an RFP process. Some of our jurisdictions have RFPs and others don't. I think it comes down to a customer time line and how you work with all your stakeholders to bring the customer on the time line they're looking for, and then what that requires to ensure that we are building strong appropriate assets in order to support the customers overall.
Travis Miller:
Okay. And then general, the comments there you just made in general for any industrial customer or more for data versus other chemical producers or factories, et cetera?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, the data center is unique in that it's a larger customer coming in at one time on a faster time line, but I would think about the planning principle is the same for all of our customers.
Operator:
There are no further questions as of right now. I'd like to hand back the call over to Mr. Abler. Thank you.
William Abler:
Thank you, and thanks, everyone, for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning. My name is Rob, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Entergy's Fourth Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations for Entergy Corporation.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Drew Marsh and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for another successful year. Our 2023 adjusted earnings per share was $6.77 and the top half of our guidance range, once again delivering steady predictable results. Our strategy is rooted in creating value for our four key stakeholders, our customers, employees, communities and owners, and it starts with understanding what our customers need from us to be successful. We build our investment plan to meet those needs, including new generation, transmission and distribution investments to support customers' strong industrial growth and decarbonization goals, as well as to improve reliability and resilience, all the while prioritizing projects with affordability in mind. Our customer-centric approach has served us well and we are confident we'll continue to create meaningful value. Starting with the customer, 2023 was another strong year for growth. Last year, we signed 61 new electric service agreements. These contracts represent more than 1.3 gigawatts of generation capacity at about $250 million of annual adjusted gross margin. Our outlook anticipates most, but not all of these contracted volumes to come to fruition and our forecast probability weights each prospect. Data centers are a hot topic. And as you know, we've seen interest in our service area. A few weeks ago, Mississippi's Governor Reeves called a special session to finalize the legislative package to bring a large Amazon Web Services or AWS project to Mississippi. AWS is investing $10 billion, the largest economic development project in the state's history to build two hyperscale data center complexes that are expected to come online over a three-year period starting in 2025. The project will create at least 1,000 ongoing high-paying, high-tech jobs, as well as significant economic benefits to the state and local communities. In addition, the legislation provides the approval of Entergy Mississippi's investment in transmission and generation to serve the facility. It also permits Entergy Mississippi to recover carrying costs during construction, which lowers the total cost for customers and supports Entergy Mississippi's credit. In addition to the data centers, our growth story continues to develop and diversify. For example, two projects supporting production of electric vehicle batteries, as well as our lumber facility upgrade were announced in the fourth quarter. We also signed up new customers in the LNG and blue hydrogen spaces. The developers for these projects expect sustainable, affordable, reliable and resilient service from Entergy's utilities. The ongoing enter from potential customers informs and affirms our expectation for very strong growth. Customer affordability is a key area of focus. Some of the actions we are taking include, pursuing loans and grants to offset the cost of much needed investments. Several of our operating companies submitted Part one applications to the DOEs loan programs office, totaling $4.7 billion for a variety of projects related to the clean energy transition. Our utilities also submitted eight preliminary proposals for grid resilience and innovative partnerships or GRIP program funding. Additionally, some of our operating companies are partnering with their states to apply for funding from other federal sources. This is building off the successful efforts in 2023, including our Louisiana utilities support for the state's HERO application, which resulted in a grant for Louisiana's $500 million strategic energy initiative, and our Texas utility support for the IIJA hydrogen hub application which resulted in a $1.2 billion grant for high velocity. Operationally, Entergy's employees work every day to support our customers and deliver excellence. Everything they do starts with safety. When it comes to safety, our work is never done because we believe zero harm is possible. While focusing on safety Entergy's generation fleet had an outstanding year. Even with challenges from record-breaking heat this past summer, we achieved our best forced outage rate since 2011. Not only did we meet our customer's demands, but we also exported power to other utilities in MISO at the moments that matter. That performance has continued into 2024. Winter Storm Heather hit our service area in January and we set a new winter peak. Once again, our fleet performed very well and we maintained reserve capacity comfortably above our customer demand. Our power delivery team has also made important strides this year completing work that improves reliability and resilience serves new customers and helps attract new economic development to our region. In 2023, we improved our reliability performance with the lowest outage frequency in the last decade. Stakeholder engagement also continues to be a focus area. In 2023, we broadened our engagement efforts to expand our conversations with a wide group of stakeholders including customers, employees, elected leaders, community leaders, vendors and of course, our regulators. In each of our jurisdictions including at the federal level, we want to understand their perspective and ensure that we communicate clearly what we are trying to do, why we are doing it and how it benefits customers and communities. By effectively engaging with stakeholders, we can foster constructive regulatory and policy environments and our customers, communities, employees win while we also deliver on our commitment to provide steady predictable earnings and dividend growth for our owners. Of course, the proof is in the outcomes and we made important progress on our regulatory objectives over the last few months. Starting at the federal level in November FERC issued notice of denial of the request for rehearing on the uncertain tax position and sale leaseback case. FERC's order explicitly stated that the rehearing request would not be redressed in a future order. Both parties have filed appeals of the FERC and the court could come to a decision later this year. Turning to the retail level. We have seen progress on accelerated resilience, which is extremely important for the security of all our stakeholders and especially, our coastal customers and communities. Entergy New Orleans shared polling results with the council members to show that the community supports efforts to accelerate resilience and they're willing to pay for it. The City Council's Climate and Sustainability Committee has taken first step to move in this direction recommending approval of the $110 million project that was granted 50% matching funds through the federal GRIP program. This is a good first step and improved resilience for one district in New Orleans, but it's far from the final step. The committee has asked Entergy New Orleans to shorten Phase 1 to a three-year period rather than the five years in our initial proposal to allow the council to evaluate progress sooner before moving to the next phases of the plan. The matter is on today's City Council agenda. Our three-year resilience plan will align with the previous filing with projects optimized to fit within the shorter time frame. We expect to submit the updated plan in the next few weeks. For Entergy Louisiana the hearing was moved to early April to give staff an opportunity to ensure the plan is consistent with the latest thoughts on the forthcoming resilience rules. In the meantime, recent technical conferences have allowed parties to continue advancing the resilience conversation. Parties continued to be supportive of greater resilience and we still expect an LPSC decision on this matter in the second quarter. The PUCT finalized the Texas Resilience Act rule making which provides a framework that supports greater resilience investments and efficient recovery. We did not receive everything we wanted in the rule making particularly around credit support for utility already stretching to meet significant customer growth needs. Still, Entergy Texas intends to submit its plan later this quarter. The commission will have 180 days to act on this filing. We expect a decision in late summer of this year. In addition, Texas voters approved funding for the Texas Energy Fund. Of the $5 billion appropriated $500 million has been designated for grants to non-ERCOT utilities, municipals and co-ops. We intend to participate for the benefit of our customers communities and expect more details in the coming months. In December, Entergy New Orleans received certification of Hurricane Ida cost. The council's order determined that all restoration costs were prudent. This approval fully resolves recovery of all Ida costs. As a reminder, Entergy New Orleans received securitization funds in early 2023 in advance of the final certification. This follows a similar path where Entergy Louisiana received $1 billion of securitization funds for Ida well in advance of final cost certification. Financial resilience through fair and efficient storm costs recovery is critical for utility credit to ensure low borrowing costs for customers. Timely recovery of storm costs also avoids carrying costs and save customers money. In addition to affordability, strong credit is important for storm response and making investments to support economic growth in our communities. Our gas LDC sale process is moving along nicely, and we made initial regulatory filings to request approval for the sale. We are targeting to close the transaction around the third quarter of next year after a transition period to allow the buyer to set up all support systems. The stakeholder engagement process has been going well and the closing time line could be accelerated if regulatory reviews are completed this year. In January, the Louisiana Public Service Commission approved two renewable resources, totaling 225 megawatts. Both projects are expected to come online in 2025. And Entergy Louisiana's request to streamline the acquisition of up to 3000 megawatts of new solar resources, all testimony has been filed and we are making progress in settlement negotiations. Parties filed a request to suspend the procedural schedule while discussions continue. Entergy Louisiana is optimistic it can achieve a constructive resolution of this case that will facilitate our ability to expand renewable resources to support customer needs. And finally, the unanimous settlement of Entergy Arkansas's annual FRP filing was approved, new rates were effective in January. Turning for a moment to the communities we serve. In 2023, we created more than $135 million in economic value for our communities. That includes $25 million of direct shareholder contributions, primarily for bill payment assistance as well as facilitation for LIHEAP assistance, employee volunteers supporting tax preparation and many other activities. One current example is our employees helping our community celebrate Black History Month. We are very proud of the work of our employees and our corporate social responsibility team, as they provide critical health to strengthen the communities we serve and our efforts haven't gone unnoticed. Newsweek recently named Entergy as one of America's most responsible companies. We were also recognized as one of the nation's top 50 most community-minded corporations by the Points of Light Foundation and the highest ranked utility. And Entergy was once again included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index North America Index. This is the 22nd consecutive year that we've been included on a selective DJSI index. These are just a few examples of the awards we've received that recognize our efforts to create value for our customers, employees and communities. Looking ahead, in 2023, we continue to lay the foundation for long-term growth and customer benefits for Entergy and our stakeholders. As I mentioned at the start, our strategy begins with helping our customers achieve their goals including the unique industrial growth opportunity in front of us. We plan to invest $20 billion over the next three years to make our fleet cleaner and to make our system more reliable and resilient. Just over half of our capital plan, $11 billion is for transmission and distribution to improve reliability and resilience and to serve customer growth. This includes projects from MISO's annual transmission planning process that were approved in December. The 2023 MTAP identified 34 new projects in our service area, including major projects in Southeast Texas and South Louisiana to support strong growth in those regions. Our transmission and distribution investment plan includes $1 billion for accelerated resilience, which can be accomplished within our current regulatory frameworks and credit requirements. Just a reminder, this is less than our recommendation but we can increase our resilience investment as we receive approvals from our regulators that include credit supportive recovery mechanisms. We are planning to invest $8 billion in generation. This includes roughly $2 billion for new owned solar as well as the remaining investment to complete the Orange County Advanced Power Station, which we expect to be in service in 2026. Of course, our customers are focused on clean energy. To that end, we are working closely with customers and vendor partners to make carbon capture and sequestration a reality. Our plan also balances customer affordability, which is a core tenet of sustainability. We are working to improve efficiencies and reduce costs allowing us to offset the impact of growth and inflation and maintain a flat O&M outlook as well as become more efficient with our capital investment dollars. And as I discussed earlier, we are pursuing federal and state grant and loan funding opportunities. Bringing new customers into our service area also spreads the cost of customer-centric investments over a larger customer base and improved local economies, which helps with affordability. And finally, other actions like managing our natural gas inventory and ensuring generator operations at moments that matter, improves reliability and helps avoid unexpected spikes in fuel and purchase power costs for our customers. 2023 was another successful year for Entergy, and given the opportunity ahead of us, we still have a lot of work to do. Our proven track record gives us the confidence that we will continue to be successful. We are keenly focused on execution across key customer, operational regulatory and financial fronts. By continuing to put customers first, we will deliver premium value for each of our key stakeholders. Before I turn it over to Kimberly, I'm excited to announce that we will host an Analyst Day on June 6 and 7. And this year, we're returning to our home city New Orleans. We will continue the conversation on the significant opportunities that we see ahead including a five-year view as we've done in the past. And now, Kimberly will review our financial results for the year as well as our outlook.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everyone. As Drew said, 2023 was another successful year. We executed on key deliverables throughout the year and we are confident in our continued success. We are initiating our 2024 guidance and affirming our longer-term outlook consistent with what we provided at EEI. I will start by reviewing results for 2023 and then provide an overview of key business drivers for 2024. Starting on slide 3. Entergy adjusted EPS for 2023 was $6.77, $0.35 higher than 2022. Key drivers are shown on slide 4. Our earnings growth reflected the effects of investments we made to deliver quality service that benefits our customers and communities. That includes regulatory actions as well as higher depreciation expense, taxes other than income taxes and interest expense. O&M spending was lower compared to 2022. This was driven by lower compensation and benefits costs, lower non-nuclear and nuclear generation expenses, and the elimination of MISO generator service cost, which was largely offset by lower generator ancillary revenues. Weather was a benefit for the year, particularly in the third quarter with an exceptionally hot summer. Excluding weather, retail sales volume was relatively flat for the year, as industrial growth was offset by residential and commercial declines. Industrial sales growth was driven by new and expansion large industrial customers, mainly in the primary metals, industrial gases and petrochemicals industries. Industrial sales were strong, but not as robust as anticipated going into the quarter due to outages at customer's facilities and slower ramp-ups from new and expansion customers. We continue to be confident in our industrial growth expectations, as sector margins and commodity spreads remain strong, and we continue to grow our backlog of signed electric service agreements. Full year operating cash flow shown on Slide 5 was nearly $4.3 billion significantly higher than in 2022. Lower fuel and purchase power payments were the largest driver. Higher non-capital storm spending in 2022, and lower pension contributions also contributed to the increase. The receipt of New Orleans storm securitization proceeds and the effects of the EWC wind down in 2022 provided partial offsets. Moving to Slide 6. As we expected, we closed 2023 with solid credit metrics. Our book FFO to debt was 14.3% and we believe our year-end Moody's result will be slightly above this though Moody's will ultimately perform their own calculations. We expect to continue to be within the rating agency's expectations every year in our outlook period. Maintaining healthy credit is an ongoing focus given the capital investment needed to support our customer growth. We made good progress against our equity needs as shown on Slide 7. We contracted roughly $360 million using ATM forwards in the fourth quarter. We fully closed out our equity needs through 2024 by settling $80 million of these new forwards along with $50 million of previously contracted forwards. The remaining $280 million of forward contracted in the quarter will be applied against the $1.4 billion of equity needs for 2025 and 2026. In other words, as we enter 2024 we have already locked in 20% of our 2025 and 2026 equity needs. On Slide 8, we are initiating our 2024 adjusted EPS guidance and affirming outlook through 2026. Our adjusted EPS guidance range for 2024 is $7.05 to $7.35 with a midpoint of $7.20. We continue to expect to achieve steady predictable 6% to 8% annual adjusted EPS growth. Slide 9 highlights the key drivers for 2024. On a weather-adjusted basis, we expect retail sales volumes to be 4% higher than 2023. Industrial sales growth is the largest driver and is expected to be very robust at 8%, driven by new and expansion large industrial customers primarily in technology, or Alkali and Industrial Gases segments. We expect residential sales growth of roughly 1% primarily driven by customer growth and higher weather-adjusted usage per customer. The effects of customer-centric investments are also reflected in our guidance, including regulatory actions, depreciation expense and taxes other than income taxes. AFUDC is also expected to increase with large long-term capital projects like Orange County Advanced Power Station. Interest expense both at the utility and parent is expected to increase due to higher interest rates as well as higher debt balances to support our capital plan. Utility O&M is expected to return to more normal levels at approximately $2.7 billion. To achieve this, we expect lower spending for nuclear generation and power delivery. We're maintaining our focus on continuous improvement to manage our spending levels. To the extent other variables move throughout the year, our O&M may also move. Our goal is to deliver steady predictable results and we can achieve that by managing spending as needed. The appendix of the webcast presentation contains additional information on the specific drivers, including detailed quarterly considerations and earnings sensitivities. 2023 was another successful year for Entergy. Our adjusted EPS was once again in the top half of our guidance range, as we continue to deliver steady predictable adjusted EPS and dividend growth. We continue to prioritize the needs of our customers to create value for our key stakeholders. We're excited about our prospects for the future and are well positioned to execute and deliver successful customer, operational and regulatory outcomes. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Paul Zimbardo:
Hi. Good morning. Can you hear me now?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, good morning, Paul.
Paul Zimbardo:
Great. My first question was about the -- I know it was in your GAAP results, you favorably adjust out that large tax item from the tax audit. Was that -- did you receive the cash on that is something that kind of benefits shareholders? I know you have the $100 million for customers. But if you could just give us some flavor of how that impacts kind of the company's benefit as well as the ratepayers?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure, Paul. Thanks for the question. The tax item was a resolution of the 2016 to 2018 audit. And as you noted on EPS, we adjusted those effects out of earnings. From a cash perspective, there's no real cash effect of that as the NOLs and the tax deposits had taken care of that. So no significant cash effect there.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. And then also, I noticed even just since the EEI update it increased the sales expectations for 2024 pretty much across the customer classes. Just what are you seeing on the ground that made you more confident a change upward so recently?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. Certainly, the EEI, our plan is preliminary. We continue to adjust and modify that. As I noted, the industrial customers, we expect them to be strong in 2024. You probably saw the announcement in Mississippi around a significant customer there that provides economic opportunities in Mississippi, but we continue to refine and modify our forecast as we move from EEI into quarter end.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah. And I would just add that -- for this year, we were a little lower than expected. So our outlook for '23 haven't changed as much as it might indicate by the big bump. But it's some of the things that Kimberly talked about for '23 with customers having unplanned outages and slower ramp rates that is also boosting that number?
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Okay. Great. And then if I can quickly follow up on that. Is there any initial estimate or a way to think about how much infrastructure you could need to build for that large Mississippi customer?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yea. We haven't broken that out specifically. You can see that we continue to refine our capital plan and have added some capital in Mississippi in order to support that and ensure that we have clean energy for our customers in Mississippi, but we haven't given specific estimates related to that customer.
Operator:
Okay. Great. Thanks a lot team. Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Seaport.
Angie Storozynski:
So just following up to Paul's question. So is this CapEx update still coming, meaning as we head into your Analyst Day, we should actually expect that this accelerating loan growth translates into higher CapEx?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. Angie, at EEI, we laid out a capital plan that's pretty close to what's here. It's a couple of hundred million more here. And we continue to refine our capital plan, prioritize around customers that we're aware of. We also showed at EEI additional capital that could be added. There was additional transmission, additional clean energy for -- to support customers and a couple of other areas. And so we continue to work to prioritize those. But I would think about this as this is our capital plan that we're planning for. We're continuing to prioritize it as we move into analyst day. I'd expect we'd show you five years of capital. And so that would be the view that you would get at that point.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah. Some of that capital that we talked about is coming into this plan, and then we're finding ways to manage with all of the capital needs. And that's -- I think that will be a key discussion point at the Analyst Day.
Angie Storozynski:
Okay. Changing topics on SERI and the resolution of SERI issues in both New Orleans and Louisiana is there any time line on those? And should we actually link any resolution of SERI related issues to the Brazilian CapEx maybe as a way to pay for some of the spending.
Rod West:
Hi, Agnie, it's Rod. Good morning. You're touching on I think the heart of the conversations at both Louisiana and New Orleans around SERI. No, there is not a time line by which the parties have to come to some resolution on SERI. But I think the fact that FERC has already decided with regard to Louisiana's efforts to request a rehearing. Certainly our settlement with Arkansas and Mississippi has derisked the SERI. But our conversations in New Orleans around settlement are ongoing. There is as you would think about the ancillary or complementary regulatory dockets both in Louisiana and New Orleans that could be affected by a SERI settlement. I think you're touching on what's been at the heart of the ongoing conversations. And that is -- is there an opportunity for New Orleans or the state of Louisiana to provide benefits to its customers through a SERI settlement much in the same way that Mississippi and Arkansas did. And in this case I believe New Orleans is certainly considering how SERI settlement might influence customers’ capacity to pay for resiliency investments. None of those things are settled and I certainly can't talk about where we are in the negotiations. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the conversations we're having are trying to figure out how a serious supplement might benefit customers on the resiliency front.
Angie Storozynski:
Perfect. Good luck. Thank you.
Rod West:
Thanks, Angie.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Travis Miller from Morningstar. Your line is open.
Travis Miller:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Travis Miller:
Just a couple of clarifying questions here. So if I could follow-up on the load growth number. That 8% industrial for this year if you could estimate, how would you break that down in terms of the recapture for a lack of better word of what you were expecting in 2023? And what's a good kind of go-forward two year, three year type of run rate on a core basis. Does that make sense?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, Travis what we've talked about going forward is a 6% to 7% or CAGR through the 2026 outlook period. What you're seeing as you noted in 2024 is coming off of a base year of 2023. That low will be a little lumpy as it comes in over that period, but we expect a 6% to 7% growth rate on those industrials over that outlook period.
Travis Miller:
Okay.
Drew Marsh:
And as far as the recapture piece we don't have a precise number for that. It's probably 1% or 2% if not -- that's a component of it probably in that range.
Travis Miller:
Yes. Okay. Just doing the math there. Okay. Other one on the resilience the new CapEx that you added in is that part of the Louisiana and New Orleans plan that you've proposed? Or is that in addition to.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. As Drew noted, we have a little less than $1 billion of resilience spending in our capital plan over this period. Once decisions are made in Louisiana and New Orleans around the recovery mechanism than the pace around that, then we would -- that could be additional capital. But what's in that capital plan is close to that $1 billion number.
Drew Marsh:
And that's part of those -- that$1 billion is part of the filed plans….
Kimberly Fontan:
That’s correct [ph]
Travis Miller:
It's part of the plan. Okay. Okay. Got it. So that number would go down in terms of potential CapEx relative to what you've added in.
Kimberly Fontan:
No, I don't think so. The filing just to be clear, the filing is more than what we've included. What we've included is, what we can spend in our given mechanisms that we have. And as you probably know, we requested accelerated mechanisms in both Louisiana and New Orleans, so that we can accelerate that spending. And so, depending on those mechanisms that could provide additional opportunity for capital there.
Travis Miller:
Okay. Okay. Very good. And then one other quick clarifying. The $2 billion of solar, how much of that is through the RFPs that are out right now? And how much is that through either traditional ratemaking or future RFPs that you anticipate?
Drew Marsh:
I don't have a precise breakdown of that. We do have quite a bit, which isn't necessarily going through RFPs. It's certainly in Arkansas and Mississippi. And so, I think there's a good chunk of that, but I don't have a precise number for you.
Travis Miller:
Okay. No problem. Thanks a lot. That’s all I had.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And there are no further questions at this time. Mr. Abler, I will now turn the call back over to you.
Bill Abler:
Thank you Rob, and thanks everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on February 29, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance, with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Good morning. My name is Joel, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Entergy Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations for Entergy Corporation.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Drew Marsh; and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO will review the results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Today we are reporting very strong financial results for the quarter, as well as important progress with a few recent announcements, including a settlement in principle with the Arkansas Public Service Commission on SERI litigation and an agreement to sell our gas distribution business. Starting with our quarterly financial results. Our adjusted earnings per share was $3.27. We experienced record temperatures with an estimated impact of $0.64, which has given us the opportunity to flex our spending plans to invest in key areas that benefit our customers, derisk 2024 and support our goal to deliver steady predictable results. With our results to-date and our biggest quarter behind us, we are raising the bottom of the guidance range by $0.10 per share. We remain well-positioned to achieve our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlooks. Our goal to deliver steady predictable growth includes our dividend. Consistent with expectations, our Board of Directors once again raised our quarterly dividend by 6% to $1.13 per share or $4.52 annually. Turning to the business update. Our system faced extreme heat and we saw record demand through July and August. In fact, they were 13 days that surpassed previous peak demand records. Despite the challenging weather, our system met our customer’s high expectations. Our power delivery team withstood June storms as the summer turned hot and dry for most of our service territory. Our generation portfolio covered our customer demand and we operated well within our reserve margins and our nuclear fleet was online throughout the quarter with a fleet capability factor of 99%. We continue to invest in our nuclear assets with the goal to operate safely and reliably well into the future. Two of our plants are currently planned outages to complete work along these lines. Waterford 3 is an extended planned refueling outage that includes significant investments to drive plant longevity. In addition, we advanced in a planned outage to complete minor repairs to improve reliability going forward. We are also investing in power delivery to improve reliability and resiliency. These investments not only benefit existing customers but also attract new economic development through our region. Through the first three quarters of this year, we replaced approximately 21,000 distribution poles placed nearly 1,500 new transmission structures in service and completed 15 new substations. Our past investments in modern efficient generation units, our nuclear fleet and our power delivery system helped us meet this summer’s number of demands. We continue to see signs of strong customer growth that helps affordability by spreading fixed costs over a larger customer base. For example, First Solar announced plans to invest up to $1.1 billion to build the solar manufacturing facility, CF Industries is proposing a $2 billion low-carbon clean ammonia production facility and Cora is proposing an $800 million investment in two electric vehicle battery supply-chain projects. These are just a few of the projects to support our expectation for strong growth in the coming years. We have made meaningful progress on important regulatory matters which support the credit required to meet customer’s growing needs and to drive improved customer outcomes. First, System Energy reached a $142 million global settlement in principle with the Arkansas Public Service Commission to resolve all current SERI claims. Entergy Arkansas has already received some funds and the remaining amount will be refunded by SERI once FERC approves the settlement. This agreement is consistent with SERI’s settlement with Mississippi which was approved by FERC. It is also consistent with the reserve recorded last year. With this latest settlement, SERI has now resolved nearly two-thirds of its litigation risk. The SERI settlement follows FERC’s August order on rehearing for the sale leaseback renewal and uncertain tax position case. In that order, FERC agreed with System Energy’s arguments on the sale leaseback and depreciation refund calculations and denied rehearing requests on the uncertain tax positions. Accordingly, we submitted our compliance report on the sale leaseback and SERI has recouped $40 million of the amount previously paid to Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana. Shortly after 1st August order, the LPSC filed for rehearing and clarification. FERC denied the rehearing by operation of law and indicated intends to issue an additional order on this matter. We believe that the August order and settlement with Arkansas provides important clarity that will help guide constructive discussions to resolve the remaining SERI litigation matters. A fair and reasonable settlement can provide meaningful refunds to customers in the near-term and eliminate uncertainty which itself brings further benefits to customers. Turning to retail matters. Entergy New Orleans’ new formula rates were approved by the City Council and went into effect in September. This is the last rate change under E-NO’s current FRP. In addition, the Council also approved Entergy New Orleans’ request to extend its FRP for another three years. The outcome provides regulatory clarity for Entergy New Orleans and includes enhancements that will support the company’s credit and by extension, its ability to make important investments for its customers. Entergy Louisiana, likewise, has new formula rates effective in September, it’s last rate change under its current FRP. In the third quarter, Entergy Louisiana also filed its rate case and alternatively proposed to extend its FRP with some revisions to provide an opportunity to earn a fair improved return on investment that is critical to support the Louisiana growth. The proposal also includes new customer and community programs to support those in need. We prefer the proposed FRP renewal to the rate case as it better supports the strong growth that is important to Louisiana. Regardless of the past, our goal is to maintain the current cadence with new rates effective next September. In late breaking news at the LPSC yesterday afternoon, we filed an unopposed stipulated settlement to resolve outstanding 2017 to 2019 formula rate plan filings and certain issues in the 2020 and 2021 filings. This settlement, which requires LPSC review is consistent with our outlooks and it represents continued work with our stakeholders to provide clarity on our path forward. Separately, Louisiana’s docket to implement a streamlined process for certification of up to 3,000 megawatts of new solar is also progressing. Staff testimony is supportive of enhancing the process and we will work with them to incorporate the perspective. It is still relatively early in the process and we are hopeful that we will ultimately reach a constructive settlement as part of our ongoing efforts to work collaboratively with our regulators to bring clean energy solutions for our customers. In Texas, the PUCT approved our rate case settlement. New rates, as well as new depreciation and amortizations are effective retroactive to December 2022. And also just yesterday, Entergy Arkansas filed the unanimous settlement with its annual FRP. That allowance for a rate change with a 4% cap. We expect the commission to take up the matter before year-end and new rates will be effective in January. Last week, Entergy Arkansas agreed to forego cost recovery from the state or incidents in 2013. As a result, this quarter, Entergy Arkansas wrote off replacement power costs for an underappreciated plant through on its balance sheet. This has been a long-standing issue and this resolution provides clarity moving forward. Finally, regarding resilience. We continue to move forward in the processes to review our accelerated resilience proposals. In New Orleans, we are holding town hall meetings to listen to our stakeholder’s inputs and answer their questions. We are targeting a City Council decision by year-end. In Louisiana, we received input from a staff engineer, as well as staff and interveners. All parties agree that accelerated resilience would benefit customers. There are however varying opinions on how much we should pursue right now and the timing, as we work together to manage customer affordability. Our focus remains on bringing as much value to customers as we can while maintaining the credit of the business. We have significant capital needs to meet our customer’s growing demand for reliable, resilient and clean energy. To that end, we are pursuing opportunities to source that capital at lower costs. On Monday, we announced an agreement to sell our gas distribution business for $484 million. We will use the proceeds to reduce debt and support our capital needs. The sale is expected to be essentially neutral to earnings. While the gas business is a relatively small piece of our overall utility business, the more than 200 employees in that business are an important part of Entergy’s community and culture as they have been for over 100 years. We have reached agreement with Bernhard Capital Partners, a Louisiana-based group and part because they understand that these employees are critical stakeholders in the gas business. In addition, our customers will continue to receive the high level of service that they have come to expect. The transaction is contingent on regulatory approvals and we anticipate closing around the third quarter of 2025. Federal programs are another cost effective way to source capital. We are pursuing both grants and loans through various programs. For example, under the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships or GRIP program, each of our operating companies submitted applications. We are pleased to report that the proposal from Entergy New Orleans was selected in the federal share of the $110 million system hardening and battery microgrid project will be $55 million. While four of our projects were not selected, they did receive encouragement letters and we are able to reapply for future funding rounds. We are also preparing to apply for federal loans through the DOE titled 17 Clean Energy Financing Program. Our application will include projects that we are already planning, including renewable generation, battery storage and transmission projects. Beyond federal financing directly for our customers, we are working with our community partners to attract other federal support for investment in our region. A good example is Louisiana’s Hero Project that unites public-private and philanthropic sectors to accelerate more affordable, reliable and clean energy to protect residents of Louisiana from climate change threats. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans were both critical team members in helping Louisiana secure the $500 million award. Another example is Entergy Texas’ participation in the high velocity hydrogen hub, which was selected by the deal with DOE for $1.2 billion award. This funding will help jumpstart additional clean energy production transportation and end-use opportunities which in turn will create jobs and economic activity and our communities. Entergy Texas could see additional load from blue and green hydrogen customers as a result. Most of our community work is local boots on the ground, including economic developments. Our teams work alongside our state and local governments to attract new business, jobs and tax base to our service area. We are honored that Site Selection magazine has once again recognized Entergy as a top utility for economic development. We also have programs to directly help our customers in need. With the extreme heat this past quarter, we stepped up our efforts to provide resources for bill assistance, provide education on energy efficiency, a range of payment plans and encourage customers to transition to levelize billing. We also hosted our first Power Your Future Summit with education and workforce partners across our service area to create pathways to employment for individuals from underrepresented communities. These are just a few examples of the tremendous work our utility companies and employees put toward our community stakeholders every day. The EEI Financial Conference is just a couple of weeks away. The fundamentals underpinned -- underpinning our growth and value creation for each of our key stakeholders remains intact. Our long-term sales growth outlook is robust, bolstered by the IRA. Our investment plan includes incremental capital to support the growth and other customer objectives including reliability, resilience and clean energy investments. Customer affordability remains a priority and we are actively pursuing continuous improvement efforts to expand our employee skills and capabilities, and using technologies like artificial intelligence and robotic process automation to help us maintain a generally flat O&M trajectory despite the inflationary environment and our incremental investments. While our capital plan is increasing, we have a plan to manage within the current financing environment that meets our credit objectives with the same level of equity we laid out at Analyst Day. With all of that, we are on track to deliver steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth and steadily working to build the premier utility. We look forward to continuing this conversation with you at the EEI Financial Conference in a couple of weeks. Now I will turn the call over to Kimberly, who will review our financial results for the quarter.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew, and good morning, everyone. As Drew said, we have had a very strong quarter with results to keep us on track to meet our financial commitments. Summarized on slide three, our adjusted earnings were $3.27 per share, with results to-date, we are narrowing our guidance range. We are also affirming our 6% to 8% adjusted EPS growth through 2026. Slide four details the quarter’s variances by line items. As Drew mentioned, weather this quarter was one of the hottest on record. Excluding weather, retail sales volume declined roughly 1%. For industrial, sales to new and expansion customers increased mainly in the primary metal, industrial gases and petrochemical sectors. Sales to Cogent customers were lower in the quarter. You may recall that Cogent sales were elevated last year. Sales to existing large industrial customers often have declined, primarily in the petrochemicals, pulp and paper and agricultural chemical sectors, largely due to outage timing. We continue to expect strong industrial sales in the fourth quarter from new and expansion customers, which will bring the full-year industrial growth to close to 2%. Regulatory actions positively affected results. Entergy Texas implemented new base rates and new formula rates were in effect at the other operating companies. O&M was $0.12 lower compared to last year. Drivers for the decrease were nuclear expense, including lower outage costs and compensation and benefits, comps. MISO ancillary generator service costs were also lower. This was largely offset by the lower generated ancillary revenues. Other drivers for the quarter results included expense increases that result from our customer-centric investments, primarily higher interest cost and depreciation on new assets. New depreciation rates for Entergy Texas also contributed. Operating cash flow is shown on slide five. The quarter’s results is $1.4 billion, which is $412 million higher than last year. Key drivers included the timing of fuel and purchase power payments, lower O&M spending and last year’s EWC severance and retention payments. These were partially offset by lower utility customer receipts due to lower fuel revenue and the timing of pension contributions. Turning to credit and liquidity on slide six. Net liquidity remained strong at $4.9 billion. With less than a quarter left, we remain squarely on track to achieve credit metrics at or above target ranges by the end of this year. Key drivers include debt repayments in the fourth quarter and the roll-off of FFO items from fourth quarter of 2022. Looking at slide seven, our equity needs through 2024 are unchanged. We have a small amount remaining for that period that is well within the capacity of our ATM program. Slide eight summarizes our adjusted EPS outlook. As I mentioned earlier, we are once again narrowing our guidance range and affirming our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlook through 2026. As we move into the last quarter of the year, I’d like to highlight a few updates for the balance of the year. Higher than planned revenue from weather gives us the ability to flex up spending in areas that benefit our customers and derisk future periods. Our full year O&M estimate reflects the impact of these flex spending levers. For example, our 2023 spending now includes additional maintenance expense as a result of our generating units running at very high capacity, incremental vegetation management to improve reliability, supplemental maintenance for transmission and distribution assets to improve reliability and bill assistance to help customers who need it. Our FLEX program helps us ensure that we deliver steady, predictable, adjusted EPS growth, year-in and year-out. The Entergy management team will be in Phoenix in less than three weeks, where we will discuss the progress we have made on our long-term growth strategy and provide preliminary three-year capital and financing plans. Additionally, we will provide high-level consideration for 2024’s earnings expectations. We have a strong base plan consistent with our strategic objectives that support our growing customer base. We are excited about the opportunities before us and look forward to talking to you at EEI. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza of Guggenheim. Your line is open.
Shar Pourreza:
Hey, guys. Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Shar.
Shar Pourreza:
Good morning. Hey, Drew. Just a question on the 2023 earnings and the 2024 assumptions building up. Obviously, you now have $0.48 of positive weather impact versus normal for the year moving up the bottom end of the range which you talked about by $0.10. I guess, what other offsets are you now embedding in the 2023 guidance and do you see any carry-forward benefits to 2024 specifically, maybe commenting on your O&M assumption going from $0.85 to $0.20 for year-over-year? How much of the difference quarter-over-quarter as reinvestment for the benefit of 2024? Thanks.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure, Shar. Thanks for the question. As you noted, we did have significant weather that enabled us to pull forward some O&M spending. Some of that is, as I noted, related to that vegetation management spending that is coming into 2023. There’s also been additional spending in the transmission and distribution space around maintenance on those assets. All of that does help derisk 2024. And then we did have this higher spending in 2023 in the third quarter and a flow a bit into the fourth quarter as we continue to maintain a unit for Drew mentioned that ran so well to support these higher volumes. So all those help contribute to that change in the O&M space and that’s help derisk future periods.
Shar Pourreza:
Okay. Got it. And then just, I guess, in light of just the asset sale announcement you guys did on the gas side. I guess, why keep the reiterated equity need, especially as we are thinking about 2025 and 2026, and does a CapEx step up require incremental equity, there as we are heading into EEI? Thanks.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. The gas sale does help support the incremental capital that Drew mentioned going into our 2025 and 2026 outlooks. We also have strong sales that support that and we do not have the incremental equity in that period and supported by those two items, and we will go through more details of the financing plan for that at EEI in a couple of weeks.
Shar Pourreza:
Okay. Perfect. And then just lastly on this on the SERI complaints proceedings. I mean, obviously, you noted the settlement in principle in Arkansas, but the debate has been somewhat confrontational especially as we are thinking about Louisiana. What was the impetus of the settlement and for Arkansas and do you guys think it’s sort of repeatable with the other jurisdictions? Thanks.
Roderick West:
Well, good morning. It’s Rod. The impetus...
Shar Pourreza:
Hey, Rod.
Roderick West:
The impetus. Good morning. The impetus for the timing of the settlement I think stemmed from the August FERC ruling that in our view lowered the risk of uncertainty around further refunds due from the uncertain tax position and sale leaseback. So it was an opportunity for us to revisit negotiations, given the clarity from an August -- mid-August decision.
Shar Pourreza:
Got it. And then just how do you think the read-through, I guess, to the didn’t -- I guess, Louisiana for sure.
Roderick West:
Yeah. From our advantage point. We view it as constructive. Obviously, we won’t talk about comment on specific timing or progress with Louisiana or New Orleans, but we are comfortable saying we remain inactive in pursuit of settlement under the -- under similar terms with the point being, obviously, as long as we are able to reach constructive settlements that’s fair and reasonable and certainly consistent with the way in which we approach that Arkansas and Mississippi. We think we have a fair shot, but obviously, we did the counterparties to align with us and that’s the work that remains.
Shar Pourreza:
Perfect. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thanks, Rod.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro of Morgan Stanley. Your name -- your line is open.
David Arcaro:
Great. Good morning. Hey, Drew. Hey, Kimberly. Hey, Rod.
Roderick West:
Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Kimberly Fontan:
Good morning.
David Arcaro:
Thanks for taking my questions. I am wondering if you could elaborate a bit on what you are seeing in the industrial sales backdrop. Just seeing the weather normal sales down for this quarter. What are you seeing in terms of activity around projects and major industrial customer expansions that they have been working on?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. Big picture, David. As I noted, we are seeing, we continue to see a strong pipeline around new and expansion customers and Rod can talk on that, more specifically. For the quarter, we had some outages in our existing customers that drove to what our results are our year-to-date and our pipeline continues to be strong.
Roderick West:
Yeah. The short story there is that the pipeline of projects to your question has continued to grow. We will provide a little more insight around that at EEI, but our confidence in our growth prospects are reflecting the actual growing number of projects of customers coming into service territory. So robust is the operative word there.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Got it. Thanks for that. And so at the end of the day no change to your projections in terms of what you had been expecting industrial sales growth to look like going forward?
Roderick West:
That is correct. No change.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Okay. Thanks. And then, I was wondering, if you could just comment on your competitiveness in renewable RFP, just any progress there. Thinking ahead to the potential opportunity in Louisiana with the enhanced renewable RFP three gigawatts. Just how are you situated as that comes closer?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. The pipeline continues from our perspective on our solar self-development continues to develop well. We have developed the capabilities to be competitive in that space and we are continuing to plan to support customer growth and desire for clean energy in the renewable space, as well as other clean energy they may warrant, but our team is continuing to ramp up and continuing to be quite competitive in that space. So we are excited to see that and see that support our customer’s growth.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Perfect. Thanks for the color. I appreciate it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet of JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeremy Tonet:
Hi. Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet:
Just wanted to follow up on the U.S. Gulf Coast industrial activity, if I could. Just curious, I guess, in your investor conversations or do you feel the market fully appreciates given where WTI has moved up versus relative to gas and what the spread is on a BTU basis for oil and oil byproducts versus gas and natural gas byproducts? How much of a material advantage that is for the U.S. Gulf Coast, both as a feedstock for the petchem industry, as well as power cost for industrial businesses down there, and I guess, the very long multiyear trend of growth that could underpin?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah, Jeremy. Those economic indicators or things that we track closely. As you mentioned they are important to some of our industrial customers. Both the spread between natural gas and some of the oil products, those -- that as you pointed out have widened out and are very supportive of the Gulf Coast here, particularly as European gas prices have gone up in the last month or so, as everybody knows. So that has made. It’s continuing what we already know. It’s a big macro trends around global geopolitical uncertainty and that has led to as you continue to be the case broken global supply chains and that brings a lot of investments in the U.S. when they look at the U.S. and the Gulf Coast. So whether you are talking about geographic spreads or commodity spreads. They are all very-very strongly supporting our industrial customers in the industrial growth along the Gulf Coast, and in particular, in our service territory.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Very clear. Thank you. Maybe just following up on some of your prepared remarks there with New Orleans, Louisiana resiliency filing comments. You mentioned that they are bearing options and opinions as how to -- how much resiliency to do right now. Any sense as to how much variability you could see in the outcomes of these filings, other than affordability concerns, what are the other kind of big moving pieces here that are involved in these resiliency discussions?
Roderick West:
It’s Rod. If you recall there were two primary areas, where we got initial feedback. One was a staff engineer and the other was the commission staff. We had strong alignment on the need for resilience. So we are not arguing about whether or not this is something we ought to be doing. There were two dynamics around the staff testimony that I think is instructive. One was they referenced their support for rider recovery for retired assets. That gave us a lot of comfort that we could come to a constructive resolution once we sort of decide the scope and they also recommended transparency and accountability features. But I think the work really for us is going to continue to align around scope, pace and ultimately cost. When we ultimately decide on what could be a solid outcome, our objective is making sure on the back end that the recovery mechanism continues to support credit and our access to capital, but those sort of swim lanes are where the lion’s share of the debate is going to be as the commission will rightfully be looking to answer the resiliency bell, but around affordability for customers.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Just one last one if I could. Given that you have reaffirmed your 6% to 8% EPS CAGR through 2026 in line with the Investor Day commentary. Is it reasonable to assume rate base growth will also continue at a similar 7% to 8% CAGR through 2028? How would accelerated resiliency impact this similarly would how higher renewables win rate impact this? On the other side of the coin, do you see pressures against this, such as FRP taps as far as inflation is concerned, just trying to see both sides, how you see this playing out?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. The rate base we would expect to continue to grow consistent with growing capital investment as those investments are made to support our customers and the objectives that we have to support them. From a pressure perspective, certainly, there are opportunities for additional capital around resilience. For example, we have assumed base level of resilience as we have discussed previously, but with accelerated mechanisms. For example, there is more resilience that could be placed, and if customers are interested in renewables at a faster pace that certainly could be additional capital that would drive additional spending as well and then it really is about making sure that we are supporting our customer’s growth and continuing to provide them with services and the reliable power that we offer.
Roderick West:
And I will just add that as we get to EEI, we planned some additional disclosures around that potential capital increase above what we already have.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Thank you for that. Just real quick, the FRPs, any issues as far as caps against inflation that are something that we should be thinking about?
Kimberly Fontan:
Jeremy, we pay attention to customer affordability and we certainly monitor the caps that we have to make sure that we are making investments that are staying within affordability for our customers. So that we have had constructive regulatory mechanisms in all of our jurisdictions and continue to expect to have that as we go forward.
Drew Marsh:
And we always are talking about our continuous improvement efforts. Those are the things that help us manage against things like inflation and it is been a tough bear in the last couple of years. But we do believe that we can really hold the line, as I mentioned in my remarks, against inflation and all the other capital that we are putting to work, which also drives costs or can drive costs as well. So that’s our objective. So we don’t see it impacting our rates as much as just all the incremental investment really is.
Jeremy Tonet:
Understood. Appreciate the time. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Paul Zimbardo:
Hi. Good morning. Thank you, team.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Paul Zimbardo:
And first of all done on the latest series settlement progress. Very nice to say. And I was hoping, I could kind of merge Dave and Jeremy’s question and kind combine. What’s the quantum of incremental capital opportunities across the renewable efforts, as well as the hardening and resiliency programs, I know there’s been a lot of numbers and timeframes, just if you could help kind of frame the opportunity set, relative to the outlook would be helpful?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. Paul, we will get into all the specifics at EEI, I don’t have the details in front of me, but there is. I think we have talked historically about $900 million of resilience in the base and then incremental resilience on top of that. That’s available and assuming we get or when and if we get accelerated recovery, but looking into all the specifics on the puts and takes around capital in a couple of weeks.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. Thanks. And eagerly anticipating EEI a bigger update. And then the other one, just on Louisiana with the rate case/the FRP extension. Is this the kind of major proceeding that you think needs to be more fully litigated or is that a settlement and opportunity there?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. From our advantage point, a settlement is one an opportunity and two desire. But to be specific, a settlement in favor of continuing on with the FRP regime provides clarity for both us and customers, and certainly, promotes certainty around recovery, given the growing investment needs to support growth in Louisiana. And certainly, a smoother transition as we began to pick up on the putting capital to work for both resiliency and to fund the growth. And so from our advantage point, having the flexibility that FRP provides for both us and our customers and regulators is the optimal outcome there and avoiding the litigation certainly is an expense to our stakeholders of litigating a rate case is something we have as stakeholders who have chosen to avoid in Louisiana. So, yeah, the FRP is definitely the path that we are working towards.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Understood. And then to clarify quickly just setting expectations on timing, should we think about the settlement potential after the intervenor testimony? I think March 26 of next year or could we potentially see something faster than that?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. It’s a great question, but I think it’s a little early for us at this point to deem the feedback to be meaningful around timing, because discovery really has just gotten underway and we had a procedural order that was said last week that I think set the hearing for August of next year. A couple of things that might be helpful, as you think about milestones in the coming months. The procedural schedule set forth technical conferences in December, January, February. I think that framework, those technical conferences will give some insight as to the initial positioning of the parties and give us then some daylight as to the path forward around potential settlements.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. No. Thank you. That’s very helpful. See you at EEI.
Drew Marsh:
Indeed.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lonegan of Evercore. Your line is open.
Michael Lonegan:
Thank you. Good morning and thanks for taking my question. So on utility O&M outlook for the year, you talked about going forward spending to derisk 2024, you highlighted some of the categories. Presumably also, given the record temperatures and peak demand you had to spend more O&M for additional work crews and overtime pay to maintain reliability given the stress on the grid. Just wondering if you could break out how much of that spending was pull forward to derisk versus the amount to maintain reliability on your grid?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, Michael. You are right. We did have to spend more to support the hot summer and the volumes and the power gen team performed really well. I don’t have the breakout specifically between that piece, as well as the pull forwards. But, certainly, we have been able to pull forward significant spending around reliability in the transmission and distribution space and in the vegetation space as well.
Michael Lonegan:
Okay. Great. Thank you for the color. I will see you at EEI.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell of Mizuno, sorry, Mizuho. Your line is open.
Anthony Crowdell:
Yeah. Thank you. I think Mizuno sounds very good. Excuse me, just on, I guess, two quick ones. Approval of the gas system sale. I think your guidance like the 3Q 2025 close, it’s almost two years. Just curious on the length, what causes that long closure, any important milestones along the way, which keep an eye for it?
Roderick West:
Yeah. It’s Rod. The experience we have and certainly the advice of additional stakeholders suggested that process given the fact that you have both the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the Northern City Council and the Baton Rouge Metro Council, all having a partner process, gives us an outlook of 20 -- 18-months to 21-month timeframe. And that’s really what sort of set our expectations. That’s not any singular jurisdiction. It’s just the process of getting those approvals and if we are able to do something sooner, then clearly we would be working to achieve that objective.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. I will just add that our buyer is new to this particular business and while all the operations and everything is all going to be good to go and transfer right over. They do need to -- we are going to work with them to set up some of the back-office pieces of this and that might take a little bit longer than it normally would if it was a strategic buyer, for example.
Anthony Crowdell:
Got it. And then, I guess, I appreciate the clarity you guys have given on SERI and progress we made earlier this week. But just -- and I know we don’t want to just think the negative outcome, but if the company continued to struggle with Louisiana and New Orleans. Is there a period of time that management would just maybe view that when you look at the book value of SERI versus maybe what the liability could be if, Louisiana, New Orleans, sold out? But they would just look it may be ending the venture. I am just curious if like trying to maybe gauge like how long until just management as we tried really hard in [Technical Difficulty] given up on the weaken borrowing.
Drew Marsh:
Well, I mean, I will tell you is, I mean, I think that, we are always looking at every potential outcome and options. So that is always part of the calculation. But at this point, we think we have made good progress with the settlement in Mississippi and then now the settlement in Arkansas, such that it derisks roughly two-thirds of the overall exposure there. So we feel like we are making good progress in that. We don’t really need to go down that particular path at this time. But that is something that we are always paying close attention to and looking at various options and so that’s something we will keep considering in the future.
Anthony Crowdell:
Great. Thanks for taking my question guys. Appreciate it.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Nick Campanella of Barclays. Your line is open.
Nick Campanella:
Hey. Good morning. Thanks a lot for taking the time. Just one for me today, a lots been answered. But on the credit, I think, you are doing 12.4% trailing 12 month and you are obviously signaling you can get back to the 14% by year-end and within the appropriate minimum. Can you just confirm that’s more just lapping and roll-off of items and there’s nothing else required from the regulatory standpoint of approval for the point?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure, Nick. That’s right. The -- there is a significant amount of debt that will roll-off in the fourth quarter. A large part is related to Louisiana’s securitization from earlier in the year and then there are some items from the fourth quarter at 2022 including the Mississippi settlement with SERI, that was paid out in November that will roll-off in the 12 months ended 2023.
Nick Campanella:
Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Levine of Citi. Your line is open.
Ryan Levine:
Hi, everybody. What jurisdictions do you see having the biggest opportunity for incremental resilience spending and does the current equity issuance plan have a built-in buffer for some of this CapEx upside highlighted already in the call?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, Ryan. As you know, we have opened filings in New Orleans and Louisiana. On Louisiana between those two has much more spending than New Orleans does. So we also anticipate filing in Texas in 2024, as commission rates the rules coming out of the legislature. As far as the equity in the amount of investment, we have assumed a base level of investments associated with resilience and depending on what is approved out that we will be looking at how to finance that. But we have a significant amount of capital in our plan, including that base level of investments. So more to come as those decisions come out of the jurisdictions.
Ryan Levine:
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Your line is open.
Paul Patterson:
Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Paul.
Paul Patterson:
Just finally with, most of my questions been answered, but with respect to the SERI leaseback litigation. Congratulations on the settlement and stuff, but if Louisiana, I guess, I am wondering is, from a fully litigated perspective when we get closure on as if this -- if there isn’t a settlement I guess with Louisiana.
Drew Marsh:
I want to make sure I am understanding the question. Is the question when would we likely get settlement in Louisiana on the remaining issues that.
Paul Patterson:
I guess, look, I guess, I mean, I am not asking you to predict that. I think if you sort of answered that. I guess what my question was, if there isn’t a settlement, how long this litigation, when would you expect the litigation…
Drew Marsh:
Yeah.
Paul Patterson:
… to come back to fruition.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. It’s a bit long there. If you think about this the FERC process. Addressing those remaining issues could take you well two-plus years and it goes back to what we were suggesting around why we are continuing to pursue settlement and the opportunity to provide benefits and value to customers sooner rather than later and a settlement provides both us and now potentially Louisiana and New Orleans the opportunity to do that versus the uncertainty that comes with the couple of years or so before there’s any resolution.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. Great. Thanks for the clarity.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah.
Roderick West:
And just to say, full resolution on any resolution, because we have…
Drew Marsh:
Full resolution. That’s right Paul. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller of Morningstar. Your line is open. Travis, perhaps, your line is unmuted. There are no further questions at this time. Mr. Abler, I will now turn the call back over to you.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Joel, and thanks everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9th and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy’s Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Hello. Good morning. My name is Jeremy, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to Entergy's Second Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations for Entergy Corporation.
Bill Abler:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Drew Marsh, and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements, actual results could differ materially from those forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting second quarter adjusted earnings per share of $1.84. Our progress through the first half of the year keeps us firmly on track to achieve 2023 results in line with our guidance. and we remain well positioned to achieve our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlook. Creating sustainable value for our customers, employees, communities and owners is at the center of everything we do. I'll start today with our work to meet our customers' demands. We're investing in resilience and reliability and working to expand our clean energy footprint. This work helps our current customers meet their goals while also attracting new customers to Entergy's service area. To that end, our power delivery team continues to upgrade legacy assets to new, more robust wind and flooding standards through new construction projects, storm restoration and asset renewal. For example, in the second quarter, our new deployments included roughly 600 transmission structures, approximately 8,000 distribution poles, more than 200 miles of new distribution conductor and 7 new substations. In addition, these improvements will support more than 120 megawatts of growth. Safe and effective nuclear operations are also important for our stakeholders. Our nuclear units continue to provide clean, reliable baseload power to our customers in 2 of our plants, River Bend and ANO Unit 2 recently completed successful refueling outages, which included major projects to support long-term operational excellence. Overall, our nuclear plants are running very well. Outside of refueling outages, our fleet achieved a 99% capability factor for the first half of 2023. While our customers demand more reliability and clean energy from us, our unique and sizable long-term industrial sales growth opportunity continues to improve. Growing businesses support our communities, provide employment opportunities and help with affordability. The inherent advantages of our geographic footprint remain solidly intact. We continue to see evidence of these advantages through recent project announcements in our service areas. For example, ExxonMobil announced a transformative CCUS project that will capture, transport and store up to 800,000 metric tons of CO2 per year from the Nucor iron plant in Convent, Louisiana. The project is expected to start up in 2026. Paired with the recently announced acquisition of Denbury, ExxonMobil's actions clearly highlight the opportunities around CCUS in our region. Also, Shell Catalysts & Technologies announced its final investment decision on the $120 million expansion project in Port Allen, Louisiana. Facility is already the largest refining catalyst plant in the world, and the expansion will create even more manufacturing capacity. These are just a couple of the projects that have the potential to increase and extend our long-term growth rate. We are currently updating our annual industrial sales forecast, and we are accounting for recent trends. As many of you have noted, there has been some weakness in national industrial output indicators like the ISM Manufacturing Index. Despite this, we are seeing strength in our Gulf region. In the quarter, our total industrial sales declined, which had been expected due to higher cogeneration sales last year. Adjusting for Cogent, our industrial sales were up about 1%. For some highlights. Sales to small industrial customers, which are typically more exposed to broader U.S. economic factors, grew nearly 90 gigawatt hours over last year. Sales to large, new and expanding industrial customers grew nearly 100 gigawatt hours over last year. As we look forward, a few large industrial projects have adjusted their in-service dates from 2024 to 2025, which could lower our 2024 industrial growth expectation, but not to a degree that affects our outlook. Overall, our pipeline for projects continues to grow, supported by favorable commodity spreads and the IRA legislation. Early indications show demand in 2025 and beyond shaping up even stronger than our last forecast. As we typically do, we'll provide an update to our industrial growth expectations at EEI. To support this growth and to help our customers meet their sustainability needs, we are expanding our clean energy portfolio. Through 2026, we plan to add nearly 6,000 megawatts of renewable capacity. 2,400 of those megawatts are currently in construction, permitting, regulatory review or negotiations. Approximately 30% of the 2,400 megawatts will be owned by Entergy. Last quarter, I mentioned that we are continuing to work on our self-build capabilities. Our recent self-build submissions have been extremely competitive in the RFP process. However, we have been limited by a smaller development pipeline. I'm pleased to report that we are making progress on that front, and going forward, I would expect Entergy to achieve at least 50% ownership through our competitive RFPs. Moving to regulatory items. We continue to make meaningful progress on important regulatory matters which support the credit required to meet customers' growing needs and drive improved customer outcomes. Beginning with Mississippi, the Public Service Commission approved Entergy Mississippi's formula rate plan settlement, providing full recovery of substantially all costs. Meanwhile, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Arkansas each filed their annual formula rate plans. New rates for Louisiana and New Orleans are expected to be effective in September and Arkansas are expected to be effective at the 1st of next year. As we've discussed, Entergy Louisiana plans to file a base rate case this month, including a request for a new 3-year formula rate plan. We like the clarity and certainty that an FRP provides, which helps us make investments to benefit our customers. However, in recent years, Entergy Louisiana's earned returns have materially lagged its allowed returns. We are making significant investments to support customer growth and demand for greater resilience in cleaner energy in Louisiana. This investment is critical for the state as well as our local communities. It is important to have an opportunity for fair and timely recovery, which allows us to maintain Entergy Louisiana's credit and cost-effectively source capital to meet customers' expectations. Turning to Texas. Entergy Texas has an unopposed settlement before the commission, and we expect a decision at tomorrow's open meeting. Interim rates were implemented in June and once the commission makes its decision, any change in revenue and depreciation expense will be retroactive to December of last year. In addition, the Texas legislative session wrapped up at the end of May and the governor signed a new bill into law that are important to Texas customers and communities as well as to Entergy. I'll highlight a few. The Texas Resiliency Act allows utilities to submit a storm resiliency plan to improve customer outcomes. We expect the commission to complete their initial rulemaking of 180 days which sets the deadline to establish a regulatory framework in mid-December. Entergy Texas will then file its resilience plan shortly after the rulemaking is complete, and the commission will have 180 days to review and act on the filing. Based on this, Entergy Texas currently expects to have clarity on its resilience plan in the middle of next year. The distribution cost recovery factor legislation allows for 2 annual filings, which provide more timely recovery of significant distribution investments that we plan to make in Texas to support customer growth and reliability. And the expedited transmission CCM will reduce the time for commission approval by half to approximately 6 months. This will enable Entergy Texas to complete projects to support customer growth and resilience sooner and with lower risk. Turning to federal matters. In May, we received an initial decision on the unit power sales agreement complaint against SIRI. The ALJ ruled against the complainants on several issues, but recommended approximately $250 million refunds, which is mostly interest primarily associated with accumulated deferred tax issues going as far back as 1996. We disagree with the ALJ's conclusions on ADIT, and we continue to believe that SIRI's positions on the law and the facts are correct and that its actions were prudent and taken for the benefit of customers. SIRI filed its briefs on exception in July, and the next step is a ruling from FERC. There is not a statutory deadline for FERC to issue an order. More broadly on SIRI, I would note that we are still awaiting FERC's response to our compliance filing related to the December 23rd quarter on the sale leaseback and uncertain tax position case. While there is not a procedural deadline, we expect to see this clarification soon, and we expect FERC to affirm that no additional refunds are due. FERC's response will provide clarity and will be an important step towards resolving the broader set of SIRI litigation. Our communities are one of our key stakeholders and actively supporting them is an important part of our strategy. The Civic 50, an initiative of Points of Light named Entergy a top 50 most community-minded company and this year's leader for the utility sector. Another example of our community commitment is our Beat the Heat campaign. In May, we launched a series of measures to help low-income and senior customers save on their utility bills during hot summer months. $4 million in contributions will support thousands of vulnerable customers through bill payment assistance, weatherization events, and distribution and energy efficiency kits. I'm also proud that Forbes Magazine has named Entergy as one of America's best employers for diversity. They recognized our commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace where employees feel valued and respected. Such confirmation is critical as we compete for talent from all corners of our community to best serve the diverse interest of our 3 million customers. Together, our employees are doing a great job of living our vision statement of We Power Life by meeting today's challenges and ensuring that we will create value for our stakeholders well into the future. As you can see, we continue to make progress on our strategy to deliver for all our key stakeholders. We are laser-focused on meeting our customers' demands through operational excellence, resilience and clean energy investments. Meanwhile, we continue to maintain our financial discipline and work closely with our stakeholders to ensure we have the financial strength to drive economic development in our communities. Successfully executing across these dimensions will keep us on track to deliver steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth and move us toward our goal to be the premier utility. I'll now turn the call over to Kimberly, who will review our financial results for the quarter.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everyone. As Drew mentioned, our results this quarter keep us firmly on track, and we are affirming our guidance and our longer-term outlook and remain focused on delivering steady, predictable results. Slide 3 shows a high-level view of the quarter. Our adjusted earnings per share was $1.84, $0.06 higher than last year. We continue to see benefits from our customer-centric investments, including regulatory actions, along with higher depreciation, taxes other than income taxes and interest expense. We also saw a significant reduction in other O&M, a portion of which was for items that do not have a bottom line impact. Slide 4 details the variances by line item. Regulatory actions support our investment program to benefit customers. There were a few updates in the quarter. Entergy Mississippi put its latest FRP rates into effect in April. In June, Entergy Texas implemented interim rates from its rate case settlement. The settlement is credit positive and largely neutral to earnings as the rate case included new higher depreciation rates. Weather was $0.17 lower than last year. While weather was warmer than normal this year, you may recall that temperatures last year were significantly above average. Excluding the effects of weather, retail sales growth for the quarter was down 0.9%. The residential segment had a slightly positive contribution from customer growth, partially offset by lower usage per customer. Commercial and Industrial sales were lower. For Industrial, lower sales to Cogent customers was the primary driver as Cogent sales returned to more normal levels this year. This decline was partially offset by growth from small industrials and new and expansion large industrial customers. O&M was also a driver. We had lower spending for nuclear and nonnuclear generation, primarily due to reduced scope of work. Other drivers included higher rebates associated with our prescription drug program, lower MISO cost and lower pension expense, which were each about $0.05. MISO costs were lower as a result of MISO changing its ancillary services market structure. Because Entergy is a load-serving entity that owns generation, this change is largely neutral to earnings. Operating cash flow, summarized on Slide 5, was $588 million higher than last year. The increase was primarily due to lower payments for fuel and purchase power as natural gas prices were much higher last year. Moving to credit and liquidity on Slide 6. Our net liquidity remained strong at $4.7 billion, which includes $411 million of storm escrows. We expect to utilize a portion of the storm escrows of Louisiana and Mississippi for the storms earlier this year. We remain on track for our credit outlook, including achieving Moody's 14% FFO to debt metric by year-end. During the quarter, both S&P and Moody's downgraded SIRI. The ratings changes stem from SIRI's pending litigation. Left unchecked, this could ultimately result in higher costs for customers. These actions also highlight the cost of SIRI uncertainty and show that resolution would benefit multiple stakeholders. It is our goal to resolve all SIRI litigation in an expeditious manner. Slide 7 summarizes our progress against our equity needs through 2024. We utilized the ATM program this quarter when market conditions were supportive, selling forward approximately 468,000 shares, around $80 million remains in our equity plan through 2024. As shown on Slide 8, we are affirming our guidance range and our longer-term adjusted EPS outlook. We've updated a few of our key assumptions that I'd like to highlight. We saw warmer-than-normal temperatures in the quarter, which contributed $0.07 to EPS. Our plan included conservative assumptions in revenue, and we've now updated our estimates to account for several small favorable items across our operating companies. We've updated our weather-adjusted sales growth estimates and now expect volume impacts on earnings per share to be neutral for the year. This is largely due to lower-than-expected residential sales in the back half of the year. We continue to see overall health in the residential space with increasing customer counts and declining usage per customer, both of which help affordability. We expect other O&M to be $0.85 lower than 2022 for the full year. This includes approximately $0.15 for the reduction in MISO cost that is offset by lower revenues. Excluding that, the full year O&M change would be closer to $0.70, in line with our previous estimates. Our spending plans may adjust based on weather or other factors between now and the end of the year as we continue to use our flex spending to deliver steady, predictable results. You may recall that the remaining EWC ownership interest in 2 nonnuclear generation facilities is included in parent and other. Power prices have been lower than planned due to low natural gas prices, which is driving the expected margin from those operations lower. Taking all of this into consideration, we are tracking to the midpoint of our guidance range. The bottom line is that we have a solid plan with good visibility, and we will continue to execute on the deliverables to achieve steady, predictable growth. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza.
Constantine Lednev:
It's actually Constantine here for Shar. So starting at the LPSC. With the LPSC turnover, are there any actionable changes in relationship or alignment that you've implemented? And do you feel the LPSC is in general, comfortable with the current regulatory construct? Or would you look to add anything beyond the new resiliency framework kind of going forward?
Roderick West:
It's Rod. I think the best answer to your question is really the proof of concept, the decision that the LPSC has made to date. We've got the support, as you'll recall, after the election at the end of 2022, we got the support for our securitization. We got support for our Lake Charles Transmission system. We got support for our gas business rate decisions, all from the new commission. And so, I don't believe that we have a relationship issue. And in fact, we continue to work collaboratively with this new commission. We acknowledge that the addition of the newest commissioner, Davante Lewis, has created an opportunity for us to engage differently in educating a new commissioner on the historic relationships between the company and its stakeholders, not just the relationship between the commissioner and the company, but also the commissioner and the customer impacts. I know that you're reacting -- your question, react in some respects from some of the comments that have come out of individual commissioners and our reaction has been consistent. As long as we maintain our focus on ensuring positive customer outcomes, whether it's resiliency, whether it's renewables and clean energy and certainly affordability, we expect to be -- continue to be aligned with LPSC. And so we're moving forward, as Drew alluded to, with our regulatory calendars and to file our rate case and FRP as well as a strong renewables portfolio in addition to continuing to fuel the growth for the state, and we expect the commission to be supportive of the company's positions. We'll have a lot of debate along the way, but we'll continue to work constructively with them.
Drew Marsh:
And Constantine, as part of your question, whether there's -- we think there's some continued support for formula rate plans within LPSC.
Constantine Lednev:
Right. And I guess just anything that you feel like you need incremental to narrow some of those are kind of earned ROE gaps?
Roderick West:
Well, from that vantage point, that's less -- less of a change. It's Entergy's interest in ensuring that the -- both -- whatever the regulatory mechanism is, we're using both the filing of the rate case as well as the planned FRP renewal to align those recovery mechanisms with our capital plan. We're not necessarily disclosing any specific tweak at this point to the FRP because we haven't even made the filing yet, but we expect the commission to be receptive to the case we're making for why an FRP is in the best interest of customers long term. We're filing the rate case because it was a condition of the settlement during the last FRP renewal. But we expect to continue to make the case to the commission for why the FRPs and certain adjustments to it would be beneficial to our stakeholders long term.
Constantine Lednev:
Excellent. That's great color. And maybe shifting to the other kind of regulatory item, SIRI. Would the operational prudence complaint kind of reaching a point of settlement impasse in July and rehearing is still pending. Are you embedding any range of outcomes in the current financial plans just in terms of cash or financing drag? And maybe any guidance on kind of capping the potential liability in any form from the last complaint?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. Thanks for the question. As it relates to SIRI in our financial plan, as you know, we recorded the reserve last year equal to the Mississippi settlement applied broadly across and that is reflected in our financial plan. And then we assumed that we are able to continue to work with the parties to resolve the litigation and that Grand Gulf is an important asset to our fleet and continues to operate and contribute to our results.
Drew Marsh:
And I'll add that in terms of capping the exposure, the ALJ order from May regarding the UPSA is while it had -- as I mentioned, they had a $250 million of requested refunds, it did prune off quite a bit of additional liability. And so you do see that the amount of liability continues to come in as we move forward in the process. But we're still working through all that. And certainly, that's the amount that we believe we are at right now is what we have reflected on our books.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet.
Jeremy Tonet:
Just want to stick with Louisiana here a bit. And I think you touched on it a little bit, but want to see if you might be able to expand more. And how do you think the Louisiana resiliency process could unfold once the staff engineered report is filed this month. Any sense from the commission on how the commission would like to handle it and if this could be kind of rolled together the resiliency, the RFP, the rate case all get tied together?
Roderick West:
I totally understand your question, and I am -- my hesitation is only that I don't want to get ahead of the regulatory process. But I think your instincts are aligned. Once we get initial feedback from the staff on the filing, I think it puts us in a position to evaluate the timing around how we might pursue potential settlement discussions. Our objective, obviously, is to remove as much uncertainty as we can. And whenever we have the opportunity to avoid going through the expense of litigating issues where there's an opportunity to find time and ground. Part of our expectation going in is to first make the compliance filings as is expected by the commission. But the moment we do, we're trying to find a path to settlement, that isn't different. And I think your instincts about how we think about between now and the end of the year, assessing the likelihood of aligning around both the resiliency filing in concert with the discussions around the rate case FRP are spot on. That's our ultimate objective. But we have to make the filing and get the feedback. We have to make the filing on the rate case, but to your point, get the feedback from the LPSC staff on the resiliency filing and take it from there. But great point.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Got it. That makes sense. That's helpful. And sticking with Louisiana here, are stakeholder communications -- let us to hear about when those recent outages, there were some system glitches and communication to consumers was maybe not where it could be. Just wondering efforts on this side to, I guess, improve customer response and kind of address some of those local stakeholder concerns there?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, Jeremy, this is Drew. We have folks all over that issue. We got over 100 people squared away in a large conference room in Texas working on this. But we feel like we have a good plan going forward from where we are. Certainly, the -- some of the performance of some of our systems after some upgrades that were intended to improve things last -- earlier or late in the spring didn't work out as intended. And so we worked through all that. We have a good plan going forward, and we expect to be back on track for any future storms.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That's helpful there. And then just a last one, if I could. I was wondering if you might be able to unpack a little bit more FFO to debt and kind of the trajectory over the balance of the year and hitting the goals that you want to hit there. Just any incremental color would be appreciated.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure, Jeremy. Really two key factors there. One is closing the Louisiana securitization, which we did in the first quarter. And as we go through the year, you'll see the debt associated with previously carrying that roll off. And the second is around the recovery of the higher deferred fuel balances that occurred last year with the higher gas prices and higher volumes we saw. You can see that the deferred fuel balances are down back to what I would consider more normal levels. And so, as those debt levels roll off, those two items will significantly help us and then just managing through our normal operations as we go through the end of the year puts us on target to be at or above that 14%.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro.
David Arcaro:
I think, Drew, you alluded to some initiatives that you're pursuing on the renewable development side of things to make the organization more competitive in some of these RFPs and to give yourself a better fighting chance to do some more self-build. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on what types of initiatives that you've pursued there to lower costs and build the pipeline, it sounded like?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. Thanks, David. That's a good question. We have been working on building the capability in the development space as I mentioned. And we have been actually successful for the projects that we have been able to put forward in competing in our RFPs. So I think we're making good progress in terms of what does it take to be competitive on the solar RFP front. . The challenge we've had is we just haven't had a large pipeline of projects to support. So many of the projects that are even in the 30% that I mentioned earlier are build on transfer projects where a developer is constructing it and then moving it over to us at -- just before the completion of COD. What I'm referring to when I say we're making progress is we are finding some success in building up our portfolio. So we have somewhere in the neighborhood of about 4 gigawatts of development pipeline that we have put forward at this point. Now, I wouldn't say that's all ready to go and RFP. We're still building out some of those projects. But it's a much larger portfolio, and we are expecting to add maybe another half gigawatt to that by the end of the year. And then beyond that point, we'd expect it to continue to grow, and that should be very strong given where we have been competitively, that should be very strong in the RFPs going forward. So that's what we've been seeing, and that's what we're focused on.
Roderick West:
And the only thing that I'll add to Drew's comments is that part of the sort of declogging if you will, that pipeline, we've been securing additional sites for renewables development, including our generation sites as well as the transmission interconnects that are all part of the development process, and that's adding to our improved competitiveness to Drew's point.
David Arcaro:
Got it. That's helpful color. And then let's see -- curious similar topic, but in Texas, one of your peer utilities in the state has had challenges just getting a few renewables projects over the finish line there. I was just wondering how that's affecting your strategy in the State of Texas? How that might maybe impacting the outstanding RFPs that you've got?
Roderick West:
Yes. And the short answer is that it's not impacting -- one, it's not a surprise to us because our point of view is consistent with -- and has been consistent with the PUCT. We understand the significance of reliability first. We do believe because of the interest of our customers that the renewable resources should be an important part of our supply portfolio. But we recognize that the commission's position has been rather consistent in Texas. It's notable that our position outside of ERCOT in our service territory and the success we've had in our CCNs has given -- in our view, given us a better vantage point to discuss the attributes of renewables with the commission perhaps in a different light because we're not having the same reliability issues in our service territory as they've expressed concerns about inside of -- inside of ERCOT. We are paying close attention, though, to -- particularly in Texas that if the commission were to have a change in policy around renewables, we see a tremendous opportunity in both hydrogen and CCS for other capital investment opportunities. But we think our position is strong. Our customers, particularly given all the growth we have in Texas are requesting the attributes of renewables and/or clean energy, and we're well positioned regardless of what direction the commission might take from a policy perspective in Texas to help them meet those needs.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo.
Paul Zimbardo:
Drew, I think you mentioned that although some projects might be shifting around the timing a little bit. You're net seeing stronger industrial growth in that 2025 period, '25 plus. Just could you give a little more color on that and kind of what that means for the plan? And if this is something you could roll into the plan within the EEI refresh?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So it would be expected to be part of the EEI refresh, and we can give you some more details for sure. Then I would characterize the movement from '24 to '25 is the normal roll around of these large industrial projects that are billions of dollars and they're hard to get done. And so that's nothing that we haven't seen before. And so that is -- well, I wouldn't say that was expected, I would say we're not surprised. And that is -- so that part is not really new news. As we look forward beyond 2024, we are continuing to see a very robust industrial sales pipeline, lots of interest from a lot of different parties. We've -- particularly around the clean energy. I mentioned a particular CCUS project from ExxonMobil in my remarks, but there are other projects like that out there. There are projects like that related to hydrogen. So we are I think, well positioned to take advantage of all of that and we'll give you more details whenever we get to EEI.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. Understood. And then just pivoting to Texas following up on a couple of questions that were asked. Is there a good way to think about kind of what the earnings improvement opportunity is after the legislation, whether it's earned hourly basis points, additional capital spending opportunities. Just if there's some way to think about that, that would be helpful.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure, Paul. Are you referencing out of the Texas legislation, specifically. Was that your question?
Paul Zimbardo:
Correct. Yes, the legislation.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, there were a couple of -- a number of favorable things out of the legislation. Obviously, the resilience filing gives us a path to file our resilience plan and seek recovery of that in a way that helps provide our system higher resilience standard and support our customers. The DCRF changed from an annual filing to a biannual filing, that certainly gives us an opportunity to improve the -- or decrease the lag associated within investments. But from an overall perspective, we're still -- we haven't changed our outlook with regards to that, but certainly, a better way to recover investments. And then the third item is around compensation. And that one really for us on executive compensation is around recovery in a rate case. It's not really effective to us, but it certainly is helpful from a precedential perspective.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Is there a way to kind of quantify like ROE improvement or something from all of that?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes. I think it's too early to do that at this point. But certainly, they are positive tailwinds from our perspective that help us when we think about our overall outlook, but nothing changes in that regard.
Operator:
All right. And that looks like right now, that is all of our questions. If there are no more questions, I will go ahead and turn it back over to Mr. Abler.
Bill Abler:
Thanks, Jeremy, and thanks, everyone, for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Good morning. My name is Regina, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to Entergy's First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the call over to Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations for Entergy Corporation.
William Abler:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Drew Marsh; and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than 2 questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. We had a very productive start to the year with meaningful progress on activities that support our near- and long-term objectives. Today, we are reporting first quarter adjusted earnings per share of $1.14. Mild weather affected these results, but we are prepared for this variability. As we have shown over the last several years, our FLEX program helped us achieve that very predictable results. We are on track for 2023 results in line with our guidance, and we remain well positioned to achieve our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlooks. Our focus on creating sustainable value for our 4 key stakeholders, customers, employees, communities and owners is the foundation of our strategy. It's at the center of everything we do. Recently, JUST Capital and CNBC named Entergy to the JUST 100 list, which highlights companies that are doing the right thing for all their stakeholders. We are honored because our inclusion on this list is an acknowledgment that we are living up to our commitments. Serving all our stakeholders starts with understanding what our customers need from us. To meet those needs, we are investing to improve reliability and resilience and significantly expand our clean energy footprint. This will not only help our current customers become more successful, but will also attract new customers. So far this year, we have installed or replaced over 400 transmission structures with new resilient designs, including critical river crossing lines. We also completed transmission interconnections for 2 new Entergy-owned renewable resources. One example of a transmission project that will improve resilience and reliability is a recently completed projects in Southwest Louisiana, where we upgraded transmission lines rated to withstand 150-mile per hour winds, replaced older poles with resilient steel structures, installed new higher-capacity power lines and added automated switching capability to improve reliability. In Southeast Louisiana and in Texas, we are building new substations and distribution power lines that will support residential and business growth in those areas and reduce stress on existing substations. In addition, we installed and replaced more than 5,000 wood distribution poles with newer, more resilient designs. Collectively, our team continues to focus on operational excellence to deliver stakeholder outcomes across all facets of our business. We also continue to be a critical local partner, supporting strong economic development, working to bring new businesses, new jobs and new tax base to the communities we serve. As you know, we expect significant industrial sales growth over the next several years. While the broader market is contemplating recession concerns, our region's growth story remains intact. Key strategic value drivers continue to be supportive. The LNG, ammonia and refining sectors are generally short on supply, and the deficit will likely not be meaningfully affected by a recession. Other sectors, such as ethylene, PVC, methanol and steel, may see some market pullback, but the Gulf Coast has the lowest cost producers. So plants in our service area should be the last to be curtailed. Meanwhile, the passage of the IRA is accelerating development in the clean energy transition space. We are seeing very strong interest in our service area, which has the potential to increase and extend our 6% long-term industrial sales growth rate as incentive rules are finalized and turned into financed projects. One example of a potential project fueled by the IRA is the St. Charles Clean Fuels project, which is exploring whether to build a $4.6 billion blue ammonia production plant in St. Rose, Louisiana. The new facility would produce up to 8,000 metric tons per day of blue ammonia and would rely on carbon capture technology to sequester more than 90% of its carbon dioxide emissions. Our underlying 6% industrial growth rate does not rely on these IRA tailwinds. And we continue to see a lot of activity in the traditional industrial segments we serve. There are some noteworthy developments in recent months, including Golden Triangle Polymers, which held its groundbreaking for a state-of-the-art polyethylene plant in Orange County, Texas. In addition, Sempra announced that the company reached its financial investment decision, and issued the final notice to proceed on Phase 1 of its Port Arthur LNG project. A big part of meeting our customer sustainability needs is growing our clean energy footprint, and we continue to make progress on that objective. On Monday, we held our official groundbreaking for the Orange County Advanced Power Station in Texas, hosting Governor Abbott, 4 of 5 PUCT Commissioners and other state and local officials. That facility will ensure that we have modern and reliable infrastructure to support existing customers and the rapidly growing customer base in our Southeast Texas region. We will utilize turbine technology and a plant layout that can support dual fuel capability with hydrogen in the future. The optionality helps ensure the plant's long-term viability and creates improved energy security and operational flexibility for our customers. We also continue to make progress on our objective to expand our renewables capacity to meet customer needs. Since our last call, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of their 2022 renewable RFPs. Participation was robust, and we are in negotiations for approximately 2,300 megawatts. Turning to affordability. It remains a core tenet in our pursuit of greater sustainability and reliability for customers. To help manage bill effects of customer-centric investments, we continue to aggressively pursue customer sales growth, disciplined cost management and federal support to offset costs. Natural gas prices have come down significantly. And coupled with a mild winter, that's further good news for customer bills. Our latest estimates for residential bill trajectories, including updated gas have improved. For the system, we are now seeing a 3-year annual growth rate of less than 1% from 2022 through 2025. That's roughly half the level we were expecting a few months ago. In the quarter, we made regulatory -- meaningful regulatory progress against our objectives. Entergy Texas has reached settlement on all material issues with parties in its base rate case, and we expect to file the settlement with the PUCT in the next few weeks. Entergy Mississippi filed its annual formula rate plan in March. Mississippi's efficient mechanism supports continued customer-centric investments and supports our financial outlook. Interim rates became effective on April 1. Entergy Louisiana's formula rate plan will expire after this year's filing. We are evaluating options to renew the current FRP, and we're also preparing for a potential rate case filing, which would be submitted this summer. As we've laid out, Entergy Louisiana is investing significant capital to support our customers' growth and their demands for greater resilience and clean energy. This growth is critical for Louisiana and its local communities. We need to ensure that our rate constructs provide the opportunity for fair and timely recovery, which will allow us to effectively source the capital while maintaining utility credits. Either an FRP renewal or rate case path should allow enough time for rates to be effective in September 2024, which would keep us on our normal cadence. If we file a rate case, we will request a new FRP starting with the 2025 filing year. Entergy Louisiana also filed a request to streamline the procurement and approval processes for up to 3 gigawatts of solar resources. This is in addition to the nearly 2.5 gigawatts from previous or ongoing RFPs. If the new processes are approved, we can bring additional renewables to construction faster and at a lower cost and risk, materially improving our ability to meet our customers' accelerating demands for clean energy. For our accelerated resilience and grid hardening filings, Entergy Louisiana received a procedural schedule in its docket. Next up is the commission's engineering report and testimony to be filed in August. Hearings are scheduled in January of next year. However, there is the potential to receive a decision this year through a settlement with parties, and that remains a possibility with broad stakeholder alignment on the need for more resilient investments. In a separate but important docket, the LPSC Staff outlined a process and an evaluation procedure for utilities in Louisiana to follow, which creates a solid road map for Entergy Louisiana's resilience investment. Entergy New Orleans filed its updated resilience plan with the City Council. The $1 billion 10-year plan reflects significant stakeholder input. Like Louisiana, New Orleans is requesting approval for the first 5 years of the program, and we are targeting a decision from the council by year-end. In Texas, the Electric Infrastructure Resiliency Act has been proposed in both the State House and Senate. The bill, if passed, would require the commission to act within 180 days of utilities filing a resiliency plan. Certain prudently incurred costs would be recovered through a variety of mechanisms. We will continue to work with our regulators across all aspects of our business to create value for our customers and other key stakeholders. And you can find additional details on our regulatory proceedings in the appendix of our webcast presentation. In March, our service area experienced tornadoes in Arkansas and Mississippi. The damage to our system included distribution poles, wires spans, transformers and one substation. We replaced damaged equipment with newer, more resilient assets rated to our latest standards. The restoration is completed quickly and safely with 0 injuries. And for that, I am extremely grateful to our teams. In addition to restoration, we responded quickly to provide community support. Entergy shareholders committed $150,000 to the American Red Cross to provide shelter, food, water, mental health counseling and other services to the households impacted by the tornadoes. In addition, more than 150 Entergy employees came into the affected region and volunteered their time by assisting with cleanup, providing meals, organizing supply drives and staffing information booth to once again prove our employees unfaltering commitment to our customers and communities when they need it most. Before concluding, I would like to note that Entergy Mississippi is celebrating its 100th anniversary. That's a century of serving its customers and communities. To commemorate this milestone, Entergy Mississippi donated with $100,000 to Extra Table, a Mississippi-based food bank, to combat food and security in Mississippi. That's $1,000 for every year of operations. In addition, Entergy volunteers packed 2,500 meal kits. This is the first event of a multiphase program that will ultimately provide 100,000 meals. Giving back to communities through philanthropy, volunteerism and advocacy is integral to Entergy's living its vision statement of We Power Life. We've had a productive start to 2023. We are focused on successfully delivering value for our key stakeholders, and we will continue to successfully achieve the milestones that keep us on track to deliver steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth. To do this, we are working to improve operational and regulatory outcomes, support our customers' industrial growth and economic development in our region, invest in renewables, clean energy and resilient acceleration to support our customers' demand and execute with financial discipline to strengthen our balance sheet and become more competitive. I'll now turn the call over to Kimberly, who will review our financial results for the quarter.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everyone. Our first quarter adjusted earnings per share was $1.14. Results included a very mild weather, which reduced earnings by an estimated $0.22. We incorporate conservative assumptions into our planning process and have a portfolio of FLEX levers to mitigate the impacts. The fundamentals of our utility growth remains strong. And despite the first quarter weather, we remain squarely on track to achieve our financial objectives for 2023. Before I review quarterly results, I'd like to highlight a couple of items. First, this quarter's results included the effects of storm securitization at Entergy Louisiana, including $76 million of benefits for customers. These items were considered adjustments and are excluded from adjusted earnings. Additional details are provided in our earnings release. Second, beginning in 2023, as a result of the successful exit from the merchant nuclear business, EWC is no longer a reporting segment and any remaining financial activity from that business is now included in Parent & Other. You'll see the first quarter variances laid out on Slide 4. The quarter results reflected the effects of investments that are benefiting our customers. This includes regulatory actions as well as depreciation expense, other taxes and interest expense. Excluding weather, retail sales were higher, driven by industrial sales growth of 2%. That growth came largely from new and expansion customers, particularly in the primary metals and petrochemicals industries. This was partially offset by lower sales to Cogent customers as Cogent sales were particularly strong in 2022. Slides 5 and 6 show key metrics for our largest industrial segments. As Drew mentioned, these metrics remain very supportive and are consistent with the growth that we are seeing. They also give us confidence in our industrial sales growth outlook. Moving to Slide 7. Operating cash flow for the quarter was $960 million, $422 million higher than last year. Higher utility customer receipts, lower noncapital storm spending and lower pension contributions were the largest drivers. The effects of the EWC wind down provided a partial offset. Credit and liquidity are summarized on Slide 8. During the quarter, Entergy Louisiana received $1.5 billion from storm securitization. This completes our securitization. Entergy Louisiana plans to reduce long-term debt as issuances mature. We have made significant progress on collecting deferred fuel balances, which came down more than $400 million in the quarter. This continues to improve our credit metrics. Our net liquidity remained strong at $5.7 billion, including $406 million of storm escrows. Looking at Slide 9, our equity needs are unchanged. Only $130 million remains through 2024, and we plan to use the ATM program to meet this need. As shown on Slide 10, we are affirming our guidance and longer-term adjusted EPS outlook. Weather has been a headwind to start the year, but we've also had a few tailwinds to our plan. Our first quarter sales mix resulted in slightly higher margins, and we see some favorability in several items that, in aggregate, are providing meaningful relief. After taking all of this into consideration, we are flexing O&M by $0.10, which keeps us comfortably in our guidance range. The bottom line is that we have a solid plan with good visibility, and we will continue to execute on the deliverables to achieve steady, predictable growth. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners.
Shahriar Pourreza:
So just real quick on financing. You guys obviously have a CapEx plan through '25, but financing is still based on a '24 plan. When do you sort of anticipate rolling that forward? And what can we anticipate in terms of capital allocation, especially in light of the current capital market conditions? Is asset optimization still an option you guys are kind of looking at?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, Shahriar, for that question. As it relates to our capital plan, as you know, we have $16 billion through '23 through '25, and we've provided the financing for that, which includes a little bit that's left in '24. We have talked about -- the last time we talked about '25 was at Analyst Day, where we gave a number for '25 and '26. And I would expect as we turn the corner on '24, we would be looking at that financing more specifically. As it relates to your asset optimization question, certainly, we don't have anything to know here. But as you know, we would pursue that if it met our 3 basic grading criteria around. Is it executable? Does it distract? And does it create value? But certainly, to the extent that something met that criteria, we would look at it.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Got it. And then just on some of your recent solar RFPs and kind of announcement. How is that, I guess, kind of tracking versus your plan for up to 13 gigs and what portion of the new solar is being sort of deployed to support retirement versus new load? And just that initial ownership share versus PPA has always been kind of skewed to contracts? Do you anticipate that's going to change over time?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Shahriar, this is Drew. And it has been skewed and that's not where we want to be, frankly. So we are working hard to improve our self-build capabilities and leverage our economies of scale, find more financial discipline in the packages that we're putting together in those RFP processes so that we can improve. And we do believe that, that will happen. But you're right, we haven't been hitting the mark, and that's important because it is creating some -- it's taking up some of the room in our balance sheet and limiting our operational and strategic flexibility in the long term. So we want to make sure that we get up to that number, and we're still working towards it.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI.
Durgesh Chopra:
I had two questions, both on sort of the resiliency filings. Maybe first part of that question, can you just give us any initial stakeholder feedback that you may have gotten in Louisiana and New Orleans, the 2 filings that you've made? And second, Drew, in your prepared remarks, you mentioned about this separate docket in Louisiana. Maybe a little bit more color there. Do you have to kind of use that docket for securing the approval in Louisiana? Or just maybe any other color there?
Roderick West:
It's Rod. Thanks for the question. Louisiana, in terms of stakeholder feedback, I think part of the answer is in the question that you asked. The fact that the staff submitted proposed rule-making around resiliency filings for all utilities in Louisiana, we view as reflective of a constructive stakeholder engagement strategy for the company over the course of the last 6 to 9 months in Louisiana. Because the proposed rule-making actually puts us in a position to be very much aligned given the strategy that we laid out for the commission, both in Louisiana and in New Orleans. And so the feedback has been constructive. So our expectation is, as you think about the procedural schedule that Louisiana laid out, they're backcasting from a January 2024 hearing date. Their procedural schedule backs up from that date to give us an opportunity to perhaps settle with stakeholders to accelerate agreement around the Louisiana decision-making on resiliency. So we view that as a net positive. New Orleans tracks Louisiana in that, we have clarity from the City Council on our initial proposal, which was $1.5 billion through that stakeholder engagement process. We narrowed down the grouping of projects to about $1 billion of the $1.5 billion. And that $500 million that didn't make the cut wasn't about a lack of agreement on the need for the projects, they just tracked on a different path outside of the accelerated resilience. So in both Louisiana and New Orleans, we view the stakeholder engagement feedback being positive and constructive, and the existence of procedural schedules in both the LPSC and the New Orleans City Council is consistent with our financial plan.
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. I want to add to what Rod was saying, just to make sure you caught it at the beginning of his comment, he actually answered the second of your question at the beginning on the second docket. And that second docket does actually create an ability for us to do the math on how the benefits and the costs should work. And specifically, it allows the economics of customer outages to be part of the conversation. And so there's a few mechanisms that they create for that. But that's an important piece of that framework that the staff established.
Roderick West:
I'll also -- thanks, Drew. I'll also add that in New Orleans as we think about the $1.5 billion that we initially filed and the $1 billion sort of compliance filing after the feedback process, it's roughly 2/3 of the proposed CapEx and 80% of the customer benefits, just going with the $1 billion versus the $1.5 billion in the accelerated docket process. So again, we view the feedback as constructive in both Louisiana and the City of New Orleans today.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So perhaps, just pivoting to theory here and the pending complaints. Is it completely dependent on FERC? Or are you able to facilitate progress at FERC in any specific way? I just want to come back to that back and forth in just the procedural elements a little bit more specifically here, if you will. And then, if I can, as a follow-up, are you still having settlement conversations with perhaps any of the parties considering maybe some of the ambiguities here?
Roderick West:
I think the short answer to both of the frames of your question is, settlement discussions will be aided by clarity from the FERC that we are awaiting with regard to the sale leaseback and the uncertain tax position ruling, as you recall from the December ruling and the procedural order out in this past February. So yes, there are ongoing conversations and settlement on all of the ancillary cases, but clarity around where the FERC sits on those 2 issues will go along the way towards setting the path for our -- our path forward on settlement. There's no -- yes, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
No, I'm sorry. And it seems like it's dependent on them, right? There's no ability to facilitate progress at FERC or otherwise enable it in a separate parallel docket as you alluded to a second ago on [indiscernible]?
Roderick West:
I think that's a fair assessment, just given the positions that certain of the stakeholders have taken around their reaction to the December order. Clarity from the FERC will clear the lanes for ongoing discussions. There's also a timing element where we expect the FERC to act sooner rather than later in order to maintain jurisdiction vis-à-vis the Fifth Circuit and others. So we're expecting -- we don't have a date, but we are expecting FERC to act sooner to get ahead of what might be the appeals process if left unresolved.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Excellent. And then if you can -- on '23, just super quickly on the guidance. I know, Kim, I think you said in a second ago about the $0.22 and the $0.10 here of O&M. How much further flex is there in the plan to the extent to which obviously other items materialize, and/or if you can elaborate a little bit more on just the components there in?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, Julien. It's early in the year. So we certainly have good line of sight on our ability to manage that through the rest of the year. There is some additional puts and takes that we would manage through depending on what happens. Obviously, if the weather is mild during the summer, we'd have to work through that. If it comes in more normal or hotter, then there may be opportunities to flex up. For some specifics, certainly, we talked about last year that in 2022, the higher O&M was tied to higher volumes and we flex stuff, which helps us to derisk '23, and we're able to take advantage of some of that here. And then we've seen some favorability, as you probably saw in the materials around volumes in residential and commercials, and that may give us continued opportunity throughout the year if that continues to persist. The other area I would point out is interest expense, and we've been able to manage through some potential upside there as it relates to timing of debt issuances, for example.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley.
David Arcaro:
A little bit of a follow-up on the last question. I was curious for the utility O&M targets for the year, you notched that up to $0.70 in terms of the savings. But I was curious, it was only about $0.03 kind of a help in the first quarter. Are there any underlying challenges that you've hit or inflationary pressures or anything like that, that make it more difficult to achieve the O&M savings for the year? Or is it more just kind of a timing issue versus -- on a year-over-year comparison?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, David. You're right. For the first quarter, we were down about $0.03, but our O&M doesn't occur ratably over the year. It's really tied, as I said, particularly last year, we ramped up with the higher volumes in second and third quarter. So I would expect to see assuming normal weather, a much more spread versus last year in O&M in that second, third and fourth quarter.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Got you. That's helpful. And then I was just wondering, are there any legislative bills in Texas that might be meaningful for your business as we get closer to the end of the session in the state for next month?
Roderick West:
Yes. There are a number of items in consideration. The one that we're certainly paying attention to has to do with resiliency filings from not just Entergy, but other utilities. There's 5 weeks left. So there -- the good thing is that it's been progressing nicely. The significant attribute that we're looking for in coming out of those resiliency filings would be the types of precedents that were set in Texas, where when we were making AMI filings in Texas, we were able to take assets that still had useful life out of service and replace them with the newer, more modern and in this case, more resilient assets and still be able to account for those undepreciated assets. So we're tracking the progress of those various pieces of legislation to ensure that we have the appropriate flexibility with the commission to facilitate our resiliency and reliability investments in Texas. So it's moving along. Stakeholder engagement has been strong and quite active, but 5 weeks or so left in the session. So we'll continue to go at it.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from the line of Ross Fowler with UBS.
Ross Fowler:
Just one from me around -- or two from me. But the first one is on Slide 38, so following up a Julien's question. So if I kind of just look through what you're showing here, I see sort of $0.10 of the O&M and then sort of corporate being down $0.05 kind of offsets the $0.05 a better sales mix. So versus the $0.22 of weather, $0.10 of sort of offsets. And Kim, to sort of get into your answer, I think what you were saying there is there's more offsets to come to offset the balance of that $0.12 or maybe some of that's in that slightly favorable impact around other income and lower interest expense to sort of get back to the midpoint? Or absent for the mitigation, are you kind of pointing to the low end of the range for '23?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, Ross, I think you're right in that there are small opinions in a number of categories beyond what you went through there. So you're right, a $0.10 in O&M. You've got the $0.5 and other and the weather volume there is about $0.05. And we saw that mix in the first quarter. And then you will see probably not specifically in the side, but just on a -- throughout the balance of the income statement, pennies here and there that balance the rest out.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. And this -- Ross, it's Drew. So while we would certainly concede that $0.22 brings us lower than the midpoint, it's early in the year, and we wouldn't say that that's where we are at this point. We're just targeting the midpoint, and we expect to do better than that by the end of the year.
Ross Fowler:
Got it. That's very clear. And then just maybe contextualize for me, you're showing 2% industrial growth in the quarter year-over-year. And Drew, you kind of went through this in some of the prepared remarks, but maybe give us a little bit more contextualization of your sort of 6% long-term aspiration versus what you're currently seeing?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, I'll take that. So we've seen -- we talk about the drivers, and we have a couple of slides in there about the drivers. And as we've said for a number of years now, there's a lot of advantages to the Gulf Coast, and that's access to global and national markets and the available energy infrastructure, low energy prices, supportive communities, available workforce. All of that has been driving investment domestically towards the Gulf Coast and frankly, our service territory all the way up the Mississippi River. Now you've got the broken global supply chains, geopolitical uncertainty. You've got the tailwinds for the IRA. Before you even get to the IRA, we've seen a lot of onshoring and that's basically what our 6% is based on. And we see a lot of investment. We have -- the 6% is a probability-weighted assessment of where we think it will come out. That takes into consideration. Some projects don't always make it to the finish line. Some projects are a little delayed, all that kind of stuff. If all of it landed, it could be significantly larger than 6%, but that's not our planning assumption at this point. [Indiscernible] the tailwinds of the IRA and it could get bigger. The rules are still a bit uncertain associated with that, particularly around hydrogen, green hydrogen in particular. But we are seeing an awful lot of interest in the Gulf Coast area to try and take advantage of, frankly, the existing infrastructure that's already there. The hydrogen infrastructure, for example, we have production, we have consumption, we have transportation, we have storage and everything that you need to move hydrogen. And we have a lot of people that are coming to the Gulf Coast to try and take advantage of that existing infrastructure. I mean it is effectively a hydrogen hub already. And similarly, we also have CO2 pipelines and CO2 consumption, CO2 production. And so carbon capture is going to be the game. There is existing infrastructure for that as well. And so folks are looking at all of that stuff and thinking about how to expand on that opportunity in the long term. And so we see a lot of exciting investment opportunities, in fact, when we were in Texas on Monday for the groundbreaking for Orange County. There was a lot of discussion about hydrogen, about carbon capture with state officials in Texas. They are excited about it. They're excited about the growth opportunities that they are seeing all of it as well, and they are very supportive of us having dispatchable generation to make sure that we can support that potential investment that we believe is on its way. So that's frankly what we're looking at. It's very exciting and a lot of opportunity ahead of us.
Ross Fowler:
That's great. And of course, we'll be watching the potential for EPA plant rules around carbon capture. But for now, I'll jump back in the queue.
Operator:
Your final question will come from the line of Steven Fleishman with Wolfe Research.
Steven Fleishman:
Just wanted to follow up on the question related to Siri, where, I think, Rod, you mentioned a timing element that FERC needs that before they lose jurisdiction. Could you give us a sense of what that time line is or limit?
Roderick West:
Yes, I don't have the actual procedural schedule in front of me, Steve, but it's my appreciation that the Fifth Circuit process that includes or -- actually all of our utility jurisdictions. There's an appeals process at the Fifth Circuit that would impact FERC's ability to provide clarity around that December 23 decision. And so it's our appreciation from the lawyers that the FERC has an interest in resolving any lack of clarity in avoiding having to create a conflict jurisdictionally between the Fifth Circuits answer to the appeal from the parties and their ability to drive their respective order. And so that's what you hear in the hedge of sooner rather than later because we don't know exactly what that time frame is, but we recognize that, objectively, it is an issue.
Steven Fleishman:
Okay. And then, I guess, a question for Drew, just things have quieted down a lot once the securitization was approved and fuel prices have come down and the like. Could you just give a latest sense of relationships with the Louisiana Commission and do they kind of have appreciation of the volatility that was created around, stuff early in the year? And yes, any color there would be helpful.
Andrew Marsh:
Sure, Steve. I'll start, but then I'll kick it to Rod, who has the subject matter expertise in that particular area. But it is -- you're right, it is a little bit more constructive right now compared to where it was last fall. I know you had to -- thinking back to last fall, it's easy to forget that we had an election going on. They were contested elections. There was a lot of outside money in those elections, which were putting additional energy into the political process, and it was coming on the heels of a hot summer with escalating gas prices. And that was all just coming to a point as our securitization was showing up there. We believe that we still continue to have strong relationships in Louisiana and at all levels of the government and including the commission. And so we endeavor to work closely with them on an ongoing basis. But that's still -- we're not taking that for granted. That is something that we are very much focused on. We know that our commissioners are very focused on customer outcomes. And so we are as well. And so I'll turn it over to Rod to talk a little bit more.
Roderick West:
Yes. And I think, Steve, your preface was on point. The fact that gas prices have come down and we have aided in providing relief to customers, and there's been some time since the election that's given us an opportunity to reengage with commissioners around our customer-centric strategy, I think it's proven very helpful. I will note that our most recent engagement with the commission was around vote on the gas business rate case. That was a big deal. The prudency of our Lake Charles -- our Lake Charles Power Station, along with the gas rate case was all 5 0 . And it is not insignificant that the proposed rulemaking from this path with regard to resiliency. That too was the result of the intentional work in part that we have -- we've done in engaging with the commission and our other stakeholders, especially the customers. So look, in response to the noise coming out of the elections and the end of the year, we've certainly ramped up our engagement processes to make sure that our commission and staff from related stakeholders are informed. But also, I want to be explicit in saying that the -- the fact that we have a new commissioner in Louisiana for us represents a new commission. Anytime there's a new addition to the commission, it's an opportunity for us to reassess, reset and reengage. And we've been quite deliberate about doing that for the purpose of keeping alignment with the commission because we have a -- and you know this, we have a really aggressive regulatory agenda given all of the merit of customer-centric opportunities and investments we have in Louisiana and the growth in Louisiana is going to put a lot of pressure on the commission. And our engagement process is geared to help make their lives easier as we try to solve our customers' problems. But we get it, and it will be ongoing. It is not a thing where we check the box and say, oh, we have finished the work. The stakeholder engagement process is 24/7/365, Steve.
Operator:
We have no further questions at this time. Mr. Abler, I will turn the call back over to you.
William Abler:
Thank you, Regina, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you for standing by, and welcome to Entergy Corporation's Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers presentation there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. And now, I'd like to introduce your host for today's program, Mr. Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
Bill Abler:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Drew Marsh; and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for another successful year. Our 2022 adjusted earnings per share was $6.42 in the top half of our guidance range. This is the seventh year in a row that our results have come in above our guidance midpoint. Our steady predictable financial results are underpinned by our strategy to create value for our four key stakeholders, our customers, employees, communities and owners. Our strategy starts with learning from our customers what they need from us to be successful, and then we build an investment plan to meet those demands. As a result, we are investing in our power delivery system to improve reliability and resilience and significantly expanding our clean generation to support our rapidly growing industrial load and the decarbonization goals of our customers. This customer-centric approach has delivered benefits for all our key stakeholders. We are confident this approach will continue to create meaningful value well into the future. In 2022, Entergy’s 12,000 employees worked every single day to deliver operational excellence, achieve positive regulatory outcomes, build the foundation for our long-term growth strategy and drive improved affordability for our customers. Operational excellence begins with safety. In 2022, we made important strides recording the fewest injuries in our company's history, and a total recordable injury rate that ranked in the first quartile among EEI utilities. To achieve this result, we reduced total accidents, including employees and contractors by 30% and serious injuries by more than 50%. This is an improvement that we're proud of, our work isn't done because we believe zero harm is possible. We will continue our relentless focus on keeping our employees and contractors safe all day, every day. Entergy's operational excellence is consistently on display when we respond to extraordinary circumstances. We saw this recently with winter storms Elliott and Mara. Elliott presented unique challenges due to the extremely cold temperatures. In fact, we experienced some of the highest winter loads that we have seen, including new winter peaks for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas. Teams from across our organization collaborated to ensure that the system capacity and operating resources were maximized. Power availability was critical, and our generation facilities performed extremely well, buoyed by contingency planning and improvements from weatherization investments made after winter storm Yuri. Not only were we able to meet the high demand of our customers, but we also exported power to nearby systems to help other utilities meet their demand. Our teams performed extremely well during both events and for that, I am very thankful. I'm especially proud that we had no injuries, ensuring that all our employees return home safely. River Bend Station, our nuclear plant near Baton Rouge began its refueling outage after 675 days of being continuously online. That's the longest run in station history. River Bend is an important -- is important to the area it serves providing safe, clean energy that our customers can count on and tremendous support for our communities. During this outage, we will be making multiple equipment improvements to ensure long-term reliability of the unit, including replacement of condenser tubes and feed water heaters. We also made important progress on our regulatory objectives. Starting with Texas, we received approval from the PUCT to build the Orange County Advanced Power Station or OCAPS. This new highly efficient CCGT will provide near-term benefits, including lower fuel costs, lower emissions and expanding regional capacity to support growth in our Texas service area. The plant will be upgradable to enable future reconfiguration for hydrogen capability, which will increase fuel diversity and provide long-duration storage in a carbon constrained environment. For Entergy Texas rate case, parties have progressed in construct the settlement discussions and reached a tentative agreement on key terms. The hearing was put on hold to allow time to finalize the agreement. We'll provide an update on the details when available. In Louisiana, we received approval to recover the balance of Hurricane IDA cost using securitization. We work collaboratively with our regulators to find a solution that met the needs of all stakeholders. The order determined that all of the costs incurred were reasonable and prudent and Entergy Louisiana will fully recover those costs, which is vital for the credit of the company. While the commission approved our storm recovery, we want to assure you that we heard your feedback about the discussion at the meeting and the uncertainty in the process. To that end, we are continuously evaluating our stakeholder outreach practices. Our ongoing goal is a best-in-class stakeholder engagement approach that achieves alignment around important customer outcomes. We believe there is agreement with our regulators around our long-term goals to deliver what our customers need to be successful. Our customers are central to all that we do, and we know we can continue to work with our regulators to improve our processes for the future. Turning to the federal level. In December, we received an order on System Energy's uncertain tax position and sale-leaseback complaint. For the uncertain tax issue, we believe that the FERC's remedy is clear. And as a result, no additional refunds are required. The remedy is important because the rulings of the IRS are now known and the credit ADIT on a hypothetical basis under facts now known to be incorrect, would be wrong. FERC's Remedy also recognizes that customers benefited from our actions by more than $100 million in value, including a $25 million refund made by SERI in 2021 consistent with the amount of ADIT allowed by the IRS, and a separate $18 million refund for excess ADIT also paid in 2021. Meanwhile, SERI took on the risk of interest and penalties with the IRS to provide that value. Absent our actions, customers would have received nothing. And throughout the period at issue, customers paid not $0.01 more in rates than they would have paid has SERI not taken the uncertain tax positions. On the sale leaseback. Sorry. SERI is active on my iPad as well. On the sale-leaseback item, we are disappointed in FERC's conclusion and we have thought rehearing of that decision. The lease renewal was a cost-efficient way to ensure customers would continue to receive access to reliable baseload clean energy from a diverse fuel source. And overall, the sale leaseback saved them over $800 million. On January 10, SERI issued $104 million in refunds required by the order. We have made our compliance refund reports detailing that calculation. FERC will need to review our compliance filing and issue a further order. There is no statutory deadline for the order, but we hope to get FERC's decision soon. As a reminder, SERI refunded Entergy Mississippi $235 million in November as part of its global settlement with the Mississippi Public Service Commission, which represents Entergy Mississippi's 40% interest in 13 different dockets at the FERC. We still believe that a global settlement with the remaining retail regulators on terms similar to the agreement with the MPSC would be in the best interest of all parties. It would resolve disruptive litigation uncertainty for SERI and our stakeholders, including our regulators, accelerate meaningful value to customers, avoid costly and unnecessary third-party litigation fees and allow all parties to move forward with fewer distractions as we work together to pursue the important priorities and outcomes that our customers demand. Moving on to our growth story. Our strategy is centered on two key aspects of our business that are critical to helping our customers meet their goals. First, expanding our clean energy footprint to support industrial sales growth and a growing customer electrification focus; and second, accelerating the resilience and hardening of our system to improve outcomes for existing customers, while giving new customers the confidence to invest in our communities. Our three year $16 billion capital plan supports this strategy, while improving reliability and our customers' experience. This capital plan also provides clear line of sight to our 6% to 8% adjusted EPS growth outlook as well as our credit goals. We are aggressively investing in cleaner energy to benefit customers and communities. Of the $16 billion, close to $6 billion represents generation investments moving us toward a cleaner future. This includes investments in renewables, OCAPS and nuclear. Today, we have just over 800 megawatts of renewables in service, but we're still in the early stages of our renewables build out. Over the next three years, we plan to increase our renewable portfolio by approximately 4,500 megawatts, more than 4 times our renewable capacity today, and that trend will accelerate beyond 2025 with plans for up to 14 to 17 gigawatts in service by the end of 2031. With this plan, we expect to achieve our 50% carbon intensity reduction goal in advance of our 2030 target as well as our new goal for 50% carbon free capacity by 2030. Our plan for accelerated resilience and hardening, known as Entergy Future Ready, is also important to reduce storm risk for our customers and other stakeholders. Last year, we laid out our $15 billion 10 year plan is expected to reduce storm outages, reduce future storm restoration costs and provide a foundation for growth for customers who are dependent on electricity more than ever. Our three year capital plan includes about $900 million for this work and more investment could be added to this plan once regulatory approvals are obtained. We filed our initial resilience plans for New Orleans last July and our plan for Louisiana late last year, and we are targeting decisions in those jurisdictions by the end of this year. For Texas, we are supporting legislation that would allow for an accelerated resilience plan. We expect to make our initial regulatory filing in the third quarter of this year after legislative efforts are completed. We are targeting a decision from the Texas Commission sometime next year. Of the $16 billion three year capital plan, $7 billion represents transmission and distribution investments in addition to our accelerated resilience program to deliver improved reliability and customer experience, through projects focused on asset renewals, enhancements and grid stability. These investments are also designed to prepare the grid for renewables expansion and new customer connections. We've already seen that focused distribution investments make a meaningful difference. Where we've implemented reliability projects, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of outages. Beyond driving important outcomes for our customers, our capital plan provides the foundation for our unique economic development and industrial sales growth story. We continue to see very robust expansion plans from existing and potential new customers, and Kimberly will discuss the key drivers. Two recent clean energy announcements of note are an OCI project for a 1.1 million metric ton blue ammonia facility near Beaumont, Texas, and a Linde project to build a blue hydrogen facility which will supply the OCI plant. The list of industrial projects that we are tracking represent an additional seven terawatt hours of growth above our outlook through 2025. For our planning, we probability adjust the outcomes because we anticipate that not all of those will achieve operations or that may show up on a slower time line. With this backdrop, we remain confident in our longer-term 6% industrial sales growth expectations, consistent with what we laid out at Analyst Day. Affordability remains a core tenant in our pursuit of greater sustainability and reliability for customers. Aggressively pursuing commercial and industrial growth is also important for affordability as it spreads customer-centric investments over a larger customer base. Beyond sales growth, we are supporting customer affordability by working to improve efficiencies and reduce costs, which will translate into benefits for customers. We have historically focused our continuous improvement largely on operating costs. But given the growing capital needs to support customer-centric projects, we have expanded our CI efforts to capital investments. To balance our customers' needs, affordability, reliability and sustainability, we must ensure that we invest capital dollars as efficiently as possible. Higher gas prices and hot weather challenged customer affordability this past summer. The good news is that natural gas prices have come down in recent months, and that will improve affordability for our customers, particularly in Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans, where their fuel clauses adjust monthly. We continue to work on behalf of our customers to pursue federal funding as a potential means to reduce costs, particularly for investments that accelerate the path towards a more resilient future. To that end, we are pleased to report all five of our operating companies received encouragement letters to proceed with full applications for the first round of DOE's grid resilience and innovation partnerships program. All of our proposals are to improve resilience in disadvantaged communities. This round of program funding is expected to conclude this summer and winning submissions will receive funding for half of their project costs. If we were successful on all five projects, the awards would total $190 million. Finally, in 2022, shareholder contributions totaled $25 million. This included $10 million in donations for bill assistance programs. We also stepped up our efforts on energy efficiency and weatherization programs to provide long-term bill relief. Our impact for our customers and communities goes well beyond charitable donations. Our employees logged more than 110,000 hours of volunteer service. We helped low-income customers access $125 million in LIHEAP funding. And through our volunteer income tax assistance program, we helped place 12,000 low-income families on a path to economic stability by helping them claim $22 million in earned income tax credits. We are very proud of the work of our employees and our corporate social responsibility team as they provide critical help to strengthen the communities we serve. 2022 was another successful year for Entergy, yet we still have a lot of work to do. We are laser-focused on successfully delivering value for our key stakeholders. That includes executing the capital plan before us and laying the groundwork for the significant long-term opportunities in renewable generation, clean electrification, and resilience acceleration. It also includes improving operational outcomes, building alignment with stakeholders, reducing unnecessary noise and distractions, and executing financially to strengthen our balance sheet and maintain credit. All of this is foundational to achieving our 6% to 8% adjusted EPS growth plan and delivering important benefits to Entergy's key stakeholders, which will ensure the sustainability of our business for decades to come. I'll now turn the call over to Kimberly who will review our financial results for the year and our outlook.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew. Good morning, everyone. As Drew said, today, we are reporting strong 2022 results in the top half of our guidance range. We executed on key deliverables throughout the year and once again increased our dividend by 6%. We are confident that we will continue to deliver on our commitments, and we are initiating 2023 guidance and affirming our longer-term outlook. I will begin by reviewing results for 2022, and then provide an overview of key drivers for our 2023 guidance. Starting on Slide 3, Entergy adjusted EPS for 2022 was $6.42, $0.40 higher than 2021. Turning to Slide 4, our earnings growth was driven by strong retail sales and the significant investments we've made to support our customers. Weather adjusted retail sales growth was more than 3% for the year as sales rebounded from COVID-19 and Hurricane Ida impacts. Industrial sales were strong, nearly 5% higher than 2021, driven by continued growth from new and expansion customers as well as higher than expected demand from cogeneration customers. Overall, weather in 2022 increased our retail sales. This enabled us to flex our spending for the benefit of customers. Higher power delivery expenses included increased spending on reliability, safety and training, and vegetation maintenance, which was partially due to inflation. Higher prices for chemicals used in our generation processes contributed to increases in both nuclear and non-nuclear generation spending. We also increased our call center support spending to improve customer service levels. Higher costs, which result from capital investment specifically depreciation expense, taxes other than income taxes, and interest expense were also reflected in 2022 results. Slides 5 and 6 show that the fundamentals for our industrial customers remained strong and support our growth outlook. Commodity spreads, operating margins, and utilization rates continue to be robust across key industrial segments that we serve. On a related note, natural gas curves have declined. This is good news for customer bills. Since our EEI update, the price curve has dropped approximately $2 for 2023, which will translate into roughly 4% lower bills for customers. In the longer term, lower natural gas prices would also means higher nuclear production tax credits from the IRA, which would drive additional customer value. The results for EWC are summarized on Slide 7 and reflect the wind down of that business, which wrapped up in 2022. With the successful exit of the merchant nuclear business, EWC will no longer be a reportable segment in 2023, and therefore, will no longer be a blanket adjustment. Any remaining activity from that business will be included in parent & other. On Slide 8, operating cash flow for the year was nearly $2.6 billion, $285 million higher than last year. Higher utility revenue was a large driver of the increase. The receipt of Entergy New Orleans storm securitization proceeds in December also contributed. Increased fuel and purchase power payments at the utility and the effects of the EWC nuclear plants' shutdowns were partial offsets. Moving to credit on Slide 9. We expect to achieve credit metrics that are consistent with rating agency expectations by the end of 2023. Since our last update, we've made significant progress in strengthening our balance sheet. Deferred fuel balances have declined nearly $450 million in the last quarter. Given the lower forward gas curves and our efficient fuel recovery mechanisms, we expect these balances to come down significantly in 2023. Entergy New Orleans received proceeds from securitization bonds related to Hurricane Ida storm recovery. This served to establish a storm reserve of $75 million and provided approximately $125 million of storm cost recovery. Entergy New Orleans is awaiting the council's final determination on the prudence of Ida restoration cost. We expect their decision in the fourth quarter of this year. As Drew discussed, the LPSC voted to approve securitization of the Ida storm restoration cost. We successfully worked with our Louisiana regulators to find a solution that reduced the amount financed by $180 million, which represents the value that customers receive from the deferred taxes associated with the storm. We expect to receive Louisiana securitization proceeds in the second quarter and the funds will be used to reduce debt. Drew also mentioned that we received orders from FERC regarding SERI in late December. As a result, SERI paid $104 million in refunds, the majority of which we are appealing. Based on FERC's December order and analysis of the remaining litigation, we determined that its existing reserve was adequate. Turning to remaining equity needs on Slide 10. In November, we settled 7.7 million shares from our equity distribution program with cash proceeds of approximately $850 million. We used the majority of the proceeds to reduce short-term debt. We have completed nearly all of our projected equity issuances through 2024 with just $130 million remaining. On Slide 11, we are initiating our 2023 adjusted EPS guidance and affirming outlooks consistent with our previous disclosures. Our 2023 adjusted EPS guidance range is $6.55 to $6.85 with a midpoint of $6.70. As you know, our goal is to deliver steady predictable growth for our owners. We continue to expect to achieve 6% to 8% annual adjusted EPS growth. The key drivers for 2023 are highlighted on Slide 12. We expect to see growth from continued customer-centric investments including depreciation expense, interest expense, and taxes other than income taxes resulting from these investments. AFUDC is also expected to increase with longer-term projects such as Orange County Advanced Power Station. We expect retail sales volume to be roughly 1% higher on a weather-adjusted basis. This is largely driven by robust industrial sales growth from new and expansion customers mainly in industrial gases, primary metals, and petrochemical industries. The growth for new and expansion projects is expected to be partially offset by lower cogen sales, which were higher than planned in 2020. O&M was elevated in 2022 due to variable operating costs to support higher sales volume and our flex management program. We plan for O&M to return to normal levels in 2023. And we have also taken into account higher costs for materials, contract labor, and chemicals as we have seen prices increase for these items. Our goal is to deliver steady, predictable outcomes and we will utilize our flex tools as needed. We also remain focused on continuous improvement to achieve sustained company-wide efficiency gains. Finally, changes in parent & other, excluding the effects of interest on intercompany preferred investments that are offset in utility are expected to contribute to our year-over-year adjusted EPS growth. The timing of charitable contributions and residual effects from the shutdown of EWC are key drivers. Effects from higher interest rates are expected to be offset by lower debt balances. 2023 results will also reflect higher shares outstanding. The appendix of our webcast presentation contains additional details regarding the specific drivers. It also outlines quarterly considerations and earning sensitivities. In closing, 2022 was another successful year for Entergy and we're proud of what we have accomplished. We continue to deliver steady, predictable adjusted earnings and dividend growth and adjusted EPS once again in the top half of our guidance range. Our plan is to continue this trend supported by robust fundamentals and the strength of our customer base. By prioritizing the needs of our customers, we will deliver value for all of our key stakeholders. We have a unique growth opportunity and we look forward to sharing our progress as the year unfolds. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza from Guggenheim. Your question, please.
Constantine Lednev:
Hi. Good afternoon, Drew and team. It's actually Constantine here for Shar. Congrats on a great quarter. Can we start off with a question on the 2023 planning assumptions and some of the moving pieces there? I see that the load stepped up from the prior first look up to 1% and O&M seems to have a slight tick up. Can you talk about what drove those changes, and what other changes are now embedded versus the early outlook? And on O&M specifically, is that piece attributed to flex O&M or more of recurring costs?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. Thanks for that. This is Kimberly. As you pointed out, our 2023 sales are up a little bit and our O&M is up a little bit from EEI. As you know that early outlooks are preliminary estimates and we've continued to refine our guidance and our outlooks. And as we did that, we found additional tailwinds both in conservative planning principles and additional opportunities in sales. There are some modest opportunities in interest rates expense, and that enabled us to add additional O&M for customer-centric spending like vegetation, as well as call center support and things like that. I will note that we continue to sit squarely in the middle of our guidance range, and we do plan to use flex spending or flex levers that we have to continue to manage 2023 both from a weather potential effects as well as any other effects that come along.
Constantine Lednev:
Great. That's very helpful. And shifting to SERI, there's still a few proceedings outstanding. Just to clarify some of the new developments from the December order, how much additional refund are retail regulators lending? And more broadly on the process given kind of the individual complaints at receiving orders and the settlement that -- with Mississippi, does that provide some visibility to an ultimate resolution timeframe? And is there any kind of more constructive settlement discussion positions at this point?
Rod West:
So this is Rod. I'll try to unpack the procedural aspects of SERI updates, and I think I'll let Kimberly address anything as it relates to any new financial claims. But two primary matters to update around the uncertain tax position and the sale-leaseback. One is the compliance filing and the other being the -- our opposing party's request for rehearing. On the compliance filing, actually today, we're filing our response to the regulator's opposition to our filing. And there is no specific timeline that FERC has to act on that, so that's one update. The second, a week from now there is the request outstanding by the opposition of -- for rehearing on the decisions that the FERC made at the end of the year. There is a deadline there that FERC has imposed on itself of February 23rd, so it's actually a week from today. That's the request for rehearing filed by the parties there. So two updates there. We'll have to review the order to determine what if any next steps we have in that regard, but those are the two primary updates for the SERI proceedings around the uncertain tax position and sale-leaseback.
Kimberly Fontan:
And just to add as far as from a financial perspective, as you know, we reflected the complete effect of the SERI Mississippi settlement for all companies in June. About $235 million of that $550 million roughly charge that was taken last June went to Mississippi and the remainder is reserved. I think Drew mentioned as I did that there was about $104 million of refunds out of the decision that came in December, and those were paid by SERI to the operating companies in early January.
Constantine Lednev:
And just as a follow up. Does the kind of information, does this kind of set you up for a better position for any kind of settlement discussions just given the fact that some of these issues are starting to get off the table?
Rod West:
Well, I'll -- This is Rod again. I can respond there to the extent that we are progressing with FERC being clear about its intentions. It does set up a clear path to settlement. And I think what's upcoming and outstanding that being FERC having an opportunity to clarify its prior decision in December as well as addressing any of the issues upon which the rehearing is being requested. Again, it further clarifies those outstanding issues that may be standing in the way of settlement. Our position is settlements in the best interest of our customers and other stakeholders, and we will remain aggressive in pursuing that. But it's in FERC's corner right now to clarify their end of 2022 decision that I think will guide our next steps on settlement.
Drew Marsh:
And I'll just add that -- this is Drew. Whenever we were back in December, we did have conversations going whenever the FERC did decide that they were going to put an order out. It halted those conversations to see what those orders were. And so, pending that information and clarity around that as Rod said, we would hope to be able to get back to the table with them.
Constantine Lednev:
That's very helpful. Thank you for taking the questions. I'll jump back in the queue.
Drew Marsh:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo from Bank of America. Your question, please.
Paul Zimbardo:
Hi. Good morning. Thank you, all.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Rod West:
Hey, good morning.
Paul Zimbardo:
Just a couple of smaller ones. Just on the -- you put on your slide that pension is less of an O&M drag year-over-year in 2023. Just -- if you could quantify that, and also how much was the pension contribution that you made last year in 2022?
Kimberly Fontan:
Paul, this is Kimberly. I may need to get back with you on the specific numbers, but in general, our pension expense is down as you noted as the funded status has increased about $500 million to about 85%. We did increase the contribution at the end of the year, but I'll have Bill follow up with the specific number on that. Our pension liability came down due to the increase in interest rates, which, of course, is reflected in the discount rate for that liability, but that was offset by lower than expected returns on the asset side of our investments. But on a net basis, we are in a better funded status position at the end of the year.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. The liability was helped by a number of retirements along with interest rates. I think the number for the contribution was around $400 million in that ballpark, Paul, but Bill can give you the exact number.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay.
Drew Marsh:
And it's going to be in the K.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. And then also, I noticed there was a $33 million depreciation adjustment for SERI you had in your earnings release. If you could just give some information on what that related to.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. As Rod said, the decision that came out in December had a number of components and on the sale-leaseback side, it had a component around recovery of the cost of the portion that's owned by a third party and how that sale-leaseback was. So when the play that back through, the net rate base that was charged over time had been depreciated when you apply the effects of the sale-leaseback changes that the FERC order judge determined or the FERC determined that depreciation is a turnaround of that effect on that rate base that was depreciated over that time. So it's kind of -- you have to take that piece as well as I think you'll see another sort of net liability there and all those are adjusted out. It's related to that -- those items are all related to how you unwind the sale-leaseback component that came out of that order.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay, great. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.
Drew Marsh:
Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Your question, please.
David Arcaro:
Hi. Thanks so much for taking my question.
Drew Marsh:
Absolutely. Good morning.
David Arcaro:
I was curious about the Louisiana Commission at least some of the commissioners seem to be focused on reliability and even outside of major storms. So wondering if there's a path to address that aspect of things, kind of areas that seem to maybe fall out of the specific 10-year resiliency plan, just maybe normal day-to-day outside major storm reliability?
Rod West:
Yeah, reliability is actually a part and parcel of our resilience conversation. They are very much connected. And coming out of the back end of 2022 where our customers were experiencing financial hardship because of rising commodity prices, high usage and the like, the regulators were looking for relief and any disruption to our customers was viewed as a challenge for the regulators. But it didn't stop our stakeholder engagement strategy around reinforcing the need for continued investment, customer-centric investments and reliability. And it will continue to be part of our resilience filing and it's part of the case that we've made and the case will continue to make to the Louisiana Commission. They are aligned with us on those customer-centric investments, and we expect to see improvements in reliability across the board. So they've been interested. It's been aligned with our engagement with them thus far. We expect to continue to have their support, especially around our efforts to accelerate the investments.
Drew Marsh:
And I'll add to Rod's comments that we had or we have a resilience and reliability program that we've been operating for the last years that has shown improvements in our stats. And when I was mentioning continuous improvement moving over into the capital space in my remarks, one of the areas where we are focusing that is in this energy delivery space because we have a reliability program. We are upgrading our resilience program. We also have customer efforts going on, integrating those three things and making it much more optimized. It's a space where we think we can achieve all the outcomes that we're looking for and do it more efficiently. So that is a place where all these things are starting to come together and not -- and are actually separate efforts going on internally in the business.
David Arcaro:
Got it. Thanks. That's helpful. And you alluded to it in the prepared remarks, obviously, the last securitization process was a challenging one and I was just wondering if you could elaborate? Is there a way to lower the risk around storm cost securitization processes going forward in Louisiana? Just what kind of initiatives can you pursue specifically to kind of align parties more smoothly going forward?
Drew Marsh:
I'll start and I'll let Rod jump in. But I think the main thing that we can do is embark on a resilience program together. And that is a big opportunity we have, filings in Louisiana and in New Orleans, and as I said we -- we're planning to do that in Texas later this year. That's the biggest opportunity and that will move all of our stakeholders forward in terms of preparing for storms and responding more effectively to storms. So, Rod, I'll let you...
Rod West:
Yeah, and I think that's the point. Our customers are agnostic as to whether the investment is a reliability investment or a resiliency investment, and when there is a storm and the customers are interrupted, they are experiencing the hardships of that interruption. That's what was part of the driver for the heightened tension both in our -- from the regulators as well as our investment plans in pursuing accelerated investments in resiliency because our customers had the recency of the experience with storms. And so, Drew's point is right on point that if we can get alignment around accelerated resiliency investments, our customers will actually experience better reliability experiences as well. They are quite connected.
David Arcaro:
Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, great. Thanks so much.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra from Evercore ISI. Your question, please.
Durgesh Chopra:
Hey, team. Thank you for giving me time. Hey, just...
Drew Marsh:
Absolutely. Good morning.
Durgesh Chopra:
Good morning, Drew. Just -- just clarification. What to expect on February 2020 -- February 22nd? So is the FERC actually going to put out an order where they will kind of -- you have the compliance refund, will they affirm the compliance refund report? I'm just trying to kind of figure out what to look for there?
Rod West:
We expect them by February 23rd if I'm hearing your question correctly. We are expecting the FERC to respond to the parties' request for rehearing. So any substantive aspects of that is unknown to us, but our expectation is that FERC will respond to the parties' request to have certain of those issues reheard, not necessarily a substantive ruling one way or the other.
Durgesh Chopra:
I see. So if they basically say no to the rehearing, then I guess, does that clear way the path to you kind of going through other settlements and putting that to bed? Is that the right framework that I'm thinking about?
Rod West:
Well, the parties will have the opportunity to appeal if they're not satisfied with the outcome. I think from our vantage point, there were certain advantages to give FERC the opportunity to reaffirm the initial position it took, and we had some challenges with the sale-leaseback part of the order. And so, what we're looking for out of this candidly is clarity. And we'll wait to see what -- how FERC responds in the next week to order our next steps.
Durgesh Chopra:
Understood. Thank you, guys. That's all I had. All my other questions have been answered. Thanks, again.
Drew Marsh:
Excellent. Thank you.
Rod West:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Seaport. Your question, please.
Angie Storozynski:
Thank you. So the first on FERC and SERI. So FERC scheduled hearings and that's a last challenge that talks about the prudence of the up rates of Grand Gulf, which I mean on its own frankly, it's hard to believe that this challenge wasn't outright rejected. So I mean, is there any read through? Are you hearing anything from FERC why those hearings were even scheduled?
Rod West:
Hey, Angie. It's Rod. You're -- I'm assuming you're talking about the orders -- the rehearing order that the FERC released today where they declined our motion to...
Angie Storozynski:
Yes.
Rod West:
Rehear. Yeah. So the order is procedural only as we read it. It doesn't order any refunds or require any further actions. And they went so far as to explain that in setting the prudence complaint for hearing and settlement, it imposes no obligation on us. It doesn't deny us any of our rights. It fixes no legal relationships, but it simply initiates further proceedings. And they're with holding their right and ability to address anything substantive along the lines. It's not unexpected for us, but it's -- again, it's a procedural and not a substantive order. So there's not anything to read from it from a subsidy standpoint.
Drew Marsh:
And, Angie, to be sure we appreciate your sentiment.
Rod West:
Yeah. And the next step is the settlement offer March -- SERI settlement offer to the parties on March 1st, but again, Angie, taking it as a procedural matter, not a substantive one.
Angie Storozynski:
Okay. And then, completely -- changing topics completely here. So I mean, I was just wondering there is this discussion in the industry overall about switching from solar ITC to solar PTC. Obviously, from a regulatory utility perspective that's helpful given no issue with ITC normalization, but is there -- I mean, as you look at it, right, especially that your solar resource would be superior or above average, I mean, is this shift -- would that be actually in any way EPS accretive? I mean, I'm just thinking about the earnings recognition under the -- on the solar PTCs versus the ITC.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. Good question, Angie. The way we think about the PTCs is they provide -- and any IRA in general is it provides opportunity for incremental investment. We'll need to work with our regulators as we have over a number of years successfully to provide back the tax credits to customers in a way that provides them the value, but continues to support our credit and our balance sheet. And so, we've begun those conversations early, but how those play out will be a matter of discussion with our regulators. We've talked about using those as credits against rate base as compared to direct credit, for example, to customers as it gives us an opportunity to manage our balance sheet as well as ensure the opportunity to customers. And it also helps with the volatility associated with customers' bills on PTCs, particularly as it relates to the nuclear PTC.
Drew Marsh:
And Angie, this is Drew. I would add to Kimberly's comments that we have a 50% planning assumption to the extent that this does help make us more competitive. There might be an opportunity for incremental investment over and above what we're planning, but we still have to go achieve that. So we're continuing to work to get more competitive. And this is certainly helping level the playing field for us as you said versus the ITC framework. But that's an opportunity for us that we will have to go achieve out there in the future.
Angie Storozynski:
Okay. And then, lastly, you did make comments about changes in forward power curves and the quantification of the nuclear PTC benefit that would accrue to your customers, but we haven't yet received any guidelines from the IRS and it sounds like it's not expected until the early summer. But is there -- but have you been in discussions with the IRS about how they will potentially quantify the current energy stream that nuclear plants are getting?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yes, we're certainly working through EEI with our partners and with the other utilities on getting clarification on these nuclear PTCs. We'll obviously have to wait with the rest of the industry on what that actually comes out as, but we do believe that that's an opportunity for us and we'd be eligible for those. And it provides, as Drew said, an opportunity for customers, both to manage builds as well as an opportunity for incremental investment depending on how those come out. But we have definitely been in discussions with them through EEI.
Drew Marsh:
And we did anticipate that they would be probably a little slower on this because they had more time. It doesn't kick in until 2024. And so, we anticipated that they're going to cover a lot of other things like the corporate minimum tax and other important elements first before they got to that.
Angie Storozynski:
Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, both.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell from Mizuho. Your question, please.
Anthony Crowdell:
Hey, good morning. Hopefully, just two quick ones. I -- you may have addressed them, but just curious. I guess there's two issues going on with SERI. What is a reasonable expectation when you think of all of the challenges that will play out at FERC like what's a reasonable assumption when all that is over? Is that within six months or you think it could carry longer?
Rod West:
We can't say because FERC has -- on the issues we just alluded to, doesn't have a specific timeline. They are in control of the schedule there. The updates that I've given was the filing we were making today that -- where the FERC has no scheduled deadline. That's in regard to our compliance filing. Then, the other was a week from today, the timing that FERC imposed on itself to reply to the request for rehearing from all the other parties, but it is in FERC’s domain to decide when they make these decisions. So I could not give any expected timeframes to resolve all of these. That's another one of the reasons why we're so aggressive in engaging with the regulators to pursue a settlement to remove the uncertainty inherent in FERC's operations. No disrespect to our FERC commissioners.
Anthony Crowdell:
Great. And just lastly, in Slide 9 you go through some credit and liquidity metrics there. You talk about maybe about by year end, you hope to be at the range or better. Your FFO to debt, especially with Moody's trying to be at 14%. I guess, do you have a targeted credit cushion or a targeted level you hope to be maybe by 2024 that you could share?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. As you pointed out, we are targeting to be above 14% by the end of 2023 and closing out the securitization for Louisiana that was approved in January is a significant help to enable that. As far as longer term, we are targeting 15% and we're targeting that over the outlook period. So you'll see us continue to focus on strengthening our balance sheet over the outlook period to get to that target of around 15%.
Anthony Crowdell:
Great. Thanks for taking my questions.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question is a follow-up from Constantine from Guggenheim. Your question, please.
Constantine Lednev:
Hi. Thanks for taking my follow up. Maybe just to elaborate on the O&M targets and conditions that you're seeing, you kind of mentioned some of the costs escalating, but just trying to get a sense on what percentage of O&M is subject to some of these external factors, and how do those elevated costs play into regulatory relief just given the FRP revenue increase caps?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. Thanks for the follow up. As far as inflation, we do have some inflation costs in our 2023 guidance. We've talked about costs like commodity costs and chemicals that have increased. We've seen some labor cost increase in our vegetation contracts, for example. But as I said, we have seen some relief on that, particularly on the commodity side as it relates to either the resources that go into our capital plan. Things like copper, nickel, steel, all these are down year-over-year. So there are some -- it's a blend, if you will, but we do think we have some flex levers in 2023 to help us manage both our O&M and our overall -- where we are in the guidance range.
Constantine Lednev:
So, no kind of impact on the regulatory relief just given some of that flex that you have. I think the early outlook has like a 9% utility book ROE, any change in thinking around there?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. So as far as Louisiana and Arkansas where Arkansas certainly has an FRP, we continue to work to manage within that cap. Increased sales which U.S. Steel will come in over the outlook period will certainly help us in that regard. From a Louisiana perspective, as you know, in June is the last filing of our FRP in the current cycle and we would expect to have either a rate case or new FRP filing. Those modifications out of those outcomes would help us move up -- but you'd see their ROEs move up hopefully depending on the outcomes associated with those rate mechanisms.
Constantine Lednev:
Great and quick follow-up on the question around credit metrics. Just are capital market conditions changing your thoughts around the process or kind of capital allocation or dividend decisions? And kind of more broadly, how are you thinking about optimizing those financing needs, especially with CapEx ramps up in the second half of the decade?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. We certainly -- as we noted from an equity perspective, we've met our needs through 2024 largely. We have about $130 million left. We've talked about a total need between 2025 and 2026. We haven't broken that out, but as we accelerate capital investments and we see additional renewable growth in the back half, we'll definitely have to look at how we are financing that most effectively. But we continue to watch interest rates as well as other mechanisms to finance, but we don't have anything as far as alternate financing or anything like that, that we have that's executable at this point.
Drew Marsh:
And it's not changing our capital mix really either at this time. We're using the internal tool for continuous improvement and trying to flex around those internal options rather than try to adjust what we're doing on an external basis at this point.
Constantine Lednev:
Excellent. That's very helpful. Thanks so much and great quarter.
Drew Marsh:
Thanks, Constantine.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question for today comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella from Credit Suisse. Your question, please.
Nicholas Campanella:
Hey, everyone. Thanks for getting me in here. Just one from me today. In Louisiana, I know you're kind of on the last year of the FRP cadence and I guess you'll either file for an extension in the third quarter or a rate case. Can you just give us a sense of where you're leaning there and any additional thoughts around that? Thank you.
Rod West:
Well, we are prepared for both tracks and the filing of a rate case. It doesn't prevent us from continuing to work with the commission and our related stakeholders on an extension or renewal of the FRP. So they are parallel paths, not inconsistent with the prior as I recall in my two iterations of review. So the process will likely be the same. Given the fact that we have the accelerated resilience filing and any anticipated tweaks along those lines, we'd be looking to figure out with our stakeholders what's the most efficient path for us to incorporate the resilience components aside from the rest of the components of our capital plan and rate design. So more to come but parallel paths.
Nicholas Campanella:
Thanks for that. Have a great day.
Rod West:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to Bill Abler for any further remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Jonathan, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on March 1st and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Operator:
Thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Third Quarter 2022 Entergy Corporation Earnings Release. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today’s program is being recorded. And now I’d like to introduce your host for today’s program, Mr. Bill Abler, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s CEO, Drew Marsh; and then Kimberly Fontan, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person has no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday, the planned leadership succession that we announced in August took effect. While I am honored to have the opportunity to lead this great company, I am not alone. Leo remains as the Executive Chair for the next few months and we will continue to execute at a high level on our strategic path. Leo built a strong bench of talented leaders. Kimberly Fontan takes over as Chief Financial Officer, and Kimberly Cook-Nelson assumes the role of Chief Nuclear Officer. Meanwhile, Chris Bakken will serve as the Executive Vice President of Entergy Infrastructure to provide leadership and mentorship to both Pete Norgeot, who was recently promoted to Chief Operating Officer; and Kimberly Cook-Nelson as they settle into our top operational roles. While the new senior leadership -- with the new senior leadership team in place, Entergy has a bright future and we expect to deliver on the commitments that we have made to our key stakeholders. Today, we are reporting strong quarterly adjusted earnings of $2.84 per share. This is another solid quarter that keeps us on track for the year. In fact, with our biggest quarter behind us, we are narrowing our 2022 guidance by raising the bottom of the range by $0.10 per share and we are affirming our longer term outlooks for 6% to 8% annual growth through 2025. Last week, our Board of Directors raised our quarterly dividend by 6%. The annualized amount is now $4.28 per share, consistent with our target payout ratio of 60% to 65%. During the quarter, we continued to execute on many important fronts. Steady predictable growth depends on steady predictable regulatory mechanisms. Four of our operating companies have annual formula rate plans to provide timely recovery of our investments to benefit customers. Mississippi’s FRP filing was approved in July. Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana’s FRP rate changes were effective on September 1st. And we expect Entergy Arkansas’ annual review to wrap up in December. Entergy Texas filed a base rate case this year and it is proceeding on schedule with hearings planned in December. Absent the settlement, we expect a decision in the second quarter of next year. New Orleans City Council approved a $206 million securitization financing for storm cost recovery and replenishment of Entergy New Orleans storm escrow. While the prudent review of Ida cost is ongoing, moving forward with the financing will benefit customers by reducing interest rate risk. Louisiana’s review of Ida cost is also ongoing. Staff recently filed supportive testimony and recommended full cost recovery. Hearings are scheduled for December and we expect to receive securitization funds early next year. These developments are an important step in moving our credit metrics back to targeted levels. In September, we received an ALJ recommendation on our proposed Orange County Advanced Power Station or OCAPS. It was very encouraging that the presiding judges recommended approval of the project and they recognize the significant economic and reliability benefits that this facility would bring to our customer in Texas. The ALJ did not support the hydrogen capability for the plant though we continue to believe that day one hydrogen co-firing capability for OCAPS is in the best interest of our customers. I will note that the Governor of Texas has indicated his support for the plant, including its hydrogen capability. OCAPS hydrogen capability is less than 5% of the total investment, and it provides a critically important option for fuel diversity and ensures the plant’s continued value in a low carbon future. Also, an economically viable hydrogen economy is no longer decades away. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act promises to improve hydrogen economics and further accelerate clean hydrogen production. As we have said, Entergy’s region is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this opportunity and we expect the Gulf Coast to lead the way, bringing jobs and economic benefits to our communities. The decision on Orange County ultimately lies with the commission and it is on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting. If approved, OCAPS will be our first unit capable of burning up to 30% hydrogen on day one1 with plans to eventually be 100% hydrogen capable. The Gulf region remains a prime target for onshoring growth opportunities. As we laid out at Analyst Day, our industrial customers have many inherent advantages that make them low cost producers on the global stage. This is enhanced by recent supply chain and geopolitical conditions. Commodity spreads important to our customers remain positive and continue to support the outlooks we laid out at Analyst Day. We continue to see announcements for new projects in our service area. For example, Entergy Texas and New Fortress Energy signed an MOU for collaboration on developing renewable energy and hydrogen infrastructure. The partnership will help accelerate the green hydrogen economy in Southeast Texas. New Fortress Energy’s project will leverage industry-leading electrolysis technology from Plug Power for the production of more than 50 tons per day of green hydrogen. Entergy Texas will supply 120 megawatts of green power to serve this facility, which is expected to be one of the largest of its kind in North America. In Louisiana, Olin and Plug Power announced plans to produce green hydrogen from a 15-ton per day plant. Both of these projects are good examples of how the hydrogen economy is coming to life in our service territory. CF Industries announced a $2 billion carbon capture ammonia complex in Ascension Parish, which will create more than 400 jobs. This is another great example of customer growth tied to decarbonization. As I said, we have seen a lot of progress in the last few months. We continue to monitor the significant pipeline of opportunities for signs of impacts from broader economic uncertainty. We have not seen a noticeable pause or pull back. As we said at Analyst Day, fundamentals of our region uniquely position the Gulf Coast for substantial growth even in a challenging economy. We also continue to make progress on expanding our renewables footprint. We received approval for the 250-megawatt driver solar acquisition in Arkansas. This facility is being constructed near U.S. Steel’s expansion in Osceola and it is expected to be completed in 2024, and U.S. Steel received the facility’s clean energy attributes. This illustrates how we work collaboratively with our customers and our regulators to support growth, jobs and sustainability in our region. In September, the Louisiana Commission approved four solar projects totaling 475 megawatts. They also approved our new Geaux Green tariff, which -- that’s G-E-A-U-X, Geaux, which began taking reservations from large commercial and industrial customers yesterday. Based on inquiries to-date, we are expecting strong demand and it arrived. The 365 megawatts allocated to the tariff were fully reserved in just a few minutes, indicating strong faster demand for sustainability products. We also announced plans for two new renewable RFPs. Entergy Texas is seeking 2,000 megawatts of clean energy and Entergy Mississippi is seeking 500 megawatts. We now have eight active RFPs totaling 7,000 megawatts. We have made selections in four of those RFPs and are negotiating with counterparties. We will announce specific projects once agreements are reached. In addition to clean energy, resilience is important for our customers who depend more than ever on reliable electricity supply. Since Hurricane Ida, we have invested in new infrastructure built to higher standards that will improve the system’s resilience, including more than 22,000 distribution poles, more than 2,200 transmission structures and eight fuel stations. Execution on our resilience investment is ongoing and our base plan includes investments that will continue to upgrade our system. At Analyst Day, we laid out our $15 billion 10-year accelerated resilience plan. We expect our proposed investments to significantly reduce physical and financial storm risk, and we are engaging with stakeholders to make our case. We made our first filing in New Orleans. We plan to file in Louisiana before year end and in Texas by mid-next year. We did our homework and the accelerated resilience plan is heavily informed by our neighbors in Florida, knowing that their hardened assets performed well and Hurricane Ian along with the strong performance of our own hardened infrastructure over the past couple of years gives us confidence that we can substantially reduce our exposure to storms and provide meaningful benefits to customers. Affordability remains a top priority and we announced several initiatives last quarter to help our customers when they saw higher bills from both warmer temperatures and higher natural gas prices. As part of our recent customer affordability initiatives, we have helped more than 35,000 customers with more than $5 million in bill credits. We have held energy fairs in 48 communities to provide helpful information to our customers about how to manage their bills and benefit from energy efficiency. We have also weatherized many low income customer’s homes and installed energy efficient appliances including new heat pumps and tankless water heaters. These efforts are only a part of what we are doing to help with affordability. Many of our past actions are mitigating the impacts of high natural gas prices for our customers today. The investments we made over the last eight years in more efficient generation and renewable resources are reducing fuel costs. Based on 2022 gas prices, these modern assets are reducing fuel cost by an estimated $400 million compared to what it would have otherwise been. Our nearly decade-long participation in MISO has also produced customer savings, which totaled more than $2 billion through 2021. Support for economic development and growth in our service areas also helps with customer affordability. Not only does it spread fixed costs over a growing customer base and also provides economic growth and jobs that are critical for our communities. Another lever for affordability is continuous improvement, which is more important than ever. We are using CI to find efficiencies that will offset inflationary pressures and create headroom for new investments to help customers. We have a robust growth story at Entergy. We are seeing significant industrial growth as economic indicators for businesses in the Gulf South continue to be positive. Besides driving investments and growth for our owners, that industrial growth is important for our communities, especially in today’s economic environment. This opportunity is unique to Entergy and it will benefit each of our key stakeholders. We see our growth continuing for years to come as our customers need to help our -- help to -- need our help to achieve their decarbonization goals. It starts with growing our clean energy capacity, which will reduce our customer’s indirect emissions and continues through electrification of industrial processes to reduce their direct emissions. We are very excited about our near-term and long-term prospects, and we look forward to continuing this conversation with you at the EEI financial conference in a few weeks. Before I wrap up, I’d like to say a few words about Leo Denault. He yesterday retired from his role as our Chief Executive Officer after a long and successful career. While we won’t see him day-to-day, the impacts of his tireless dedication to our four key stakeholders remain. Under Leo’s leadership, we simplified our business to our core utilities. We turned around our nuclear operations. We redefined our customer focus. We have progressed and broadened our ESG commitments. We raised diversity, inclusion and belonging as a strategic pillar. We emerged as a national leader in corporate citizenship. Without missing a beat, we navigated through the pandemic and storms of the last couple of years. And we established a clear vision of our future opportunities. As part of his distinguished career, Leo completed 74 earnings calls over the past 19 years and he has been a steady presence for our key stakeholders. We will work with him as Executive Chairman for the next several months, as we continue to make progress on the vision and strategy that he established. As I turn the call over a word about our new Chief Financial Officer, Kimberly Fontan. Most recently, Kimberly served as our Chief Accounting Officer and she also has senior leadership experience in operations and regulatory roles. Kimberly brings a broad experience and perspective, and she’s a great addition to Entergy’s senior leadership team. Now I will turn the call over to our Chief Financial Officer, Kimberly Fontan.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you, Drew, for that introduction. I am honored to join the leadership team and I am pleased to join you all on the call today. I am looking forward to working with all of you in the financial community. As Drew said, we have had another strong quarter, with results to keep us on track to meet our financial commitments. Summarized on slide three, our adjusted earnings were $2.84 per share. Consistent with comments on guidance last quarter, we are narrowing our guidance range by raising the bottom end $0.10. This result is consistent with our objective of steady, predictable earnings growth. We are also affirming our outlooks through 2025. On slide four, you will see the adjusted EPS drivers for the quarter, higher retail sales was the primary driver as last year was impacted by Hurricane Ida. Weather this year was also warmer than normal. Excluding weather, sales growth in the quarter was 5.7%. Industrial sales were up 7%. We continue to see growth from new and expansion projects in line with our expectations. The primary contributors to the industrial growth were chlor alkali and transportation customers. Sales to small industrial and cogen customers were also higher than last year. O&M increased for the quarter due to several factors. Power delivery expenses increased, including higher vegetation costs in part driven by inflation. We also had increased costs for transmission maintenance and nuclear operations. Bad debt expense rose on the heels of higher bills this past summer. Other drivers for the quarter results include higher depreciation and interest expense from investments we continue to make to serve customers. You can see on slides five and six that the fundamentals underlying our industrial sales and growth remained strong and we have not seen signs of a pullback. Industrial commodity spreads continued to support positive margins and robust Gulf Coast operational levels, refining remains highly profitable with low product inventory supporting high operational rates, record commodity spreads continue to drive Gulf LNG exports to Europe today and expansion of this capacity in the future. The U.S. Gulf ammonia producers are running at high rates to help fill the global supply gap. Beyond supportive commodity spreads, the Gulf Coast region continues to offer industrial customer’s inherent labor, infrastructure and global shipping advantages. And as we discussed at Analyst Day, this next wave of our industrial growth is being accelerated due to onshoring trends. These trends are caused by broken supply chain globally, manufacturers needing reduced geopolitical investment risk, as well as global customers who need energy security. The results for EWC are summarized on slide seven. The shutdown and sale of our merchant nuclear plants continue to be the main drivers for that business. Operating cash flow is shown on slide eight. The quarter’s result is $993 million, a decline compared to last year. Key variances, including the timing of fuel and purchase power payments, the wind down of EWC and increased O&M, offset partially by higher utility customer receipts. Turning to credit and liquidity on slide nine, we continue to work towards achieving in range or better credit metrics by the end of 2023. We continue to monitor our deferred fuel position, and in the third quarter, our balance increased approximately $150 million. We continue to work with our retail regulators to manage the impact of high fuel cost on customer bills. The forward curve for natural gas continues to decline, which helps with customer bills as well. As deferred fuel balances are recovered, our credit metrics should improve. We continue to make progress on the securitization front. A credit positive development in the quarter was the City Council’s approval for Entergy New Orleans to issue securitization bonds to establish a new storm reserve and recover Ida storm cost. This, of course, is subject to the City Council’s prudence review. Last quarter, we gave our early take on the impact of the inflation reduction add for our customers and for Entergy’s cash and credit position. After additional analysis, we continue to be optimistic about the benefits from this legislation. Slide 10 provides highlights on the cash and credit impacts of the IRA. One important note is that we do not expect to be subject to the minimum tax provisions until 2026. The chart illustrates the relationship between gas and power prices and the resulting nuclear production tax credits at various commodity prices. We expect to see meaningful value for our customers, though, as you can see, the value is dependent on volatile commodity prices. We will work with our retail regulators to flow the value of the production tax credits to customers in a manner that mitigates volatility on their bills. We see meaningful value from the solar PTCs as well. The PTCs increased competitiveness of utility owned solar. The value for customers will increase over time as we grow our renewables portfolio. We remain encouraged about the prospects for the IRA to create value for our key stakeholders. Slide 11 summarizes the progress against our equity plan. To-date, of the $1.2 billion expected need through 2024, we have issued nearly $1.1 billion, most of which are equity forwards. We plan to exercise the equity forward and receive the cash proceeds by the end of the year. Moving to slide 12, given the added clarity from 3 quarters of actuals, we are narrowing our adjusted EPS guidance range and affirming our long-term 6% to 8% growth outlook through 2025. For the full year, we once again raised our expectation on sales growth. This is largely due to higher than planned sales to cogeneration customers. While a positive for 2022 going forward, we will continue to plan conservatively for this customer group as electric demand from these customers varies. Commercial sales also have been higher than we expected a positive sign for economic health. The higher than planned revenue from weather and sales gives us the ability to spend in areas that benefit our customers and de-risk future periods. Our O&M estimate for the year reflects flex spending, including initiatives to improve customer call response time and the enhanced customer assistance programs that we have discussed. We are also able to absorb some higher than expected expenses like vegetation management and ammonia used to reduce NOX emissions at our power generation plants without having to reduce other costs. Actions like these help us ensure that we deliver steady, predictable adjusted EPS growth year in and year out. The Entergy management team will be in Florida in less than two weeks and we will provide our preliminary three-year capital plan and high level drivers for 2023’s earnings expectations. Additionally, we will discuss Entergy’s long-term growth story, including our unique industrial growth opportunity, our accelerated resilience program, renewables expansion, IRA opportunities and our role in the hydrogen economy. Entergy has great opportunities ahead for our key stakeholders. We have a strong base plan to meet our strategic objectives and we look forward to talking to you about our plans at EEI. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Thanks. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from JPMorgan. Your question please.
Jeremy Tonet:
Hi. Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet:
Thanks. Just want to start off with the 2,500 megawatts add in RFPs. Just what is your expectation for utility owned opportunities there versus PPAs?
Kimberly Fontan:
Hey. Thanks for the question, Jeremy. Good question. Our current expectation is at least 50% or better from an owned perspective and that’s what’s assumed in our outlook.
Jeremy Tonet:
And does...
Drew Marsh:
It’s consistent with where we were. Sorry, Jeremy, this is Drew. It’s consistent with where we were at Analyst Day.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Does IRA present the opportunity that this could be a bit higher?
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. That’s certainly something that we are looking at. Recall that a lot of our investments on renewables are in the back half of the decade. So we certainly expect to see benefits from IRA in that period and we will talk more about that at Analyst Day. But we do think that the IRA provides upside, as well as reducing the need for tax equity partnerships on that front.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That’s helpful. And just if I could ask about U.S. Gulf Coast industrial activity expansion, just wondering what cadence do you see for that growth as far as LNG export capacity and other factors? What time frame do you see that ramping up and how do you think about the secondary impact where you bring kind of more and better jobs into the area and what that does for your residential customers?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. I think that’s a great question, Jeremy. This is Drew. I will start off and then Kimberly or Rod can add to that. But it’s -- what we laid out at Analyst Day was 6% compound annual growth through the five-year period. There’s a big chunk of that that’s coming in around 24% and that’s -- I think that’s probably the biggest step-up in our forecast. But it’s still consistent with what we laid out at that point and we see it continuing to be robust. In terms of jobs, it certainly will be helpful for jobs in our area and continue to allow our customer -- our residential and commercial customer bases to grow. It’s not as big as it was 30 years ago, honestly, because of the amount of automation and other things that are inherent in modern industrial facilities. But that also gives us the opportunity to be much more competitive on the global stage. So I think those there are trade-offs in those pieces. But that’s one of the things that makes our region very attractive. I don’t know, Rod, if you have anything to add to that?
Rod West:
No. I think that makes the point. The message we sent an Analyst Day around the back half of the decade, representing the lion’s share of the growth, and even at Analyst Day, we showed what sectors we thought would populate that growth as well, tying in our industrial expansion with the electrification and ESG concerns of our customers. So we ought to leave it at that.
Drew Marsh:
Okay.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That’s helpful. I will leave it there. Thanks.
Drew Marsh:
Thanks, Jeremy.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza from Guggenheim. Your question please.
Shar Pourreza:
Hey, guys. Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Shar.
Shar Pourreza:
Drew, maybe just starting off around your earnings guidance, just, I guess, looking at your O&M run rate increase and interest rate headwinds for 2023, how are you sort of thinking about the contingency and plan levers on offset, et cetera? I guess how does sort of this inflationary environment kind of change your planning parameters versus the Analyst Day expectations, especially as we are looking to bridge into next year with a sort of a $0.30 band at the top and bottom end?
Kimberly Fontan:
Thanks, Shar, for that question. I will start with your O&M question. The drivers for 2022 were really around our flex levers, which includes both pull-forwards and onetime items like the enhanced customer assistance program that we talked about earlier this year. The pull-forwards give us ramp to pull-forward things from future years and de-risk future periods. The other impact from 2022 was inflation, as you noted, and we were able to cover that in 2022 through the increased weather and volume that we had in the first three quarters of the year. That said, we have included a level of inflation in our forecast for 2023 and we expect to meet our outlook as said, and we cover that with continuous improvement opportunities that we have been working on. As it relates to your interest rate question, I think, at Analyst Day, the outlook was about 5%, we -- or 5.25%. We have increase the interest rate expense to about a little less than 6% on the long-term debt and about 5.25% on the shorter term debt and that’s included in our outlook. That said, our treasury team has done a lot of work over the last few years who would help mitigate exposure to potential rising interest rates by refinancing long-term debt in the periods of lower interest rates to help us offset in future periods.
Shar Pourreza:
Got it.
Drew Marsh:
And Shar, I will just add one thing on that last piece. We have a lot of cash expected to come in. Kimberly mentioned that we are intending to exercise the equity forwards and then we have the securitizations, which we should be finishing up over the next several months. Those two things should alleviate some borrowing needs in the next near-term, I should say.
Shar Pourreza:
Okay. Perfect. And then just to ask, maybe just shifting to financing, I mean, obviously, your capital growth opportunities are increasing with resiliency, hardening, green tariffs, et cetera. I guess, how are you sort of thinking about more accretive ways to finance this growth in this current really challenging capital markets environment. I mean there’s been some press sort of highlighting that you could be looking to raise about $2 billion through a minority sale of your utilities combined into a holding company, excluding Texas. I guess any sort of general comments here, any sense on timing, is there a process that started? I mean you certainly won’t be the first utility that’s looking to optimize an asset in lieu of traditional financing?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. So I will hand this over to Kimberly to address it first.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. Thanks, Shar. There’s no new news on this front. I know we had talked to you about the value difference between private capital and public capital markets, and to the extent that we can capitalize on that, and there’s a difference there, we would be compelled to do that. But there’s no new news on that front at this point.
Shar Pourreza:
Okay. Got it. Figured this is Drew’s first CEO call, I was going to try to put him on the spot. Thanks, guys.
Drew Marsh:
And I hand it to Kimberly very softly.
Shar Pourreza:
But give you the flex. You did perfectly. Thanks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Your question please.
David Arcaro:
Hey. Good morning. Thanks very much for taking my question.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
David Arcaro:
On the AMT, I just wanted to check, how much of an impact are you expecting once we reach 2026. I think you had in one of the slides in terms of when the corporate AMT would start impacting the business. And I was wondering in the interim over the next couple of years, just given that same slide, slide 10, we are currently seeing Henry Hub forward prices kind of in the 450 range or above over the next few years. Is there an AMT impact at all in like 2024, 2025 that’s offset by the nuclear PTC level? I am wondering if you could just compare those two impacts. Thanks.
Kimberly Fontan:
Sure. Good question. As the slide indicates, we don’t expect the corporate minimum tax until 2026. That’s not being offset in 2024, 2025. If you think about how that’s being calculated, it’s a 3-year historical average and then we can replace book with tax depreciation. So that enables us to not expect to have a minimum tax until 2026. That said, to your point on the graph on the right, we do think that we have significant opportunity on the nuclear PTCs. But it is dependent on the gas and the power prices and where those are at the time. But those do start coming in, in 2023 and 2024 and so we would expect those to come in earlier than that corporate minimum tax. And we will work with our regulators to provide benefits to our customers, but also offset the effects of that corporate minimum tax when we do have exposure to that.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Great. Thanks. That’s helpful. And then on the upcoming Louisiana Resilience filing, I was just wondering if there’s any feedback or initial conversations from relevant stakeholders in the state around the importance, the priority of kicking off this work and what the appetite might be?
Rod West:
Hi. It’s Rod. The short answer is, the stakeholders in the State of Louisiana all have expressed an interest in resiliency. They certainly understand the demand after several stakeholder engagements between reliability and resiliency. The commission in and of itself, obviously, is always going to be interested in how we pace it. And certainly, given the sensitivities around the current economic environment, how does this ultimately impact customer bills. But I think the -- as we stated in Drew’s opening comments, it’s very clear that the lessons that we learned from NextEra is also highlighting the work that we have been doing to get the alignment around the need for accelerated resiliency spending. Obviously, the decision is going to ultimately play out through the resi -- after the resiliency filing when the LPSC sets a procedural schedule. But the homework that we have done to-date all the way up to and including the most recent lessons learned from our friends in Florida, all informing our bullish point of view around the need to do this. We are not in a position to tell you in advance or to get ahead of our regulators, but we do believe we are making good progress on getting a line amongst our stakeholder group.
David Arcaro:
Okay. Great. Thanks so much.
Drew Marsh:
Thanks, Dave.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra from Evercore ISI. Your question please.
Durgesh Chopra:
Hey, team. Good morning and congrats Drew your first call and Kimberly to you as well.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Kimberly Fontan:
Thank you.
Durgesh Chopra:
Yes. Of course. All my other questions have been answered. I was just wondering if you could update if there’s an update to share on the SERI settlement. I know you had this settlement with Mississippi, but anything there that we should focus on as we get into the year-end or next step there?
Rod West:
It’s Rod again. No new news that I can communicate publicly. I can share affirmatively that we are actively engaged with relevant stakeholders and trying to contact a settlement and find common ground and I can only report that, that work is ongoing, but nothing public.
Durgesh Chopra:
Okay. That’s helpful, guys. Thank you.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo from Bank of America. Your question please.
Paul Zimbardo:
Hi. Good morning. Thank you.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Paul.
Paul Zimbardo:
If I could just follow up on Shar’s question a little bit and thanks for the details on the O&M. If you could just break down that, I believe it’s $0.60 higher than the original guidance, basically how much is that acceleration versus more the inflation and kind of organic pieces of that?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. Good question. There’s a number of both pull-forwards, as well as inflationary items. It’s hard to get to the specific number. But from an inflation perspective, we are seeing that more in -- you see it in fuel, you see it in chemical type costs and then we see it on the capital side and less so in the labor market side. But we have included an ongoing level of inflation. And then if you think about the flex side, we have long talked about flexing up when there are opportunities from whether in volume or other things that happen in the business and that’s really what you are seeing on the other side, opportunities to spend where we can support our customers and our stakeholders.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. And Paul, this is Drew. I will add that the inflation effects, they are touching us. We are not immune to that, like, the rest of the industry. The places where we are seeing it start to creep in on the labor side or Kimberly mentioned the commodity type effects. And so we are also seeing, what I would say, in commodity services area. So vegetation is a big area where we have seen inflation and so we have been ramping up, as you mentioned, our continuous improvement efforts to offset that, because the inflation piece doesn’t go away easily and so there are continuous improvement efforts are ramping up to offset that over the next however long we need it. And we are finding actually good success in the offset. So we are very comfortable that we are going to be able to manage through the inflation effects that we have seen so far.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Great. Understand there. And staying on the hot topic of inflation, just as you think about the next Arkansas FRP filing, do you think that this is probably another one that’s going to be at the rate change cap or do you think you can manage a little bit below that level?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. The -- we have been working in the Arkansas area. The continuous improvement will help us in that space to reduce cost. We certainly look at and watch to see -- try to stay under those caps so that we are both managing the affordability for customers, as well as obviously, creating value for all of our stakeholders. We will -- but we believe that we will continue to work inflation and manage that with continuous improvement. The specific number that we would file in Arkansas next year would still -- is still being developed, but it will certainly take into consideration of inflation.
Drew Marsh:
And we are a little over the cap for what’s coming for the formula plan this year. So we are above the cap already there.
Paul Zimbardo:
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Understood. Thank you both and see you soon.
Drew Marsh:
All right. Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your question please.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my question, and again, congrats, not just to Drew and Kimberly, but obviously, Leo. It has been a long time since coming over from Indiana. I have a couple of easy questions. One is your demand growth, especially on the C&I side has been really, really healthy, not just this year but last couple of years, and this quarter, we saw a turn in residential demand growth. You have proposed Orange County in Texas, but just curious, even though you are adding a lot of renewable in lots of the jurisdictions, what your thoughts are around in some of the other jurisdictions to any need for any more conventional generation?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah.
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. That’s a good question. We do plan out over a long-term and we are looking for growth -- we watch the growth that’s occurring. Our plans include a significant amount of renewable investments as you suggested. I think we have 14 gigawatt hours to 17 gigawatt hours in our -- over the longer period in investments. We will add baseload generation, smaller units to the extent that they are needed to support reliability and ensure that we continue to meet the needs of our customers. But near-term, Orange County is the project that’s on the plan.
Drew Marsh:
And certainly, I think, Orange County is an example of how we would approach it with hydrogen capability defined, because of the long-term need to make a potential transition or a targeted transition, I should say, to clean energy where our customers are taking us. So that would be part of it. I think, Michael, in the near-term, we don’t have a need for incremental capacity that can offset that. But certainly, if the demand -- the energy demand accelerates, then we would certainly need to look at that. And right now, I think, we are looking at sort of the back end of this decade is, where we start to see the need for additional capacity, either from storage in some form or perhaps natural gas converting to hydrogen over the long-term.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And then one on related follow-up, can you -- lots of really positive things happening in Louisiana. The securitization looks like it’s going pretty smoothly. Don’t have a last step or two there. It will be interesting to watch the grid resiliency docket. Just curious, though, can you remind us what your was -- revenue request was for the formula rate plan versus what’s been authorized in the formula rate plan there? And just in general, how you are thinking about getting Louisiana closer to earning authorized rates of return?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. So you are referring to the fact that we have sort of been at the bottom of our band in the formula rate plan. Is that what you are…
Michael Lapides:
Either the bottom…
Drew Marsh:
… referring to, Michael?
Michael Lapides:
Either the bottom or in some periods not at the bottom, depends how long you look?
Drew Marsh:
Right. Right. Well, I think, we continue to work with the retail regulators around options to be -- to get more efficient recovery, particularly as we begin to ramp up things like resilience. In our resilience filing, you will see that we have a request for more contemporaneous cost recovery. We have put in place more efficient riders for transmission and distribution investment in Louisiana. We will need to get those extended. But those are the kinds of tools that we have been using to help manage the lag that we have seen in Louisiana in particular.
Michael Lapides:
So if I look at your EPS guidance over the next couple of years, does this assume that Louisiana at some point in that timeframe that it kind of how far out gets closer to the midpoint of the range?
Kimberly Fontan:
Yeah. So it certainly seems -- I think the last year of the FRP is next year’s filing and so we would have to go through a new either rate case or renewable of that FRP. And we work with the commission to get outcomes that support the needs of the business and so that’s what we would be planning for in our outlook.
Michael Lapides:
Meaning your outlook assumes you are not at the low end of the band, you are back towards the middle or does it assume kind of what you have delivered over the last couple of years?
Kimberly Fontan:
I think I’d have to look specifically what it assumes, but it certainly assumes that we work constructively with our regulator in order to move us further up in that band.
Drew Marsh:
And I don’t think it’s assuming…
Michael Lapides:
Makes sense.
Drew Marsh:
… any new mechanisms that suddenly pop up in the forecast. We have -- we are assuming that we have the existing mechanisms in place. But we will need to get better mechanisms in order to hit all of the financial targets that we need to hit, particularly the credit metrics that we are targeting going forward.
Michael Lapides:
Understood and thank you. A lot of things improving in Louisiana over the last five years to seven years in terms of regulation and look forward to seeing this on a go-forward basis as well. Thanks, Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Michael.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Ross Fowler from UBS. Your question please.
Ross Fowler:
Good morning, Drew. Good morning, Kimberly. How are you?
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Ross Fowler:
Congratulations on the official new roles, I guess, as of yesterday. Most of my questions have been asked, but just a couple for me. So going back to Rod’s comments on the Louisiana resiliency filing and lessons learned from Hurricane Ian. I guess one of the lessons learned was the system did very well. But there were parts of it, obviously, that didn’t perform as well and there’s been some discussions, I guess, in Florida around undergrounding those portions of the system that are higher risk. Has that entered sort of the conversation in Louisiana yet or can you provide some color or context around that?
Rod West:
Sure. It’s Rob again. The short answer is, yes. All of the above is part of the analysis. And you wouldn’t be surprised to hear us say, the conversation -- we expect the conversation to go towards cost benefit and risk reward. As you think about the location of where the risk of high winds versus high water shows up, it’s different depending upon what portion of the region you are talking about. But in Louisiana, they are definitely taking into account the benefits of undergrounding, which historically has -- the benefit has been that the frequency of outages with underground facilities is lower. But when there is some type of disruption, the duration is longer, that is after you tend to overcome the initial upfront cost of undergrounding, which in our service territory has historically been cost prohibitive. What’s different now, given some of the, I will call it, the positive recency bias with storm experience, we -- and certainly, some of the cost -- potential cost improvements and benefits of undergrounding, it is part of the conversation.
Ross Fowler:
All right. That’s fantastic. Thank you. And then maybe one just on LNG expansion. We have seen some softening in LNG prices. I think that probably has more to do with weather in Europe than anything else. But I know it’s days, are you still seeing a lot of interest there, obviously, you touched on this a little bit, but what interest specifically are you seeing around maybe use of electric drives for future projects and putting renewable energy into those electric drives to the extent possible to sort of make the profile…
Rod West:
Yeah. Yeah.
Ross Fowler:
… of future projects green.
Rod West:
Yeah. It’s at the core of most of the conversations we are actually having with our LNG customers. We noted the recent earnings call for Energy Transfer on the Lake Charles LNG project where they are spending the gamut in consideration of the electric drives, gas compression, as well as a carbon capture. But across the landscape, we are seeing the expected acceleration of development of the LNG projects in the service territory. And we remain bullish as are our customers, notwithstanding the current economic environment. I think Drew alluded to some of the structural benefits or advantages that those customers have, and that’s continuing to show up, not just in the expansion, but also in the ESG components of the LNG expansion as well.
Drew Marsh:
And Ross, I will just add that, that theme around the LNG with electric drives and having a cleaner product, is not unique to LNG. We are seeing that in other industrial processes where folks that, particularly if you are putting in -- they are putting in new facilities, they are trying to electrify as much as possible. Some of the existing facilities will electrify over top of it. If anybody is putting anything new, whether it’s in metals or LNG or petrochem or whatever, they are looking to see if they can electrify those industrial processes that normally, probably, would have been handled through fossil fuels. So that’s an ongoing thing that we are seeing across a broad spectrum of industrial processes.
Ross Fowler:
Yeah. That’s fantastic, Drew. Thank you and see you all in couple weeks.
Drew Marsh:
Great. Thanks, Ross.
Ross Fowler:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our final question for today comes from the line of Sophie Karp from KeyBanc. Your question please.
Sophie Karp:
Hi. Good morning and thank you for taking my questions. Just wanted to go back to SERI a little bit here, maybe from a different angle, it’s now up to just three or four slides in your presentation. Have you given any thought to maybe some sort of strategic -- more strategic solution to this situation around these assets rather than mitigating or trying to settle these dockets one by one? Maybe it’s a strategic solution or some overarching regulatory solution, is it global settlement of all of it, like, is there any ideas you could share that you may be had?
Drew Marsh:
Sure. Sophie, this is Drew. I will tackle that. Certainly, the settlement, Rod, referenced the settlements that we have in Mississippi and we are in conversations with others to see if we can find a global event. Prior to the work that we are doing right now up at FERC and all the different proceedings that we have, w went -- I don’t know, couple of decades without significant litigation around SERI. And I would expect that once we are through this, it will kind of go back to that natural state. We will have to see. But certainly a strategic alternative around with that is something that we consider, but we would not have an option around that until we get through the litigated settlement. And so if we are able to get through the litigation, then we could consider something like that, but that’s -- if we go back to a normal run rate, I don’t think that would be the best option for us. So we will have to wait and see how this develops, but certainly, until we get through the current conversations up at the FERC, we wouldn’t be able to go forward in any way on the strategic front.
Sophie Karp:
All right. Thanks for the color. That’s all for me.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today’s program. I’d like to hand the program back to Bill Abler for any further remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Jonathan, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9th and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy’s Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates on -- of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Operator:
Thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Release. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's program may be recorded. And now, I'd like to introduce your host for today's program, Bill Abler, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation, and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Bill. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong second quarter adjusted earnings of $1.78 per share. Robust economic activity and supportive fundamentals drove favorable sales trends in our commercial and industrial sectors and hot weather drove increased residential and commercial sales. We are also seeing growing residential customer counts supported by strengthening wage and employment data. Given the results to date as well as our view of the balance of the year, we are tracking towards the upper half of our 2022 guidance range and remain squarely on pace to achieve our longer-term 6% to 8% growth outlooks. While we're pleased with the strength of our business, I want to acknowledge that, due to global factors impacting natural gas prices, together with high electric usage caused by extreme heat, our customers, like many across the country are receiving electric bills that are much higher than is typical even for this time of year. This is top of mind, as we continue to achieve outcomes that build upon our proven track record of results. We executed on the important customer, regulatory, operational, and financial deliverables that continue to improve quality across our business. As we discussed at Analyst Day, the attributes of Entergy's business, align well with premium utilities. Given the bill pressures customers are facing, we continue to take strong and meaningful measures to help ease the burden of electric costs. Many of our past actions and investments are mitigating the impacts of high natural gas prices for our customers today. The investments we made over the last eight years and more efficient generation and renewable resources have lowered fuel cost by nearly $500 million annually compared to what they would otherwise have been. Going forward, investments in renewables, and highly efficient generating resources, like the Orange County Advanced Power Station, will further reduce customer exposure to natural gas prices. Our ongoing participation in MISO has provided more than $250 million per year of savings for customers and these savings increased during periods of higher fuel prices. Our top quartile O&M performance and customer centric investments have delivered meaningful value for customers. We placed extra importance in helping customers who need it the most, with programs like the Power to Care, and initiatives to get LIHEAP assistance to customers that qualify. Otherwise, we help customers manage affordability include products like level building, deferred payment plans, as well as analytics and AMI-driven usage alerts. To further address bill challenges today, we are working with our regulators on additional solutions. We've agreed to defer fuel recovery to mitigate fuel price impacts on customer's monthly bills. We are also waiving late fees for eligible customers and credit card fees for all residential customers. We've committed $10 million in shareholder donations for residential bill payment assistance programs. Additionally, given our strong industrial and commercial sales and hot weather, we are utilizing our flex program to increase spending on initiatives designed to lower customers costs and improve reliability. As I mentioned, one of the largest drivers of higher customer bills has been the increase in natural gas prices. Looking ahead, the forward NYMEX curve indicates significant gas price declines over the next 12 months to 24 months and we are seeing fundamentals that support that trajectory. While weather across the nation has driven up natural gas demand this year, causing inventories to be tight, US gas production is tracking roughly three Bcf per day ahead of last year. The US has ample natural gas resources that can be produced in shale plays at prices consistent with the long-term NYMEX curve. Over the last year, we've seen independent producer activity ramp up in Haynesville and Permian Basin shale plays. Haynesville gas rig counts have increased nearly 50%. Increased gas production is also reflected by higher oil rig counts in West Texas, where high levels of associated gas from Permian Basin shale represent significant natural gas supply additions. The old adage that nothing solves high prices like high prices is certainly true. And while we can't control commodity prices, we see relief for customers in sight. Our recent SERI settlement represents another way we have worked with our regulators to mitigate risk, while also helping reduce customers' bills. In late June, we announced a settlement with the MPSC that resolved Entergy, Mississippi's 40% economic interest in complaints against SERI. The settlement is a big step forward in resolving risks surrounding system energy and improving our overall regulatory environment. The settlement also comes at an opportune time to provide much needed bill relief to Mississippi customers. Entergy, Mississippi would use the cash payment from this settlement to provide immediate bill relief and help offset fuel impacts on customer bills. The Mississippi Public Service Commission recognized the opportunity to deliver meaningful value to customers today rather than wait for an uncertain outcome potentially years down the road. Looking beyond Mississippi, this settlement sets a marker and represents a catalyst opportunity to drive progress with the other commissions on broader SERI litigation resolution. Beyond SERI, regulatory progress was made at all of our utilities. We have submitted our annual FRP filings in Arkansas, New Orleans and Louisiana. And as planned Entergy, Texas filed a rate case reflecting the significant investments we've made across transmission distribution and generation resources to better serve our Texas customers. We also demonstrated strong operational quality in the quarter. We have a flexible diverse and reliable portfolio of generation and grid infrastructure that allowed us to reliably deliver power to customers during extreme weather. In fact, all of the states we serve recorded triple-digit temperatures during the month of June and Entergy system set a new peak load in MISO. Consistent with the accelerated resilience plan we laid out in Analyst Day, Entergy, New Orleans made its initial resilience and hardening filing. The filing included $1.5 billion of hardening projects over the next 10 years, including options for several microgrids spaced in neighborhoods throughout the city. All projects proposed create customer benefits. We will work with the City Council and other stakeholders to identify the optimal set of projects for Entergy, New Orleans and we'll make a formal filing later this year to seek approval for these projects. We are working towards similar resilience filings in Entergy, Louisiana in the fourth quarter and at Entergy, Texas next year. These filings and stakeholder engagement are important steps toward our 10-year accelerated resilience plan. Our plan will reduce risk for our customers and for Entergy both in terms of reduced outages and lower storm costs and further improve our operational and balance sheet quality. Another important accomplishment is the sale of Palisades to Holtec. This represents the last major milestone in our multiyear plan to exit the merchant nuclear power business. Turning to growth. Overall, economic activity in our region was vibrant during the second quarter. Our commercial customers continue to show strong recovery from the pandemic. We've seen positive economic indicators for our residential customers. For example, the Louisiana wages increased more than 6% in 2021, which exceeded the national average. Further, Louisiana's unemployment rate hit a 50-year low 3.8% this past June. Economic development and expansion across our region is robust. And as we've discussed, Entergy is a major facilitator of this growth. Across our system, residential customer accounts continue to grow and show energy efficiency gains. Both of these trends drive improved affordability. We had significant industrial growth this past quarter, which drives economic gains for the regions we serve and the load growth helps keep bills low for all customers. As we discussed at Analyst Day, Entergy has a robust and unique growth story, stemming from our industrial customers with an expected 6% compound annual growth rate over the next five years. Commodity spreads and geopolitical conditions combined with the inherent Gulf Coast stability and competitive advantages are driving new customers to locate in our region and our existing customers to expand their businesses. Over the next five years we have line of sight to the growth we outlined with a robust pipeline of projects. As we sit today, there are 100 identified projects in the pipeline. Roughly half of these projects have already made final investment decisions comprising almost 10.5 terawatt hours of annual load potential by 2026, further highlighting our growth opportunity. Sempra Infrastructure entered into an MOU with Entergy Texas for its Port Arthur LNG plant. Phase one of this facility includes two LNG trains with gas turbine compression, representing 270 megawatts of new load. Phase two would add two additional trains with plans for electric compression that would represent approximately 600 megawatts of new load. The Port Arthur project demonstrates the strong basis for the industrial load growth we expect over the next decade. As outlined in the MOU, Entergy Texas is developing options to accelerate the deployment of new renewable generation and to increase power supply resiliency. If Sempra's Port Arthur energy were to be supplied with 100% solar, it would represent more than 2,500 megawatts of new solar generating resources. Projects like Sempra Port Arthur highlight industrial expansion, with customers striving to grow in a carbon-neutral manner. For our broader industrial customer base to achieve their decarbonization goals, it goes well beyond mitigating emissions from business growth. They must decarbonize their existing operations. As we've previously discussed, Entergy's industrial customers have significant carbon emissions, representing 15% of the nation's industrial emissions and the majority of our customers have aggressive decarbonization goals. For utility investors interested in driving decarbonization, Entergy represents a unique rate of change investment opportunity. Over the last quarter, we continued to make decarbonization progress for Entergy and our customers. Construction of Entergy Mississippi Sunflower Solar Station was completed. This 100-megawatt facility represents the first step towards Entergy Mississippi's 1,000-megawatt EDGE program which will support economic development in the state. In May, the Arkansas Public Service Commission approved our Green Promise tariff that offers 100 megawatts of capacity from Entergy Arkansas, Searcy and Chicot Solar resources for allocation to customers who signed letters of intent. We've seen robust customer demand for green products and this program is already fully subscribed. We intend to grow this tariff to accommodate the demand. Entergy Texas continued to move the Orange County Advanced Power Station through the regulatory review and approval process. When it comes online OCAPS will have the lowest heat rate of any combined-cycle plant in our fleet and will immediately provide fuel savings, reliability and environmental benefits for our customers. This hydrogen-capable facility will provide further benefits over time, through fuel diversity and long-duration clean energy storage. At our Analyst Day, we laid out a clear plan and path to support our customers' significant growth potential over the next decade. This plan calls for greater investment in clean resources and accelerated resilience to meet our customers' demands, while we maintain our focus on affordability and drive continued quality gains across all aspects of our business, consistent with our premier utility objective. Entergy has an excellent near-term growth opportunity. When considering the broader electrification and decarbonization potential, our long-term growth opportunity is even better. We are excited about our future and proud of the progress we are making towards achieving it. I will now turn the call over to Drew to review our first quarter results as well as our financial strength and outlooks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo said, we've had a strong start to 2022, supported by our second quarter results. As you can see on slide three, our adjusted earnings were $1.78 per share. Our results included retail sales growth fueled by industrial growth and much hotter than normal weather. This strong start to the year is enabling us to flex our spending to benefit customers and we are affirming our guidance and longer-term outlooks. For 2022, we expect results within the top half of the range. In addition to EWC results, which included the sale of Palisades, the quarter's results had adjustments that rose out of two issues you've been following closely, storm cost recovery and the partial settlement on system energy cases at FERC. These developments included specific benefits for customers and reduced regulatory risk while the receipt of securitization funds also strengthened our balance sheet. We provide more details on these items in our earnings release. On Slide 4, you'll see the adjusted EPS drivers for the quarter. Retail sales were strong, partly driven by hot weather. Within our service area, cooling degree days were 15% higher than normal. All states in our service areas saw above-normal temperatures with Texas experiencing record heat. We also saw strong growth even after excluding the effects of weather. Industrial sales grew approximately 6.5% for the second straight quarter, including higher sales to existing as well as new and expansion customers. For this quarter, many of our major industrial customer segments increased with chlor alkali and LNG seeing the largest increases. Sales to cogeneration customers were also higher, comprising one-third of the total growth. You can see on Slide 5 that the fundamentals underlying our industrial growth outlook remains strong. In addition to industrial sales being higher than last year, they were also higher than our guidance expectation. The largest driver was cogeneration sales. As a reminder we don't rely on above-average cogeneration sales in our outlook. For the quarter, we also saw higher operating expenses from the effects of our ongoing customer-centric investments as well as higher other O&M, driven in part by increased spending on power delivery and customer service. This represents the beginning of the flex spending, that Leo referenced, to achieve customer outcomes for improved affordability, reliability and customer experience. The results for EWC are summarized on Slide 6. The drivers for that business continue to be the shutdown in sale of our merchant nuclear plants. Moving to Slide 7. Operating cash flow for the quarter was $278 million, a decline compared to last year. The most significant driver was natural gas prices, which were more than 150% higher than the same quarter a year ago. Our deferred fuel regulatory asset increased by more than $600 million in the quarter. We have taken steps to help customers manage fuel costs in their bills, including delaying more than $300 million of fuel collections and the SERI settlement in Mississippi among other things that we have discussed. As we also said, the good news is the forward curve calls for natural gas prices to decline. And we are seeing fundamental indicators that support this outlook. Turning to credit and liquidity on Slide 8. I'll start with our net liquidity, which is strong at $3.7 billion. That includes $323 million in storm escrows, which is important as we move through the summer. During the quarter, we received securitization proceeds in both Louisiana and Texas. As we have done with previous Louisiana securitizations, we have guaranteed savings for our customers, sharing value created from the efficient securitization structure. The guaranteed amount is about $100 million and that could eventually be higher. As you know, we reached the settlement with the Mississippi Public Service Commission for their 40% share of the SERI cases. If you are able to settle -- if we are able to settle with all parties on the same terms, that would total $588 million, including Mississippi share. Those refunds would temporarily impact FFO when cash moves to customers. The financing cost and other elements of the settlement, such as ROE and capital structure, would remain on an ongoing basis. We have not reach settlement with all parties. So without knowing the details, we have yet to decide how a full settlement would be funded. Regardless of how it's funded, our long-term objectives remain the same, achieving or exceeding 15% cash flow to debt, and 6% to 8% growth in our adjusted EPS. And any amount that we were to fund through equity could be easily achieved quietly and cost effectively through the ATM program. I would also like to highlight that we have published a sustainable financing framework, which allows us to issue green, social and sustainability directed financings to fund eligible projects that drive our business objectives, including our energy transition and resilience strategy. We engaged S&P Global to provide a second party opinion and they have affirmed the frameworks alignment with accepted principles for these types of financing instruments. Both the framework and opinion can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. A summary of our progress against our equity plan is shown on slide 9. In the second quarter, we reduced our equity needs by $250 million through our ATM program. That leaves a little more than $300 million remaining in the equity plan to be executed between now and the end of 2024. Slide 10 shows our guidance and outlook, which we are affirming today. We provided a thorough update at our Analyst Day in June, which offered a clear picture of the significant opportunities in front of us. In 2020, we reduced spending significantly in response to lower revenues from the pandemic. For 2022 as noted, we have had a strong first half of the year. Now we are flexing to increase our O&M and other costs to benefit our customers. This includes spending to improve reliability, affordability and the customer experience. Even with these initiatives, we expect results for the year to be in the top half of our guidance range, consistent with where we've been in the last several years. Regarding longer term outlooks, one recent item of note not yet reflected is the Inflation Reduction Act. Like everyone else, we are a week into the review. Overall, we are optimistic about the act's ability to create long-term economic benefits for our customers. The production tax credits will support renewable development in nuclear, which will help our customers decarbonize and reduce their exposure to natural gas prices. By leveling the playing field for renewable development with production tax credit transferability and avoidance of normalization, the act allow for greater customer economic benefits through utility ownership that provides long-term operational flexibility and investment optionality. And the act encourages emerging technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture that will help our industrial customers decarbonize. CCS and green hydrogen are part of Entergy's sizable clean electrification potential and our region is uniquely positioned to support these technologies. Finally, we expect that after the first year, most of our customers should see a benefit in their bill from production tax credits in excess of the alternative minimum tax. For Entergy that looks largely cash flow neutral after the first year, but we'll need to see the final law and work with the federal authorities and of course our retail regulators on implementation. In summary, we see the act as a positive. At Analyst Day, we discussed how we are demonstrating strong financial quality. We have a unique and significant sales growth opportunity due to organic industrial growth and decarbonization. We have a robust plan to invest in clean and renewable resources and improve the resilience of our grid. We also have a plan to achieve 6% to 8% EPS growth. And at the same time, we're focused on balance sheet quality and reducing risk. While our employees will always remain focused on our customers and all that we do, they remain world-class at getting stuff done with a track record of delivering on our commitments to prove it, we plan to continue that success. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Certainly. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza from Guggenheim. Your question please.
Constantine Lednev:
Hi, good morning Leo and team, it's actually Constantine here for Shar. Congrats on a great quarter.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Constantine Lednev:
I wanted to start off on the strong results for the quarter and some of the changes in assumptions for 2022 guidance. You're now in the top half, obviously, and you have a big EPS offset for the remainder of the year in the O&M flex category, but whether it keeps looking strong. And how does that potentially set, a base for growth in 2023? And maybe just curious, on the recurring elements in this slice, and how that carries into 2023 assumptions and contingency.
Drew Marsh:
Sure. This is Drew, and I'll start and Leo, can add in. So I think, we're planning to -- as you say we would expect to be in the top half of the range, as we're thinking about the impact and the things that we are doing, certainly it's encouraging to see a lot of the growth, from our customer base. Not all of that I would say is, growth that we would expect on a continuing basis. As I referenced in my remarks, some of that is cogeneration. And we would expect a more normalized cogeneration rate, on an ongoing basis. In terms of, the line items you specifically referenced the O&M obviously, we do have much more sales. We do have some higher costs, that come along with that. That's a chunk of, what you're seeing there. We also talked about customer initiatives last week. We had the press release talking and Leo referenced, some of the things that we're doing to help our customers out. That is in the works, and is part of what you see reflected in 2022, outlook and guidance there. And also in the O&M, we have a couple of other operational items. Visitation management, is a big piece of it, as well as some investments to help for reliability, the O&M components of those incremental investments so some investments, to improve our customer experience, working in the contact centers and things like that, to help our customers out particularly, at this point in time. So there's a number of investments that, while I would say, aren't specifically pulling out 2023 although, there is a little bit of that they are working to continue to derisk 2023 and beyond, by creating more continuous improvement, opportunities today, that should be lasting on an ongoing basis. And so, I don't know Leo or Rod, if you don't have anything, you want to add to that?
Leo Denault:
I think, that's fair. We're encouraged by the beginning of the year. We're using that -- those results to make sure, that we're doing the right things for our customers here and now, and certainly see a lot of reasons, why that industrial load growth should continue, not only this year but for years to come, to support our outlook.
Q – Constantine Lednev:
Excellent. That's, helpful. And on the litigated process for SERI at FERC. The Mississippi settlement obviously, took care of a large portion of the dispute. I think they're one of the major parties, but other parties are less willing to accept those terms, in their comments. How should we think about the process, and kind of options going forward here? Where the settlement currently -- has currently structured fit, within that longer-term 6% to 8% guidance, are the impacts kind of above or below the midpoint, as they're currently set?
Leo Denault:
Rod, why don't you give them the process and then Drew, you can help out on that.
Rod West:
Yes. So from a process standpoint, the conversations and negotiations with the other jurisdictions are ongoing. And they took their -- they made their public stance, in response to the Mississippi filing, but we're not in a position to opine or disclose anything further, as it relates to where those negotiations stand, but you should know that we're in active conversations, with each of those jurisdictions notwithstanding their public position, on the Mississippi settlement. I will note, that the FERC trial staff, and we thought this was constructive stated that the settlement was fair and reasonable and in the public interest. And it is our position, that that's a constructive framework for our ongoing conversations, with each of those individual jurisdictions.
Drew Marsh:
And then regarding the financials, we have in our outlook we've reflected the collective of the Mississippi settlements, on an ongoing basis. And once we do have some -- since we're ongoing discussions, with everyone we wouldn't comment on ROEs, or capital structures or anything else beyond that at this time.
Q – Constantine Lednev:
Okay. Perfect. Thanks for taking my questions.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo from Bank of America. Your question, please.
Paul Zimbardo:
Hi, good morning and thank you.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Paul.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Paul
Paul Zimbardo:
And just to make sure I understand correctly, it sounded like under the draft IRA, you believe the regulated nuclear assets will be eligible for the production tax credits. And just if you could talk about how that could work in the regulated construct. That would be helpful.
Drew Marsh:
Sure. Paul, this is Drew. We do think that they are eligible based on our reading of the act. As you know, our nuclear units do compete in the MISO markets. They bid their power in every day. And so we have a busbar price – a wholesale market price and that's the revenue that comes to the company every day because it ultimately gets netted off in rates and stuff like that through the normal regulatory process. But we do participate in the wholesale power markets every day. And so that's how we believe we'd be eligible.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. I understand. That makes sense. And then shifting over to coal. And if you could talk about the Texas rate case filing and the new target dates for Nelson and Big Cajun, it seems like you're accelerating there. And just broadly how could some of the more stringent EPA NOX requirements lead to changes in coal timing renewables and related?
Rod West:
It's, Rod. I can frame up the Texas rate case filing. Between October and through the end of the year, you'll see the procedural schedule laid out and I'll direct you to Page 34 of our materials just for some context. But it's about $131 million base rate change in our case and our proposed ROE is 10.8%, reflecting a 10.5% midpoint with the 30% – I mean the 30 bps performance adder with equity ratio around 51%. And the procedural schedules laid out as is and certainly reflects the continuing benefit of our transmission, distribution and generation riders as we move to incorporate OCAPS and other assets in our capital plan.
Drew Marsh:
Yes. And this is Drew. On the coal piece, I'll say it's not really much of a factor in the Texas case right now. And of course as you know Paul with high gas prices there's not a lot of economic appetite to accelerate retirements right now. But I would say that and you referenced that the new rules that are – that could come out soon that could cause us to make some significant investments in our coal facilities in order to become compliant with that. If those do materialize and they come in within the timeframe that we're already contemplating that that could be an accelerator of retirement. We certainly wouldn't make significant large capital investments in those coal plants to satisfy those things on a very short timeframe of benefit. So that would be a consideration on the time line of our coal plan if and when those rules come about.
Paul Zimbardo:
Okay. Thank you.
Drew Marsh:
Thanks, Paul. And I'll add one more thing. We do not have a lot of control technologies on our coal plants today. And so there would be a lot of incremental investment for us. So I just make sure that that's clear as well.
Paul Zimbardo:
Yes, thank you.
Operator:
And our next comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from JPMorgan. Your question, please.
Jeremy Tonet:
Hi, good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Jeremy Tonet:
Just want to start off with Entergy, New Orleans and the resilience filing there. Have there been any initial reactions that you could share with us or other takeaways, especially as we think about Louisiana and Texas on this front?
Rod West:
It's Rod. Initial reactions to the actual filing has been constructive. Obviously, the details are all in the pace of the investment. And certainly given the current economic environment what's the build impact. We expect the council is going to set additional technical conferences if you will. We have one schedule later, I believe on the 18th of this month. But the council will ultimately direct us to make a filing more in line with where the thinking is that might show up later on probably in the end of the third quarter into the fourth. But the reaction has been constructive. But let's be clear, our efforts right now are focused on addressing some of the near-term challenges that our customers are facing with inflation and the impact of the gas prices in New Orleans. And that's taking up at least the near-term mind share for the council. But we're -- we think it's a constructive reaction thus far and you'll see in the fall the council's procedural schedule, kind of, laying out where we go from here.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Yes. That was kind of the next part of the question here. Just conversations in Louisiana talking about higher customer bills as you talked about in your prepared remarks there. And so do you see -- what type of role do you see this playing against conversations for CapEx at large and particularly on the resiliency front given the inflationary pressures that you talked about there?
Rod West:
We are aligned on the objectives and why we're -- why we've been focused on the resiliency conversation. We moved back the resiliency filing in Louisiana to October to give us an opportunity to better refine the benefit case that we expect to make to with the commission. But Louisiana the same with New Orleans and our other jurisdictions, they are very much focused on providing relief to our customers in the near-term, but we are very much aligned with the commission on this resiliency conversation. And also I'll make this point. There's nothing about the timing of our October resiliency plans for Louisiana that changes our current plan. So both the timing and the way in which we laid out our capital plan for near-term resiliency spend in Louisiana is unchanged by then. So more to come as we work through the summer and get further into through the rate -- the formula rate plans and hurricane season, but the early indications are we still remain very much aligned with the regulators on the objective of resiliency.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That's very helpful. And just a last one if I could here, as it relates to equity needs in 2025 and 2026. While the ATM can satisfy these needs here, just wondering how you think about asset recycling at this point, if this is on the table, or could you speak to broader considerations here?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. Well we talked to -- thanks Jeremy, it's Drew. We talked about that at Analyst Day. So I think there's not really anything different than what we discussed at the Analyst Day. You know, there's a valuation difference between the private capital markets and the public capital markets, which causes us to explore this idea. And -- but it's not an easy track to go down as we've discussed in the past. It's not like depending on how you go about it it's not necessarily like financing equity in the public capital markets. So it could take a lot longer there could be more risk to it. So those are things that we're thinking about when we think about what we're calling strategic financing because they have to line up more strategically at the same time.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That’s helpful. I will leave there. Thanks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Rod West:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Vertical Research Partners. Your question please.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hi. Good morning, guys.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Jonathan Arnold:
Can I just ask about the -- you mentioned that you've deferred $300 million of fuel I think. Is that the extent of what you're proposing to do on that particular tool or is that just what you'd recognize through second quarter this June balance sheet?
Drew Marsh:
That's what we have proposed to the retail regulators in terms of delaying collection of deferred fuel. So on the balance sheet…
Jonathan Arnold:
To the balance sheet.
Drew Marsh:
That's what we have proposed to the retail regulators in terms of delaying collection of deferred fuel. So on the balance sheet you have at the end of the second quarter all the incremental $600 million of deferred fuel. And so -- some of it being delayed until the fall some of it might be delayed until next year. And a bulk of it is in Louisiana. I think we're about $130 million-ish in Louisiana and smaller amounts in other jurisdictions.
Jonathan Arnold:
So, that's sort of the current proposal across the portfolio and to the rest of the deferred fuel from in first half of the year we should see that sort of catch up a little quicker.
Drew Marsh:
Well, I would say that that is pretty recent. That's June and July deferrals, I think maybe there's a little bit of August even in there. So, we are pretty current on how we're thinking about that. I'm not -- I guess Jonathan you're asking are we going to see a whole bunch more of delaying I think we're most of the way through the summer at this point and I would not expect that to continue on into the fall.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then could you just sort of maybe help frame for us a little bit some of the other things you're doing to try and mitigate pressure on customers maybe sort of put some quantification around that in the context of the fuel deferral number? Is that the biggest thing? I'm guessing it probably is but just curious about what are the other pieces of the strategy.
Rod West:
Yes. And this is Rod. Leo made reference -- the fuel deferral would be I believe the biggest by way of single financial impact across customer classes. But what we're offering to do is as Leo mentioned, $10 million towards bill assistance programs across our jurisdictions. There's a moratorium on disconnects coming out of New Orleans. We're voluntarily offering that up for our other jurisdictions. There's a credit card fee waivers -- late fee waivers that we're working our way through in different jurisdictions on top of the bill payment programs that Leo walked through in his opening comments the objective being to give customers some relief during what we see as this convergence, particularly in Louisiana and New Orleans where the high usage is intersecting with the high gas prices and where Louisiana and New Orleans are perhaps different than some of the other jurisdictions is the fuel recovery mechanisms or capturing that impact that high gas impact on a monthly basis. And so these are short-term relief efforts on our part to answer the call for our customers with the support of our regulators and we expect that to sort of play itself out through the end of the cooling season. So, in that October-November timeframe, we'll revisit with our regulators where we are on the relief package. And I don't want to understate the significance of what Drew referenced in terms of our ongoing investment strategy on behalf of customers that have far greater long-term impact that lower customer bills in addition to the robust growth story in the industrial sector that also benefits that bill path for customers over the long haul so--
Leo Denault:
The only thing I would add to that Jonathan is certainly for Mississippi customers the SERI settlement is probably the biggest bang for the buck that we've had in terms of near-term bill relief.
Jonathan Arnold:
Could you just remind us the SERI [indiscernible]
Drew Marsh:
I was going to add Jon the securitization that we did we got $100 million of benefits to Louisiana customers. I mean there's a number of things that we've done that have some big dollars associated with them. We haven't really talked about our gas hedging program that's been beneficial to the customers in these high gas price environment. So there's a number of things that we've done to help mitigate customer bills.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. Thank you. Could I just ask about SERI that that settlement goes into effect regardless of not having reached agreement with the parties correct? And then what's the timing on when that benefit flows?
Rod West:
Yes that is correct. We're seeking -- we're asking FERC essentially approve and ratify that settlement by November, but Mississippi is already taking steps to put that -- the benefits to customers in place. So -- but November is the time frame from a FERC perspective.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then just maybe finally, you -- well you reflected the Mississippi aspect of this settlement in guidance. Is that the gross impact assuming others went down a similar trajectory, or is it just the discrete Mississippi piece?
Drew Marsh:
Right now, it's assuming a grossed-up element, an inclusive everybody got the same as Mississippi, but we're not commenting beyond that about where it might end up given we have ongoing discussions.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. But you've got at least that in that?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, great. Thank you very much guys.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Your question please.
David Arcaro:
Hi, good morning. Thanks so much for taking the question.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
David Arcaro:
Oh, hi, good morning. I was curious on the Inflation Reduction Act. Do you have a view at this stage just how much that could improve your competitiveness on the renewables front and whether it could unlock additional opportunity to rate base renewables within the play going forward versus the proportion that you've been assuming thus far?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. I don't have numbers that I can tell you right now David, but I will say that we do believe that it does level up the playing field for us. We don't have to go through the normalization efforts. We can find -- assuming this all goes through, we might not have to do the tax equity partnerships that we do it eliminate some of the friction associated with that and allow us to go ahead and deploy more capital. So I think those are all positive from a utility perspective, from an ownership perspective. The customers as I said in my remarks will also benefit from that because they'll get the benefit of ongoing operational improvements that we come up with. Those wouldn't necessarily accrue to a third-party, they would accrue to our customers. It creates optionality around the assets, increases the operational flexibility. If there's a problem with the assets we can respond more quickly, don't have to work through a third-party storm situation the like. So there's a lot of benefits associated with utility ownership that are harder whenever we were structurally disadvantaged before. But now the customers will get the full benefit of those things. So we think that that will be accruing to customers over the long-term. But I don't have the exact number for you right now.
David Arcaro:
Great. Yeah. Thanks. That's helpful. And you had also mentioned on the cash flow side of things. It sounded like it was neutral. Is the way to think about that that you're already planning to see a cash tax bill that's at least at the level of the AMT that's been floated out there such that there wouldn't be an incremental cash flow drag as you see it?
Leo Denault:
David, this is Leo. I don't think that's the case. I think it's just the case that we'll be able to utilize the credits against the AMT plus, the transferability of the credit allows for us to be able to get that to neutral.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. And I will add that that's an ongoing basis. I referenced the first year. There is a timing element that's out there that we had to pay close attention to between the A&T starting in 2023. And the bulk of our tax credits would be from the nuclear tax credit and those would start until 2024. So there's that 2023 gap that we'll have to figure out how to work through. The good news is it should be an offset to deferred taxes. So that means our rate base should go up. But we got to work through that. We got to get the final bill work through that with retail regulators talk to rating agencies and the like.
David Arcaro:
Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So that does assume essentially that you get the nuclear tax credits that you're able to collect them and that's what helps you offset that AMT cash drag?
Drew Marsh:
Correct, correct.
David Arcaro:
Okay, great. Got it. Thanks so much.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of David Paz from Wolfe Research. Your question, please.
David Paz:
Hey, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Hi, David.
David Paz:
Just on Grand Gulf according to the NRC data, it's been down since July 12. I just wanted to know why has it been down? When do you expect it to come back online? And then maybe just remind us, in terms of the mechanisms you have in place for replacement costs and so forth? Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Yeah. As far as operationally David, I will get into the technical details, but we had a couple of pieces of equipment that had issues. So we had to take the plant offline to fix those issues and that's ongoing. Plants should be online pretty quickly, and ready to roll after the recent refueling outage is, where we replaced a lot of equipment and on the backs of last year's record run. Kind of while we're talking about nuclear, I will just point out, because it happened today the River Bend station now had its longest continuous run online too. So congratulations to them. As far as the mechanism Rod, I don't know, if you want to –
Rod West:
Yeah, it's a monthly formula rate plan where the flow-through of cost of operating the plant are part of the FRP.
Drew Marsh:
And the contracts back to the operating companies are unit contingent. So they would just replace the purchase power in the market as they do every day and that would flow through the fuel costs.
Rod West:
Of each of the individual –
Drew Marsh:
As each of the individual operating companies.
Rod West:
Correct.
David Paz:
Got it. Okay. Make sense. Thank you.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your question, please.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys. Congrats on a great quarter, and thank you for taking question. I don't know, if this is a Leo or Rod one, but I'm just curious process-wise, the grid hardening or the system hardening proposals in Louisiana and Texas, how does that – how do you think that will look from a docket perspective? And how will – what you're thinking about recommending there how will that mature? How will that interface with the existing ratemaking structures that are already in place in those states meaning the formula rate plans in Louisiana and the DCRF and the transmission recovery and the general rate case process in Texas?
Rod West:
Hey, Michael, it's Rod. We had a – we covered it at an Analyst Day, but the point being it depends on the timing of our agreement in say in Louisiana, how the state of Louisiana thinks about the capital plan around resiliency is going to determine whether we think we can flow through the capital cost through the existing FRP and recovery riders, or if there's going to be a need for anything else. And again, that's a function of sizing, because what we talked about on Analyst Day for our capital program was that we would go from $2 million to $4 million around accelerated resiliency where a chunk of – the larger chunk of that would be in Louisiana and we would do it through existing mechanisms. And whether we needed anything different would be dependent upon how the commission worked through with us around the pace and timing of capital spend. Texas is a little -- and so that process will begin when we make the filing that we currently planned in October. In Texas, the way that we sequenced the accelerated resilience filing in Texas, we pushed that back into 2023, given that the timing around the rate case and OCAPS shifted a bit and we want to sequence, the resiliency filing to fall in place behind both OCAPS and the rate case. And the dynamic is not radically different than the way we're thinking about it in Louisiana. Again, depending upon how the commission thinks through and certainly our customers think through the pacing of resiliency spend in Texas, then the question becomes, can we accommodate that CapEx through the existing T&D recovery riders, or if there's a need for -- as we described it, a tweak in the regulatory recovery mechanisms. And those remain -- that remains to be seen Michael, but the thinking is the same.
Leo Denault:
And Michael, this is Leo. I'll just add that in addition to, as Rod said, kind of, how do they fit size-wise underneath pre-existing regulatory mechanisms. There is the nuance around assets that we want to replace that are not yet fully depreciated. And that's a tweak, to use Rod's word, that we might need to look at. And as you recall, that's the same tweak we needed in regulatory process for AMI across jurisdictions where we are taking out meters that worked, but we're replacing them with meters that we're going to lower cost and improve service levels to customers in the future. The dynamic here is the same. We've got the $2 billion -- the $2.2 billion that we've got in the plan already that fits under the current regulatory mechanisms along that sizing, as Rod mentioned, as well as fully depreciated property mechanism. But as you know, our regulators have been publicly supporting replacing equipment that was built 15 years ago to when the standards were different across the industry with the new standard equipment, we need to get that placed out as to how are you going to recover the dollars for that existing equipment that's not fully depreciated. Again, precedent across every jurisdiction with the meters, same concept, but that's an added -- again to use Rod's word, tweak that we probably have to make sure we're getting throughout those jurisdictions.
Michael Lapides:
Do you need -- thank you for that, Leo and Rod. Just a quick follow-up on the Louisiana side. You have a lag right now in Louisiana, right? Louisiana, I would argue, is maybe one of the harder places to earn authorized for you guys? Do you worry that if you don't get a change in rate making, meaning somehow a more forward-looking structure to the formula rate plan, that's simply using the existing construct would simply add to the lag?
Rod West:
It's always a concern. And our primary objective is to match the CapEx for customer benefits with the recovery mechanisms for the stakeholders and including you guys. So yes, that is a constant tension as we work through the forward-looking view of our capital plan and recovery mechanisms, Michael. So it is very much a part of the conversation.
Drew Marsh:
And Louisiana has some good precedence around this. I mean, Leo was talking about AMI and the AMI dockets in Louisiana, we were able to get more contemporaneous recovery. And of course on the capacity side, we have a long history of getting generation assets into rates when they get to COD. So I think there is examples of how this could work differently in Louisiana, but we certainly echo Rod's concern.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you guys. Much appreciate it.
Rod West:
Thanks, Michael.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question for today comes from the line of Paul Patterson from Glenrock. Your question please.
Paul Patterson:
Hey, guys. Good to hear voice. Just procedurally back to the SERI settlement, it seemed like no party. Well, at least none of the state commissions objected to the settlement at all. Is there any reason why the November approval can't happen any earlier, or how should we think about that the potential for the FERC approval assuming that they approve it?
Rod West:
Yeah. it's the FERC that drives -- we don't get to tell FERC and I say this respectfully. We don't get to tell FERC what their procedural schedule needs to be, but we're certainly they're usually sensitive to certainly us and other stakeholders when there's an objective to particularly in this instance where we're trying to reduce the overall noise around SERI and the risk associated with it and the potential benefit for customers that tends to resonate it. So it's as soon as possible as far as we are concerned, but we're always weaving in our interest with those of our other stakeholders in first docket, which as you might imagine has more than Entergy to contemplate. So we're grateful for whatever FERC is able to do to accelerate the consideration of this customer beneficial settlement in Mississippi.
Paul Patterson:
Awesome. And then in terms of the -- some of the parties are suggesting sort of bifurcating or splitting up some of the proceedings or what have you. And I realize that what their public documents and the discussions you're having. But just in general, if my -- I mean correct me, if I'm wrong with the most favored nation -- I'm not completely clear on this. With the most favored nation provision in the settlement, if there's a litigated portion that portion is not subject to the most favored nation adjustment. Is that correct?
Rod West:
I think you got that right.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. Okay. That’s it for me. Thanks so much.
Rod West:
Thank you, Paul.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to Bill Abler for any further remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Jonathan, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of our regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Disclaimer*:
This transcript is designed to be used alongside the freely available audio recording on this page. Timestamps within the transcript are designed to help you navigate the audio should the corresponding text be unclear. The machine-assisted output provided is partly edited and is designed as a guide.:
Operator:
00:05 Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation's First Quarter 2022 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today’s program is being recorded. 00:24 I would now like to introduce your host for today's program, Bill Abler, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
William Abler:
00:32 Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In effort to accommodate everyone who ask questions, we request to each person ask no more than two question. 00:51 In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. 01:08 Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. 01:22 And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
01:24 Thank you, Bill and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting first quarter adjusted earnings of $1.32 per share, a very good start for the year. With favorable weather and higher-than-planned retail sales, we are ahead of schedule and solidly on track to achieve our 2022 objectives. And we remain on track for our longer-term outlooks. During the quarter, we continued to execute on both our near and long-term deliverables, just as we have over the last several years. We've made demonstrable progress on our operational, strategic and financial objectives. 02:03 Operationally, I'll start with some notable regulatory updates. We've continued to make meaningful progress on storm cost recovery. Texas is done and Louisiana's securitization proceeds from the 2020 storms, plus $1 billion towards IDA will be completed in the coming weeks. Entergy Louisiana's filing for the balance of IDA will be completed within the coming days, and the Entergy New Orleans filing will follow later this year. A financially strong utility is important for customers. Drew will discuss how securitization progress supports our balance sheet strength. 02:44 As expected, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual formula rate plan which enables continued customer-centric investment and supports our financial outlooks. We're continuing to drive progress on enhancing the resilience of our system, which benefits customers that supports local economic activity as well as our growth plan. Entergy Louisiana completed an important transmission upgrade in the southern part of the state. This $86 million project replaced approximately 80 structures to increase resilience along several miles of critical path transmission in La Pouch Paris, an area that was severely affected by Hurricane Ida last year. To create a solid foundation, the new infrastructure is placed in steel cases. 03:32 The line was built to withstand wind speeds of 150 miles per hour and will improve the resilience of the electric system. Entergy Louisiana also completed a $100 million project in North Louisiana, that positions the region for economic growth. The West Monroe project will provide additional transition capacity, improve reliability and is built to withstand extreme weather events. What that means for customers is enhanced reliability and resilience, better integration of clean generating resources and economic benefits to improved access to lower cost of power. Bottom line, the Entergy team continues to focus on delivering operational excellence across all facets of our business. 04:15 Strategically, I'll start with our merchant business wind down. The last step in our merchant nuclear exit is nearly complete. Palisades is on track to shut down at the end of May with the sale to Holtec following around mid-year. The Palisades team is fishing strong, and I would like to thank them for their dedicated service. We have worked to help employees with their career goals beyond the plant shutdown. Many will continue to work for Entergy at other locations. Some will continue to work for Holtec on decommissioning and others are retiring. 04:50 As you know, DOE recently announced a program to save nuclear plants that are about to shut down. Michigan's Governor issued a letter encouraging utilization of this program to keep Palisades open. We are supportive of federal initiatives to keep nuclear plants operating. However, we are five years into Palisades shutdown process. We're far down the path. There are significant technical and commercial hurdles to changing course at this point. That said, alongside Holtec, we will work with any qualified party that wants to explore acquiring the plant and obtaining federal funding. 05:29 But I do want to be very clear, this does not change our strategy. Entergy is exiting the merchant nuclear business, even if Palisades continues to operate as a part of Entergy. Across all of our operating companies, we continue to be a critical partner to support strong economic development, bringing new businesses, new jobs and new tax base in the communities we serve. For example, Entergy Arkansas, along with the Wynne Economic Development Corporation announced completion of the select site certification for a 37-acre industrial site. Certification streamlines site selection process. Initiatives like this help track new businesses and new projects like the U.S. Steel expansion that was announced earlier this year. 06:17 Over the past five years, our economic development team has helped bring to provision close to 300 announced projects, $42 billion of capital investments, and more than 25,000 jobs. These outcomes have been critical to the economic health of our communities and have been a significant factor in the 9% cumulative industrial sales growth we've achieved over the past five years. And we continue to expect significant industrial expansion in the next several years. 06:50 As we have discussed, growth from our industrial customers has been driven in large part by cost, labor, logistics and regulatory advantages of the Gulf Coast as well as favorable commodity spreads, which continue to support expansion. Further, the current geopolitical state of the world makes the U.S. and the Gulf Coast in particular, a top choice for stability. 07:15 LNG exporters in the Gulf are being called on to expand production to help reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy influence. This opportunity represents a win for our customers, communities and owners, not to mention the community. To help support our customers' growth and decarbonization objectives are driving progress to expand our renewables footprint. As of today, we have approximately 650 megawatts of renewable capacity in service. 625 megawatts of solar projects approved by regulators and in progress, 725 megawatts of announced projects and up to 4,000 megawatts of RFPs. That's more than half of the 11,000 megawatts of renewable resources in our supply plan through 2030. 08:05 We've made progress identifying new resources and active RFPs. Since our last call, Entergy Texas concluded evaluations of its 2021 solar RFP. Several resources were selected totaling at least 400 megawatts from owned and contracted proposals. We also made selections from the Louisiana and Arkansas 2021 RFPs earlier in the year. We will provide additional details about the resources selected from these proposals once parties reach definitive agreements. 08:39 We are also soliciting the next round of renewables. Entergy Arkansas recently issued its RFP seeking up to 500 megawatts of renewables to provide cost-effective clean energy, which furthers fuel diversity. Entergy Louisiana also issued notice to proceed with renewable RFP seeking up to 1,500 megawatts in Louisiana. Our customers' demand for decarbonization solutions, including green products is not slowing down. The long-term solar market continues to look favorable based on an improving technology curve and higher natural gas price scenarios. However, we fully recognize the near-term cost and schedule pressures that solar projects are facing. 09:25 Supply chain constraints have been exacerbated by the Department of Commerce investigation, which we expect will drive additional delays and the potential for further cost increases. These dynamics are affecting the entire U.S. solar industry, but we are continuing to work through these constraints and are executing on our solar expansion plans. It's important to note that not all of our projects are affected. For example, Sunflower solar in Mississippi, our only owned project coming online this year as its panels on site installation is nearly complete. 10:01 Entergy's owned solar represents a relatively small portion of our three-year $12 million capital plan. Roughly half of owned projects in the three-year horizon are not experiencing impacts of recent marketing constraints. A greater portion of our own projects are expected in the latter half of the decade, which would be past the current working insurance. As we've said before, we have a large backlog of customer-centric investments with the ability to rotate capital into our plan as an opening presents itself. The bottom line is that we recognize the near and medium-term constraints, still see strong market fundamentals in the long term supports our supply demand and customer objectives. 10:47 On our last call, we told you about the new U.S. Steel expansion. In support of this project and the customers' decarbonization goals, Entergy Arkansas filed for approval to acquire the 250 megawatt driver solar facility. Driver solar is an example of how we can partner with customers with their sustainability needs while accelerating the growth of our renewable portfolio in our regulated framework. It also highlights our unique growth strategy to help customers achieve the outcomes they desire, which in turn drives the outcomes for all Entergy’s stakeholders through more jobs and economic activity in our service area, increased capital deployment to support electrification, low growth to offset costs and higher rate of change towards societal decarbonization. 11:38 Nuclear also plays a critical role in our customer decarbonization strategy. Entergy is one of the cleanest large-scale fleets in the nation due to our nuclear fleet. Customers are increasingly highlighting access to carbon renewable resources is key to economic development. They are looking to reduce their carbon footprint and many are indifferent to the type of carbon-free technology. We continue to see examples in the industry that reinforce the need to balance reliability, supportability, environmental sustainability. Entergy's resource planning has always balanced these objectives. Our baseload nuclear plays an important role. 12:20 We have discussed the sizable long-term opportunity for Entergy to help our industrial customers decarbonize and achieve their sustainability unit levels. We had estimate an addressable market of approximately 30 terawatt hours by 2030. To put that into context, that's about 25% of our 2021 total retail sales. That's not to say that we capture the entire market, but we're working how to serve our customers' needs and maximize this opportunity. With many carbon reduction goals coming past 2030, achieve greater opportunities beyond the next 10 years. 12:59 Realizing this growth requires significant investment benefits to all stakeholders. This will include meaningful transmission and distribution investments to reliably serve the expansion of our renewable beyond the [indiscernible] in our current 2030 resource. Financially, we continue to strengthen our balance sheet. Beyond the securitization progress that I mentioned, also significantly reduced our remaining growth equity needs through 2020. Currently, only 25% of the original amount discussed at our 2020 Analyst Day remains. We are on track to achieve steady predictable growth adjusted EPS in dividends, the opportunity to do even better. 13:44 We're very excited about our upcoming Analyst Day on June 16. We'll use that opportunity to provide a closer look into our multiyear strategy and financial plans. That includes our plans to quickly advance resilient investment in our coastal region to lower storm risk for our system, our communities and our customers. And to further expand our renewables portfolio to support our customers' decarbonization goals. 14:13 As I said, we've had a productive start to 2022, and we will continue to successfully achieve the milestones that keep us on track to deliver steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth while maximizing operating efficiencies and investments to make our system most resilient, reliable, clean and affordable it can be. These are the outcomes our customers want by delivering them to create sustainable value for all our stakeholders. 14:41 Before I conclude, I encourage you to see our recently released 2021 integrated report, "The Future is on". The report lays out how we delivered results in 2021, discusses why we're optimistic and excited about Entergy's future. You can see how we integrate the environmental, social and governance objectives to all we do. 15:04 I'll now turn the call over to Drew to review our first quarter results as well as our financial strength and outlooks.
Andrew Marsh:
15:12 Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for the first quarter. As you can see on Slide 3, we had adjusted earnings of $1.32 per share. The drivers are straightforward and keep us solidly on track to achieve our financial objectives for the year. We remain confident in our continued success and we are affirming our guidance and longer-term outlook. 15:37 Turning to Slide 4, you'll see the drivers for the quarter. As a result of our continued customer-centric investments, we saw higher levels of revenue as well as higher depreciation and interest expenses. Other O&M increases included higher customer service support and nuclear generation expenses. 15:56 Results for EWC are summarized on Slide 5. The drivers for that business are largely due to the shutdown sale of Indian Point last year. As Leo mentioned, we expect to complete our exit of the merchant nuclear business in the coming months. That will be a major strategic milestone. 16:19 Moving to Slide 6. Operating cash flow for the quarter was higher than last year at $538 million. Higher utility revenue, lower fuel and purchase power payments and lower pension contributions were the largest drivers. As a reminder, fuel and purchase power payments were significantly impacted by winter storm Uri in 2021. Non-capital storm spending was higher than last year, which provided a partial offset. 16:48 Turning to credit and liquidity on Slide 7. We continue to make progress on securitizations that will strengthen our balance sheet to produce significant cost savings for our customers. Our regulators recognize that financially healthy utilities benefit our customers. To that end, Entergy Texas recently completed securitization for its 2020 storms. And on the day of our last call, the LPSC approved storm recovery and financing for the 2020 storm plus $1 million down payment on Hurricane Ida. 17:22 The approval included replenishment of Louisiana storm escrow to $290 million. Louisiana securitization is expected to be off balance sheet, and we anticipate a $3.2 billion issuance in the coming weeks. Entergy Louisiana plans to file for Ida cost recovery in the coming days, as Leo mentioned, we are targeting to receive proceeds by year-end. The timing of recovery ultimately depend on procedural schedule approved by the commission. 17:53 Entergy New Orleans is seeking approval on the New Orleans City Council to issue $150 million in securitized bonds to replenish the company's storm reserve. If approved, this reserve would enhance credit and ability to respond to potential future storms. In addition, ENO plans to file for Ida cost recovery later this year. Our net liquidity at the end of the quarter was $3.5 billion, being further supported by the tax securitization proceeds received on April 1, and the $3.2 billion Louisiana securitization proceeds once they are received. 18:33 Beyond securitization and liquidity, we continue to focus on resilience, which we will discuss in detail at our Analyst Day. Part of that discussion will include how we are actively applying for federal funding to help pay for resilience investments and mitigate customer insights. 18:53 Looking at Slide 8. It's been approximately two months since our last earnings call. And that time, we have reduced our equity needs by nearly $170 million through our ATM program, with roughly $570 million remaining to be executed between now and the end of 2024. Given the small amount, our plan is to close out the remaining days with the ATM program. 18:53 The four sectors shown on Slide 9 represent nearly half of our industrial sales. And the fundamentals for our industrial customers remained robust in support of continued growth expansion. In addition, expansion of LNG export facilities is coming into spotlight again. Majority of these potential LNG expansion projects will provide and expand Entergy service territories. 19:43 Looking forward to Slide 10, we have a solid base plan with good visibility to achieve our guidance and outlook. We are also monitoring situations surrounding inflation and interest rates. We did not see a meaningful impact on our operational results, and we remain on track to achieve our annual cost estimate. As a result, we are affirming our 2022 adjusted EPS guidance range as well as our longer-term outlook. 20:13 As we move towards Analyst Day in New York, in June, we're executing on our operational, strategic and financial objectives and building on a solid foundation. In New York, we'll share our longer-term views on customer-centric investments and financial outlooks. And we look forward to seeing you there. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
20:37 [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza from Guggenheim Partners. Your question please.
Shar Pourreza:
20:58 Hey, guys.
Leo Denault:
21:00 Good morning
Shar Pourreza:
21:02 Leo, from your prepared remarks, just quickly on Palisades, should we assume you don't want to even remain a short-term owner until the asset is potentially sold? So viability of the asset is really a Holtec question or could there be changes to the Holtec agreement? And maybe just elaborate a little bit on some of the technical challenges like refueling and the capital that's needed to halt decommissioning and can they even be overcome?
Leo Denault:
21:32 Yeah. I'm nearly not going to, Shar, get into any kind of details about what would or wouldn't work. The technical details, though, around operations, the plant will have to stop operating in May because we'll be out of fuel. We haven't ordered fuel. There's a lot of work that would need to be done at the plants to prepare it to continue to operate beyond that cycle. And we really haven't done the investigation into what that work would be because as you might guess, we have been planning for five years to shut the plant down. We do have an agreement with Holtec and obviously, that has certain features in it that by and large, have all been -- all the conditions have been met, except for the plant is still operating. So it's just a real heavy lift at the last hour. 22:27 And as I said, we couldn't be more supportive of the fact that continuing operation of the country's nuclear fleet is important, the reliability of the bulk electric system and to the ability for us to decarbonize the economy, shutting those plants down is just moving backwards. But -- so I'm encouraged by those -- what DOE has got going on for future plants just at this stage with Palisades. It's just a really heavy lift is all we're saying at this moment.
Shar Pourreza:
23:04 Got it. And then just on credit metrics and equity would you guys potentially trending above your thresholds. Do you see any opportunities to maybe further downsize your $570 million of remaining needs? And as you're kind of getting closer to hitting your credit metrics and prepare to roll forward your capital plan, do you anticipate any improvements in credit metric thresholds especially as the business mix has improved and storm funding is moving closer to resolution? So would like, for instance, an improvement in thresholds, let's say, the 12% to 13% effectively leave you over equitized versus the current projections?
Andrew Marsh:
23:45 Yeah, Shar, this is Drew. So in terms of opportunities out there that could continue to change or improve around our credit metrics, obviously. The one that we cited, I think, last -- at the end of last year, I guess, on the last call, was around pension. And certainly, interest rates are changing that pension liability. The returns associated with the trust supporting the pension aren't as good as we were anticipating either all that kind of balancing out. That is something that we are watching closely, if rates continue to stay high and returns turn come back around to -- closer to our expectations, then it could create some more headroom in our credit metric. That's probably the one that we are looking at most closely right now, so we're monitoring that. 24:44 In terms of, obviously, we need to get the securitizations done. We need those to be off sheet as we've discussed. Those things are going to be big milestones in terms of taking some debt off of our balance sheet. And -- but we're watching that closely as well. Outside of that, our expectations around capital, which obviously also drives our equity needs. Those are things that we're watching closely. We do have some capital associated with solar in the near term. And we can -- I'm sure there's going to be a question on the call about that. We can talk about that here in a minute. But we have other capital projects that are waiting in the wings, particularly around resilience. So if there is extra headroom for us because of delays in solar, there's quite a bit of resilience investments that our customers are waiting on and expect us to achieve if there's an opportunity. So I don't anticipate any extra room from the capital side going forward.
Shar Pourreza:
25:51 Got it. And then just one quick follow-up, if I may, and I appreciate that. It's just on your Analyst Day. I know -- I mean, obviously, you guys talked about resiliency and sort of the green tariffs. Just given the timing of sort of the regulatory initiatives and the technical conferences, I know you obviously highlighted how they would fit in with the Analyst Day. But should we specifically think about the Analyst Day as a roll forward of your base plan and you'll qualitatively maybe discuss these opportunities with some scenario, back testing analysis? Or could we actually see some of the spending actually rolled into the capital plan? Thanks.
Leo Denault:
26:28 Well, I think, Shar, we're going to let the punch lines of Analyst Day show up on Analyst Day.
Shar Pourreza:
26:41 All right. Thanks, Leo. [indiscernible] I get that past.
Leo Denault:
26:46 Got it. Thanks.
Operator:
26:48 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella from Credit Suisse. Your question please.
Nicholas Campanella:
26:57 Hey. Good morning, team. Thanks you for taking the question.
Leo Denault:
27:01 Good morning.
Nicholas Campanella:
27:02 So I just wanted to hit solar supply chain risks quick and just the impact. Could you just help us just size the amount of megawatts going into rate base that would potentially be at risk? I think you said roughly half you're secured on over the three-year horizon. So is that like 300 to 400 megawatts? And just to confirm, I heard your last comments right, to the extent that capital shifts, you were just going to backfill that with potential distribution resiliency spend?
Roderick West:
27:31 Yeah. And this is Rod. Good morning. From Leo's comments, the near-term risk that we were referring to in terms of existing owned projects was roughly 280 megawatts because we we’re discrete about both -- we're explicit about both West Memphis and Walnut Bend. And so from a megawatt standpoint, they really don't represent a material amount of capacity. So we want to make sure that we put that in some context. And recall, Leo also mentioned the lion's share of our renewable capacity actually shows up on the back end of the decade. So we're calling it out because we recognize that there are some near-term constraints, but they really don't influence, how we're thinking about our build-out.
Leo Denault:
28:28 And I think to your last point, Nick, I think Drew mentioned it and I mentioned in the script, we've got a capital plan and timing that's laid out. We've got other things waiting in the wings that we could or couldn't accelerate. So the ability to roll something else into the plan that provides benefits to our customers in a different way is always there.
Nicholas Campanella:
28:56 Absolutely. And then just Drew's comments on inflation. If anywhere, where would you kind of call out that you're kind of seeing the most pressure to the plan? And can you just kind of talk about just the current state of power markets, how you're kind of managing customer bill impacts and the ability to just continue to extend your rate base growth here, perhaps any levers that makes your jurisdiction more unique than others, that would be helpful. Thanks.
Andrew Marsh:
29:23 Thanks, Nick. This is Drew. So the way you phrase it was an interesting way to think about it, in terms of putting pressure on the plan. I would actually turn that around and say that it actually enhances the economics of the plan because we think about where the inflation -- what the inflation does to our two central investment themes beyond sort of our base capital in renewables. And in resilience, we think that inflation will actually strengthen the economic case from a customer's perspective to get those things done. Certainly, when you talk about renewables and higher gas prices, there's more economic headroom there right now. And that's accelerating the pressure to get the renewables done. We've already done a lot of work around improving our gas efficiency with the CCGTs that we've built historically. And of course, the Orange County Advanced Power Station is out there as well, a high-efficiency unit. So those things are helpful already, but we think it will accelerate our plan around renewables. 30:36 And then, of course, around resilience, a key piece of the plan is the costs associated with putting up hardened lines, distribution lines, transmission lines prior to a storm compared to the cost associated with doing it after the storm. And to the extent that there is inflation, that's going to exacerbate that difference, which is already substantial, and accelerate the need for customers to do it ahead of time in a planful way. And so obviously, those things have an impact on the customer bill, but the alternative of not doing it is an even greater impact on the customer bill. So I think it will drive customers who want to accelerate our plan, which will include renewables and resilience investment.
Nicholas Campanella:
31:30 That was very detailed. Thanks for the repose. See you in New York.
Andrew Marsh:
31:36 All right. Thanks, Nick.
Operator:
31:37 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from JPMorgan. Your question please.
Jeremy Tonet:
31:46 Hi. Good morning.
Leo Denault:
31:47 Good morning, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet:
31:49 All right. Just want to come back to DOC a little bit more, if I could. And for 2023 projects, if you could just break down price risk versus timing risk. And do you see C&I demand kind of insulating the project to a degree on both these factors?
Roderick West:
32:10 Price risk -- ask the question again, so I want to make sure Drew and I are trying to figure out who's going to answer what part of the question because I know that was a price risk question in there as well.
Jeremy Tonet:
32:21 Yeah. Just price and timing for 2023 projects.
Roderick West:
32:28 So the -- on the projects that we just referenced that being Sunflower, for instance. Sunflower is not at risk. That's one of our own projects. We're expecting that one, as Leo alluded to, to be in service sometime in August. So we're looking good there. The other ongoing projects that we are expecting a bit of delay of the ones I referenced earlier, West Memphis and Walnut Bend. We're working with our BOT partners, both of whom are reputable firms, to lock down both price and schedule certainty. And so there is some risk on both because of the delays for both the supply chain as well as the DOC issues. But beyond that, we'll see if Drew adds anything to that.
Andrew Marsh:
33:23 Well, I think the only thing I'll add to what Rod said is that -- and actually, Rod mentioned earlier, the bulk of our expectations are beyond kind of the next two year window. And we've issued RFPs, the DOC piece accepted. And they're fully aware of all the supply chain concerns and risks. And they are -- prior to the DOC action, they were already aware of tariff activity in that space. So we expect that these folks that we have -- that we are working with coming out of the RFP will be well situated to manage through the current environment and meet the expectations that they put through in the RFPs. 34:13 We expect that the DOC fees will be resolved at some point relatively near term. I mean, I think most of the folks that we've been engaging with would talk about by the end of the year. But even if it goes a little bit longer, we don't think that, that puts our overall expectations in jeopardy. And certainly, in the near term, as I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of other things. If projects are delayed, there are plenty other things for us to accelerate forward and meet other customer expectations.
Jeremy Tonet:
34:44 Got it. Thank you for thought. That's helpful. And just kind of pivoting a bit here to nuclear and really small modular reactors, just want to know your thoughts on, I guess, how this could unfold going forward. And we saw one of your peers potentially partnering with the university to build an SMR. Is this something that Entergy would consider doing to demonstrate the viability of the technology? Or any thoughts like us on SMR when and if that could be something that Entergy is really moving more towards or exploring?
Roderick West:
35:19 Yeah, Jeremy. We're certainly monitoring what's going on in the SMR space. And as you might guess our nuclear folks are involved in advisory capacities and others with various entities to make sure that we're -- we've got our finger on the pulse of where that goes. I think that the success of the technology is going to be critical to the decarbonization objectives of the economy. When you think about the ability to build cost competitive, carbon-free, smaller projects that aren't -- the issue, for example, we have with the size of the capital budgets of the existing technologies is that they're as big as the companies that fund them. And that's problematic if you got issues in construction. So we're very excited about that opportunity, when and how it fits itself into our needs, we're continuing to monitor and it's a little bit difficult to say. But certainly, I think we should all be -- room for that technology to take root. 36:31 We are spending, I know probably more of our efforts in the hydrogen space because of the unique position that we have in the hydrogen market with producers, consumers, stores, transported all in the heart of our service territory. So there's a unique advantage there. But it doesn't mean we're not staying involved in what the SMR technology could do for us and for the economy in general.
Jeremy Tonet:
36:59 Got it. It's very helpful, I leave it there. Thanks.
Roderick West:
37:03 Thank you.
Operator:
37:05 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra from Evercore ISI. Your question please.
Durgesh Chopra:
37:13 Hey. Good morning, guys and Drew long time no see. Just -- other questions have been answered. Just one quick follow-up from my side. Just can you confirm that the storm Ida balance of costs, which you haven't received sort of regulatory approval for? Does that still sit at $1.7 billion? I believe that was the number as of the end of the fourth quarter call. So if you could just confirm that or update us on where that sits now?
Andrew Marsh:
37:47 Yeah. So the answer is the total cost estimate for that storm is still at $2.7 billion in total, $1 billion of that is in the first securitization we expect to price in the next few weeks. And the balance would be towards the end of the year. The full $2.7 billion will be part of our filing that we are making in the next couple of days. We still be -- just to clarify, we have to get approval for the full amount to get cost recovery for the full amount. That hasn't -- $1 billion down payment is not pre-approval of those costs. It's just -- it's a prefinancing.
Durgesh Chopra:
38:29 I see. So essentially, you'll be seeking approval for the full $2.7 billion and the $1 billion that you've gotten already will be applied towards it. Is that the right way to think about it?
Andrew Marsh:
38:41 That is correct.
Durgesh Chopra:
38:43 Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the call today. Thanks guys.
Andrew Marsh:
38:49 Thank you.
Operator:
38:49 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Your question please.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
38:57 Hi. Good morning, team and thanks for the opportunity here. Congratulations on continued results. If I can, just to focus on the first quarter and some of the dynamics here. Can you comment a little bit on the industrial demand and the 6.5% in the first quarter here? And how do you see this trend through the balance of the year as you think about it, especially given the potential for export-oriented industries to do particularly well here? And could you talk also in tandem at the same time about some of those trends that you observed specifically around accelerating customer desire for renewables? You had specifically identified at the start of this year, a number of very large customers. But I have to imagine, based on your comments already that there are actually several other larger customers that you're talking to.
Andrew Marsh:
39:46 Yes. So this is Drew. I'll take the first part, and I'll turn the second part over to Rod. And so certainly, in terms of the sales expectations, we did have higher-than-anticipated industrial sales in the quarter. A lot of -- most of it was actually more or less in line. In fact, I would say, compared to our expectations, obviously, refiners, seeing very high crack spreads performed well. We did have some unplanned outages in some of the chemical and petrochemical space, which pulled us down a bit. And then there are unplanned outages for our Cogent customers, and that actually lifted us back up. So that Cogent piece was actually fairly strong, where there were a number of outages that helped lift is back up. 40:33 I would say that the other part, the unplanned outages for our regular customers, that was fairly significant too. So I mean, all in all, it's probably about what we were expecting but a little bit higher. And as we sort of go through the balance of the year, and I showed you the statistics on one of the slides or some of our key industries, we do expect them to continue to run at high utilization rates. Aside from planned or unplanned outages, they're going to try and trim those off as much as they can to run as hard as they can, given the current commodity environment. 41:10 And I will also say LNG wasn't on that page, but LNG utilization rates are extremely high as well. So I'll turn it over to Rod to talk about other...
Roderick West:
41:22 I was only going to elaborate on the LNG piece, and I'm not going to, Leo's point, give any pouch lines around Analyst Day because we'll give our point of view on our five-year outlook. But we are seeing greater interest in signing offtake contracts, which would support our view on expansion in the LNG space. We'll leave it to our customers to lead that conversation, but we'll note empirically that 85% of the projects are under FID consideration in the LNG space are in Entergy service territory. And so it just further supports our point of view that we have a unique growth story that is our customers have a unique growth story. And our ability to serve their expansions in addition to their -- helping them meet their ESG objectives remains a growth opportunity for us for us, and we still remain bullish about it.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
42:29 Excellent. And then just one other nuance here. I'm just seeing a lot of headlines here on insurance costs. I'm sure you guys have seen the headlines in Florida, but also in Louisiana itself, especially as it relates to catastrophic storms. Can you comment about any potential pressures from an inflationary perspective on your business specifics?
Leo Denault:
42:49 You're talking about insurance specifically, Julien?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
42:51 Yeah. I mean I was thinking about insurance specifically, obviously, a broader backdrop here, but insurance seems to be getting headlines here outside of the utility space of very late.
Leo Denault:
43:05 Okay. So I'll -- now insurance is -- we aren't allowed to ensure our poles and wires. So that hasn't been a driver on that particular space. Just like everybody else, we have seen broad insurance premium pressure. And so we are working through that regardless of whether it's property or general liability or what have you, et cetera. So we are cyber. We're working through that and making sure that we continue to meet our overall O&M expectations on a go-forward basis. But that's, as you said, it's sort of symptomatic of a broader perspective around inflation. We certainly have seen inflation in the fuel space. We've talked about that a little bit. We are working with our stakeholders on how to manage that in the near term. I think long term, that is a commodity which cycles, and we expect the wildcatter spirit that's out there and the oil patch to take over at some point and help bring prices back down again. 44:13 As far as sort of inflation in the capital space, we talked about that a little bit with solar, we're seeing it in other materials and some of our other capital projects. But I think the thing to keep in mind on that is, we're seeing it for our current marginal capital projects, but they're being added to a much larger rate base, which is already invested in and fixed. And so it's a much smaller piece of the overall rate base when you added in. And so the pressure from a customer bill perspective is not that great. Certainly, as I mentioned, the fuel piece is something we're paying close attention to. And as far as just other operating costs, we haven't seen much pressure as of late. But we're certainly mindful of that, and we are driving our continuous improvement efforts to make sure that we stay ahead of that on an ongoing basis.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
45:11 Got it. It doesn't sound like it's an outsized impact to you all here. It sounds like you guys have it under control. And also it sounds like a pretty good update here at this Analyst Day. So we're going to stay tuned. Thank you, guys.
Leo Denault:
45:23 Thanks, Julien.
Operator:
45:26 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research. Your question please.
Steve Fleishman:
45:32 Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Just on the resilience plans that you have talked about. I think going back to last year, you talked about kind of having discussions with key stakeholders and the like. And just -- can you give any sense of how those have gone? And is there any -- do you get a sense of urgency from people on this? Just any color there?
Roderick West:
46:03 Thanks, Steve. It's Rod. Good morning. We have just completed the analytics around the risk scenarios, probably consequence of storms. And we're in that evaluation phase of the CapEx investment scenarios. And so what you're alluding to is the beginning of the formal and sometimes informal technical and stakeholder conferences and conversation. That actually begins in earnest tomorrow as we begin the conversation in New Orleans. And so the feedback loop is just beginning, and we'll have more color around it at Analyst Day. I can tell you that we have certainly had informal conversations as we were beginning the analytics. And there's a keen interest in understanding, one, what's our point of view around the risk and the benefits of acceleration. Obviously, in the current economic environment, most of the stakeholders, customers and regulators and others alike are always going to be interested in how we think through the cost and bill impact. 47:29 And so we're beginning, but I'm expecting a very active engagement from the stakeholders as we move through New Orleans. Certainly, Louisiana in route to what we believe to be our first formal filings in that July time frame for the City of New Orleans. And then the state of Louisiana certainly around that time frame, but not just likely later. Even in Texas, Steve, we have -- we've begun dropping ideas around how they ought to think about resiliency. They -- certainly, their point of view might be a little different in terms of the sense of urgency that you alluded to than say, Louisiana and New Orleans. But we certainly have their attention, especially given the role of our Texas service territory in the industrial growth space. And their interest in resiliency as well. But short answer is we're just beginning, but more to say about it at Analyst Day, Steve.
Steve Fleishman:
48:38 Okay. So it sounds like at the very least, you'll have better data scenarios for the Analyst Day of what different options are. And obviously, the results will be over time, depending on what customers states want. Okay. Thank you.
Roderick West:
48:57 Thank you.
Operator:
49:01 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Vertical Research. Your question please.
Jonathan Arnold:
49:08 Good morning, guys. One question, just -- can you give us a little bit of a sense, you've alluded to being conscious of commodity and gas prices and obviously, take your points about the longer-term benefits of some of your investment plans. But what is the sort of current build trajectory that you see over the coming months? And maybe we could just sort of focus in on that.
Andrew Marsh:
49:41 Sure. This is Drew. So in the near term, of course, it depends on the jurisdiction. The one that you're probably most interested in, of course, is Louisiana and the securitization costs associated with that. It will depend on what the final pricing is of those securitization bonds, but somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10% once all those securitization costs are into bills. And I think that includes a little bit of uptick in the interest rates that we see. So obviously, our customers are expecting that. They know it's out there. So we're managing through that with our stakeholders. And the bulk of that has already been approved by the commission. And so it's headed forward as we've discussed. 50:36 The gas price piece -- that reflects -- it depends on the jurisdiction, but it generally gets into bills fairly quickly in Louisiana, Texas, New Orleans. There is a little bit of hedging that goes on in Mississippi and Louisiana can help that, but it's pretty small. But they're used to the gas price volatility. Nevertheless, we're continuing to work through it, the continuous improvement program that we have as part of that. We also have levelized billing programs for customers that allow them to manage through their bill and avoid some of that volatility. So those are examples of things that we're doing to try to help customers go through that. And then over time, I think gas prices are a little bit above where our previous expectations were, but they're still in a manageable range. And as we said and as you were alluding to, Jonathan, the investments that we intend to make should help with gas price risk and inflation risk on a longer-term basis.
Jonathan Arnold:
51:51 When you say over time, Drew, you're talking about sort of further out on the curve, right? Can you frame for us what the sort of 2022 impact on sort of top of the securitization might end up being on Louisiana customers, for example?
Andrew Marsh:
52:08 On 2022, yeah, it's going to be a portion of what I was explaining earlier because it's not always the overall securitization costs. So maybe about two-thirds of that. So about a 5% or 6% increase by the -- once those get into the bills this year -- later this year.
Jonathan Arnold:
52:30 And then I think the commodity piece is incremental to that? Or is that included in that number? I guess my...
Andrew Marsh:
52:36 No. The commodity piece -- you're talking about gas prices? Yes. I think a general rule of thumb around there is about $1 per MMBtu is about a 3% to 4% increase in gas prices, if that's sustained over a year. Of course, we haven't seen that yet, but that would be kind of the thought there.
Jonathan Arnold:
53:00 Okay. Thank you for that color. If I could just on one other thing. When I look at your slide with the progress against guidance in the few buckets like utility O&M and the interest line and then also this is parent line that's now there. It seems like you're tracking -- you've had more than a quarter's worth of the pressure you were expecting from the year in first quarter. I know that other taxes piece, you said would be kind of more front-end loaded. But is that timing across the board? Or are these some things that are building, but then you hope that kind of the sales uptick is going to hold your homeless effective? I was just curious if you can frame that a bit for us.
Andrew Marsh:
53:44 Yeah. Sure. So in terms of O&M, I think in the first quarter, you're talking to the timing elements. We are on track for our expectations for the balance of the year. And in terms of the interest expense element, we are seeing some interest expense that's a little bit higher than we would expect to stick as we go through the course of the year. But there's also some timing elements in that sort of category that we are seeing in the first quarter that will turn back around. So you're not seeing all of the interest expense in the first quarter and it goes away. It actually is going to be building over the balance of the year, but there are some timing elements in the first quarter that will turn around. But I think those are the two things that are going on.
Jonathan Arnold:
54:30 Thank you for that. Thanks. Good luck. Look forward to [indiscernible].
Andrew Marsh:
54:32 All right. Thank you.
Operator:
54:34 Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of James Thalacker from BMO Capital Markets. Your question please.
James Thalacker:
54:43 Hi. Good morning, everyone.
Andrew Marsh:
54:44 Good morning, James.
James Thalacker:
54:47 Just a real quick clarification just post Julien's question. With a slightly better sales outlook you guys have, have the drivers related to mix changed materially, Ergo? Is this really being driven more by a more robust C&I sales? Or are you seeing higher demand across all classes despite an increasing trend for return to work at this point?
Roderick West:
55:11 This is Rod. I think the short answer is it's been actually going the way that we expected. With residential demand trailing off as our residential customers are going back to work, school and kind of a pre-COVID life. And the growth story being driven by the C&I space that you alluded to. So from our vantage point, we're actually tracking according to plan there with a little bit of robustness in the C&I space, but that's about it.
James Thalacker:
55:52 Okay. Great. And just following up on Jonathan's question too, just to clarify, the 10% increase you're talking about, that's in -- that's 10% increase across total retail sales, correct, in Louisiana?
Roderick West:
56:08 Yes.
James Thalacker:
56:10 Is there somewhat of a skew across -- from a rate design basis like, is there a rough idea of like what that could mean for residential versus commercial versus industrial? Might be a little too granular at this point. I can follow up offline.
Andrew Marsh:
56:27 Yeah. I think Bill can cover that for you offline because I don't -- I can't actually answer that off the top of my head. There is a difference, of course. There's a big chunk of distribution costs and that is going to go mostly to residential and commercial customers, not as much on industrial customers.
James Thalacker:
56:45 Okay. Great. I’ll follow up with Bill. Thanks so much.
Operator:
56:50 Thank you. Our final question for today comes from the line of Ross Fowler from UBS. Your question please.
Ross Fowler:
56:57 Good morning. How are you? So if I think about your base capital plan at $12 billion. And I think if I remember correctly from -- we're talking about $5 billion to $15 billion of potential incremental CapEx. I just wanted to understand or comment around federal funding. Is that $5 billion or $15 billion of incremental CapEx sort of net of that number or would any federal funding net that number down, whatever that number happens to be depending on the long-term opportunity set?
Andrew Marsh:
57:32 Yes. The federal funding would be outside of anything that we've got in our projections. So the $5 billion to $15 billion, that isn't over the next three years, that goes out through 2030. Just to be clear on that. And it's really an acceleration of work that we could do over time based on the fact that we might take things that are working today, but are old standard and pull them down and put up something of a new standard. It's that kind of work that we'd be looking at. So any kind of federal funding would be used to offset the cost. And then that provides headroom that you could potentially accelerate more. 58:16 So one way to think about it, Ross, would be if you were going to spend $10 billion, and then all of a sudden, you got $1 billion worth of federal funding, we may spend $11 million, would be one option to be able to -- and you get it for effectively $11 billion worth of resilience for $10 billion number. So that's the way we would think about it and likely propose it.
Ross Fowler:
58:40 Okay. That's the way I understood it. I just want to make sure I was understanding that correctly. And then maybe longer-term, as you get to the credit metrics you need on the balance sheet you want on the balance sheet. If you think about your 5% to 7% EPS growth. As you execute some of these opportunities and maybe grow rate base faster than that in the long term, but there might be an equity need attached to the capital. So does that bring your EPS growth rate back down. What -- how do you think about rates on bills and your long-term growth rate? In other words, is the $5 billion to $15 billion thinking about extending that 5% to 7% or maybe even the upper end of that 5% to 7% for a longer period of time? Or is there actually an opportunity to accelerate that 5% to 7% longer term given bill pressure and other things that might happen with inflation?
Leo Denault:
59:33 Yeah. I guess I'll kind of sum it up this way. We have a significant amount of growth opportunities because of the growth needs of our customers. The resilience spend is certainly one of those areas. The acceleration of renewables ahead of the schedule that we're on to meet decarbonization goals of our current customers as they want to get outsized access to clean resources could accelerate renewables at the same loan growth. The expansion of our industrial base is a growth opportunity, just the growth that we're seeing, as we've talked about, the utilization rates are high, inventories are low, all the commodity spreads are in the right place. That leaves itself pretty ripe for expansion. And that's what we're seeing as we have dialogue with our customers going forward. 60:31 And then the electrification side of things where they're going to take existing load or existing processes that are not electrified and electrify them, and that creates load growth. So there's all kinds of avenues for growth in customer demand for a higher level or a different level of service that could provide capital opportunities for us. I would say at a minimum, that just makes the runway pretty long for us in terms of where we are with the current outlook. Our objective would certainly be to have a better outlook going forward and balance all the things that you were talking about. The growth in sales, the growth in investment, and the growth in financing needs and balance all that out in a way that creates a different trajectory for us going forward. 61:18 And I think our customers are going to demand the types of investments we need to make that happen. But that's in the future. So I think all of those combined certainly bode well for a continuation of the growth that we've seen and demonstrated over the course of the last several years, pretty much like clockwork. And then I think our objective and the work we need to do is to find a way to make it better.
Ross Fowler:
61:46 All right. That’s perfect. Thank you for that. Look forward to seeing you in June.
Leo Denault:
61:51 All right. Thank you, Ross. Look forward to seeing all of you as well.
Operator:
61:55 Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to Bill Abler for any further remarks.
William Abler:
62:05 Thank you, Jonathan and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 5, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
62:55 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Disclaimer*:
This transcript is designed to be used alongside the freely available audio recording on this page. Timestamps within the transcript are designed to help you navigate the audio should the corresponding text be unclear. The machine-assisted output provided is partly edited and is designed as a guide.:
Operator:
0:06 Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Entergy Fourth Quarter 2021 Earnings Release Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]. 0:37 I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Mr. Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Abler, the floor is yours.
William Abler:
0:47 Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. An effort to accommodate everyone who ask questions, we request that each person has no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release our slide presentation and our SEC filings Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. 1:34 And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
1:36 Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for another successful year. Our adjusted earnings per share is $6.02, which is in the top half of our guidance range. This is the 6th year in a row that our results have come in above our guidance midpoint. Underlying our steady predictable results is Entergy's dedicated, robust and resilient organization working day in and day out to create sustainable value for all our stakeholders. Because of the solid foundation that we have built and our proven track record, we are confident that we will continue to achieve success into the future by delivering meaningful outcomes. 2:22 As such, we are initiating 2022 guidance and affirming our longer-term outlooks in line with our discussions at EEI. This continued success is important to all our stakeholders, including our customers. Being able to navigate through headwinds is possible only through financial discipline that allows us to continue to raise the capital needed to serve our customers. Without financial health, we could not have raised the over $4 billion needed to fund the restoration from recent storms, including Ida and Laura, two of the worst storms ever to hit Louisiana. Newark, we have managed through the revenues lost as a result of these storms and COVID-19. 3:05 Without financial health, we could not consider accelerating resilience investment to better withstand future storms nor could we make the investments in clean energy that our customers, large and small, are seeking. In 2021, like 2020, we were presented with headwinds caused by the pandemic and weather events. And as in 2020, we proved we could navigate those headwinds and continue to deliver strategically, operationally and financially. Strategically, we stood up our customer organization and appointed our first-ever Chief Customer Officer, David Ellis. 3:47 David is building a team to work with our customers to find ways to meet their reliability, affordability and decarbonization goals. They are actively working on unique and significant opportunities to help our customers reduce their carbon emissions. We created a new sustainable planning, development and operations group, led by Pete Norgeot. In order to drive greater strategic direction and collaboration in addressing stakeholders’ sustainability expectations, we aligned key internal teams to work collectively to implement strategies that will decarbonize our portfolio and respond to our customers' sustainability needs, all while maintaining affordability and reliability for customers. 4:31 Guided by this holistic planning framework, we updated our long-term supply plan to significantly increase renewable capacity. We now expect 11 gigawatts of renewable capacity by the end of 2030, more than double the estimate in our previous plan. As part of this plan, we issued renewable RFPs over the last year totaling nearly 2,000 megawatts. We completed the tax equity partnership for Searcy Solar in Arkansas. We designed this unique structure to help facilitate the economics of utility ownership while better aligning the interest of project owner and tax equity partner. This is an important step to make utility renewable ownership and economic option for our customers. We proposed the Orange County Advanced Power Station in Texas. If approved, this will be our first hydrogen capable plant and will provide efficient power with the flexibility to utilize clean hydrogen. 5:21 We sold Indian Point and received approval from the NRC to sell Palisades, which is our last remaining EWC nuclear plant. We expect the sale to be completed around midyear. We made great progress in our diversity inclusion and belonging initiatives, including creating the diversity and workforce strategies organization. This team, led by Taiwan Brown is expanding our workforce development efforts and developing new standards for hiring. We concluded 2021 with gains in both female and diverse representation towards our goal of reflecting the rich diversity of the communities in which we serve. 6:07 Consistent with our progress, we received many awards and recognition for multiple aspects of our business, including environmental leadership and responsibility storm response, social responsibility, corporate citizenship, economic development and workplace excellence. 6:25 Operationally, we improved distribution reliability in 2021. For transmission, years of hard work and strategic capital investment led to system improvements as that team achieved its best reliability performance in more than 20 years. We wrapped up our AMI initiative with more than 3 million meters online. These advanced meters allow our customers to better understand and control energy usage to achieve their affordability goals. 6:53 Advanced meters also represent a foundational component of other customer and grid technology investments that will further improve service and reliability. Through continued focus on improved operations, Grand Gulf achieved its highest ever generation output in 2021. In response to the historic damage caused by Hurricane IDA, we deployed the largest restoration workforce in our history. The storm presented unique challenges, and we came up with innovative solutions to restore power and help our customers and communities recover on a timely basis. We deployed portable generators for key businesses and community services. 7:34 We also procured materials and supplies from non-traditional sources. For example, used pipe from the Halted Keystone pipeline to strengthen the foundation of new distribution structures in areas with soft soil conditions. Financially, our adjusted earnings results were in the top half of our guidance range. We maintained solid liquidity throughout the year. Between driving business risk improvements and progress on our ATM program, we reduced our remaining equity needs through 2024 to $700 million, roughly 1/4 of what we communicated at our Analyst Day in 2020. We made significant progress on storm cost and balance sheet recovery. We expect to receive more than $3 billion of securitization proceeds in the coming months, which includes a $1 billion down payment toward IDF costs. 8:26 We filed an uncontested settlement in Louisiana, and that case is on the agenda for today's LPSC meeting. The entire Entergy team proved once again to be highly resilient under challenging circumstances, and I cannot thank them enough. We also know that the key to continuing to achieve outcomes into the future is to ensure we are working for all of our stakeholders, customers, employees, communities and owners. We are committed to achieving meaningful outcomes for each. This holistic approach will drive a vibrant, sustainable business for years to come. Our 3-year $12 billion capital plan will continue to benefit customers with improved reliability, resilience, customer experience. and economic development. 9:14 Our plan will also support our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. These customer-centric investments, combined with our growth forecast and regulatory mechanisms, support 5% to 7% growth in adjusted EPS and a strong credit profile. Roughly 1/3 of the capital will go toward generation. In addition to maintaining our highly efficient gas fleet, this capital will continue to modernize and ensure the longevity of our emission-free nuclear fleet. In the planning period, we will increase our renewable portfolio to more than 2 gigawatts. That's a 300% growth in renewables. And that trend will not only continue but accelerate beyond 2024 with plans for 11 gigawatts in service by the end of 2030. 10:02 With this plan, we expect to achieve our 50% carbon intensity reduction goal several years earlier than our 2030 target. Additionally, our generation capital plan includes the initial portions of the investment in the Orange County Advanced Power Station with planned hydrogen capability, which is expected to come online in 2026. 10:23 As we've discussed, our region has tremendous advantages in both hydrogen and carbon capture. Our distribution and utility support capital plan totals $5.8 billion. The plan is designed to deliver improved reliability, resilience and customer experience through projects focused on asset renewals and enhancements in grids development. We will also ensure the grid is ready for new customer connections. 10:53 Our transmission plan is $2.3 billion and will drive reliability and resilience, while also supporting renewables expansion. Projects will focus on asset renewal and enhancements, congestion relief and new customer interconnections. We have clear line of sight to the base plan, but our intention is to do even better. Our future investment profile will increasingly be driven by meeting evolving customer needs. The two most significant areas of focus for our customers in the coming years are resilience and decarbonization. We have invested significantly in resilience for years, but with the potential for increasing frequency and intensity of weather events, it's time to review the speed with which we will make those investments. We've preliminarily identified between $5 billion and $15 billion of resilience investments that could be accelerated, which will help mitigate future storm damage and costs. 11:57 Over the coming months, we'll map out what makes sense for our customers with a goal to share this information with our regulators. Initially through technical conferences this spring, and subsequently through filings targeted for late summer so that we can with their support proceed to accelerate our resilience investment, our customers have aggressive decarbonization objectives. We are doing our part today with one of the cleanest large-scale generating fleets in the country. And as I have previously mentioned, the continued operation of our large nuclear fleet and the addition of significant renewable capacity will allow us to further support their decarbonization goals to reduce Scope 2 emissions. We are working to provide our customers with the products they need, such as green tariffs so that they can meet their environmental objectives. By meeting their clean energy needs, we can further accelerate our renewable deployment. 12:56 But a reduction in Scope 2 emissions will not be enough for many of our customers. Some are also looking for ways to reduce their Scope 1 emissions. Electrification is an efficient way to lower those emissions. Given the size of our industrial base as well as their emissions levels, helping our customers reduce their carbon footprint presents an exceptional opportunity for Entergy. 13:19 This is true for new and expansion customers like U.S. Steel and Sempra, who recently announced facility additions with electrified processes that will drive significant new sales. These two customers alone could add 850 megawatts of new load, which represents nearly 2,000 megawatts of renewable capacity if the new sales are supplied with 100% green energy. It is also true for existing customers who need to decarbonize their processes to meet their objectives. 13:50 As we talked about at EEI, we believe the addressable market could be as much as 30 terawatt hours of additional clean energy by 2030. Understanding the importance of renewables in attracting new jobs, Entergy Mississippi developed a strategy called Edge, economic development with green energy to give Mississippi an edge in recruiting industry to the state. 14:13 Entergy Mississippi is making its largest-ever commitment to renewable resources with plans to replace aging national gas plants with 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy over the next five years. The plan has drawn praise and support from the governor and the state's public service commissioners. We continue to work with our customers to determine the size and pace of their needs. We will ensure that our resource plans and financial forecasts reflect the latest customer insights, and we'll keep you updated along the way. 14:46 This is an exciting opportunity for us and one that is unique to Entergy. 2021 was another successful year for Entergy that benefited from the resilience we’ve built into our business. We delivered on our commitments, including steady predictable growth. We have a solid plan with significant certainty over the next three years. Beyond our base plan, other significant opportunities in renewable generation, clean electrification and resilience acceleration will serve at a minimum to extend our runway of growth. This growth will deliver many benefits for all of Entergy's stakeholders, which will ensure the sustainability of our business for decades to come. 15:32 Before I turn it over to Drew, I'm excited to announce that we will host our Analyst Day on June 16 in New York City. We will continue the conversation on the significant opportunities that we see ahead, and we will give you a view of our 5-year outlook. So stay tuned for more details. 15:49 I'll now turn the call over to Drew, who will review our financial results and our outlooks.
Andrew Marsh:
15:55 Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo said, today, we are reporting strong 2021 results in the top half of our guidance range. We executed on key deliverables throughout the year and our results are a validation of the resilience we've built into our business. We are confident that we will continue to deliver on our commitments, and we are initiating our 2022 guidance and confirming our longer-term 2023 and 2024 outlooks. I'll begin by discussing results for 2021 and then provide an overview of the key business drivers for 2022. 16:30 Starting on Slide 6. Entergy adjusted EPS for 2021 was $6.02 and $0.36 higher than 2020. Turning to Slide 7. Our earnings growth was driven by investments across our operating companies that benefit customers through improved resilience, reliability and operational efficiency. Weather adjusted billed retail sales growth was 2% for the year as sales rebounded from COVID-19 impacts. Industrial sales were strong at around 6% higher than 2020. We saw continued growth from new and expansion customers, which helps keep rates low as well as higher-than-expected demand from cogeneration customers. Weather effect on billed sales reduced our earnings by $0.03 per share for the year. Our December temperatures were at record highs and much of those sales were not yet billed before the year-end. When you take into account the negative weather impact for the year was more significant at $0.11. 17:33 Starting with first quarter 2022 results, we will use our AMI infrastructure to update our weather estimates to be based on the calendar view versus the billing cycle. To help you, the appendix of our webcast presentation has updated 2021 estimated weather effect by quarter which reflects the new methodology. Coming back to drivers for 2021, our utility O&M returned to more normal levels following last year's significant reductions from our flex pending program used to mitigate the impact of lower revenues from COVID-19. 18:07 We also saw higher depreciation and interest, which were largely the result of customer-centric investments. Results of EWC are summarized on Slide 8 and reflect the continued wind down of that business. 18:23 We expect to close on the Palisades sale by the middle of 2022, which will complete our exit of merchant business. On Slide 9, operating cash flow for the year was $2.3 billion, slightly lower than last year. Non-capital storm costs were a large driver of $220 million, increased fuel and purchase power payments, income tax payments and lower EWC revenues also contributed to the decrease, while higher Utility revenue provided a partial offset. 18:55 Moving to Slide 10. We continue to expect to achieve credit metrics that meet or exceed rating agency expectations by the end of 2022. Solid results of business derisking efforts reflected in Moody's upgrade of Entergy Texas long-term issuer and bond ratings on January 28. This upgrade recognizes the constructive regulation over the past several years. including riders and responsive storm cost recovery that has allowed Entergy Texas to earn a reasonable return on equity. 19:25 The improved credit rating allows the company to attract capital at a lower cost, which benefits customers. At the same time, Moody's moved Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to positive outlook while also citing constructive regulatory factors. Take a minute to provide an update on the excellent progress we've made with storm cost recovery. Entergy Texas has received approval from both the storm cost determination and financing order, we expect to receive securitization proceeds in March or April. And in Louisiana, we have submitted a unanimous settlement to the 2020 storm proceeding, which includes support for an additional $1 billion as an early prepayment against hurricane Ida cost recovery. And the matter is on the agenda for today's Louisiana Commission meeting. 20:15 Assuming the LPSC decides the matter today, we expect to issue the securitization bonds before storm season. We have also refined our estimates for Hurricane Ida, and now expect the cost to be $2.7 billion, slightly above our original expectations due to additional resilience and hardening investments as well as higher resource costs. We're completing storm invoice processing and Entergy Louisiana is on track to submit its cost recovery filing in April, followed by Entergy New Orleans around midyear. Our goal remains to receive the balance of Entergy Louisiana's Hurricane Ida securitization proceeds by the end of this year, pending Louisiana commission's procedural schedule for the case. Another area we have successfully reduced business risk is our pension obligation. 21:06 In 2021, our funded status improved by approximately $900 million or 38% as a result of our increased contributions and actions to accelerate the reduction of the liability over the last several years. In addition, slightly higher interest rates and strong pension asset returns in 2021 contributed to the improvement. We've also made progress against our near-term growth equity needs, as you can see on Slide 11. In 2021, we utilized our at-the-market equity program and sold close to $500 million of common equity. The decrease in our pension deficit further improves our Moody's cash flow metric, and we reduced our remaining equity needs by an additional $300 million. As of today, our remaining growth equity requirement through 2024 stands at $700 million, roughly 1/4 of the original expectation. 21:56 Looking ahead, Slide 12 shows that the fundamentals of our industrial customers remain robust. The forward commodity spreads remain supportive of continued growth and expansion. The four sectors shown on the slide represent nearly half of our industrial sales. As you can see, the economic indicators remain at or near multiyear highs our industrial base continues to be resilient and competitively advantaged. Our adjusted EPS guidance and outlooks shown on Slide 13 remain unchanged. Our 2022 adjusted EPS guidance range of $6.15 to $6.45 with a midpoint of $6.30. Our plan supports steady, predictable 5% to 7% annual growth. We also expect to continue our dividend growth commensurate with our adjusted EPS growth. 22:49 The key drivers for 2022 guidance highlighted on Slide 14 are straightforward and in line with what you would expect. Starting with the top line, we will see revenue growth result as a result of the customer-centric investments we've made as well as increases in depreciation and interest expense associated with the new assets. We also expect an increase in retail sales volume of 1.8% on a weather-adjusted basis. This reflects increases in commercial and industrial sales and slight decline in residential sales. Consistent with our EEI disclosures, we anticipate an increase in other O&M due to typical drivers, including inflation. We also have continuous improvement efforts to achieve on efficiencies and and flex tools that help mitigate changes during the year. The appendix of the webcast presentation contains additional details on the specific drivers, including quarterly considerations and earnings sensitivities. 24:05 As Leo mentioned, 2021 was another successful year for our company. We delivered results in the top half of the guidance range despite significant storm disruption. We have strong fundamentals that underline our plan which supports steady, predictable growth and are working to do even better. As Leo mentioned, Entergy has a unique and significant opportunity ahead. We are focused on translating that opportunity into a reality for our customers, our employees our communities and our owners. We look forward to talking more about these opportunities for you now over the coming months and at our Analyst Day in June. 24:25 And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Constantine Lednev:
24:55 Hi, good mooring Leo and team. It's actually Constantine here for Shar. Congrats on a great quarter and the closeout to the year. I appreciate the comments on potential upsides from resiliency spending in the prepared remarks. And I believe Mississippi has received an independent consultant recommendation on resiliency. Do you have any early indications on what the governing factors are and including some of the spending? Is it bills, regulatory constructs, financing needs? Any color on the early discussions that you may have?
RodWest:
25:24 Yes. This is Rod. Good morning. I think the early discussions are going to be focused on the state-by-state cost benefit analysis. If you think about our desire to accelerate resiliency, Leo alluded to it. You got four dimensions that we talked about, one of them being storm intensity, the frequency, the duration and the location. We're in the early stages right now of doing the statistical analysis around various scenarios. Each of those scenarios are going to play out differently in each of our jurisdictions. We think the lion's share of the work, as you might expect, is going to show up in Louisiana. That's the subject of the technical conference when we kind of 0 in on the scenarios and the planning assumptions where the regulator, along with the customers we'd be in a better position to make a decision on what direction they want to go in. But as Leo alluded to, that the technical conference is the prelude to the filings later in the year when we start to actually show the public kind of what we have to believe in order to put a specific acceleration plan in place. The nuances being a state-by-state play if that's helpful, but it's early in the process, which is why you're –you're hearing us framing it up in general terms.
Constantin Lednev:
26:49 Okay. That's helpful color. And just with the FEMA applications for resiliency funding of the $450 million, does that kind of play a factor? And how those plans get developed? And are those projects included in the CapEx plan? Or would you kind of fund those projects yourself if the FEMA applications don't go through?
RodWest:
27:09 As we stated before, anything that comes from the Feds helps to offset what would otherwise be borne by customers. And so we're going to remain actively involved ensuring we could maximize whatever input the Feds might be able to provide. That said, we still have to go forward with our regulators assuming that the Feds don't – don't contribute, whether it's offsetting existing storm costs or putting forth federal funds toward future resiliency spend. But our plans are assuming from a scenario planning perspective, both dynamics, but it's not dependent upon federal funds.
Constantin Lednev:
27:55 Okay. That's great color. And just a quick follow-up on the equity needs and kudos to the whole team for materially kind of mitigating the needs from the Analyst Day. Curious on your thoughts on the timing for the remaining $700 million in plan. Is there a threshold or event that could accelerate? Or do you have some cushion to defer given the progress made in '21, maybe a continuation of the ATM at a modest level.
Andrew Marsh:
28:19 Yes. This is Drew. We are still mindful that we'd like to get this done. And so we are continuing to work through with the ATM that we that we put in place before. I think you'll continue to see us use that, and we could knock this out fairly quickly with that framework. We'll be mindful of any other opportunities that if the right market conditions come along that allow us to go ahead and finish it off through a block. So we're paying close attention to that. But as you can tell, the number’s gotten much smaller. And so the end is sort of in-sight for us overall.
Constantin Lednev:
29:04 Thanks. That’s very helpful and thank you for taking the questions and congrats on the FY21.
Andrew Marsh:
29:11 Thanks Constantin.
Operator:
29:16 Thank you. Next up, we have on the line, Jeremy Tonet of JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeremy Tonet:
29:23 Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
29:25 Good morning, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet:
29:27 Good morning. Just wanted to start on load growth, if I could. Just if you could provide a little bit more detail on the significant growth on the industrial side. You provided some commentary there in the slides. But just wondering how you see that trending, I guess, relative to pre-pandemic levels and I guess, expectations to kind of exceed that? And then you talked a bit about green demand. Just wondering if you could update us a little bit more on where does the green tariff demand stand now across this customer base versus where it was 12 months ago? And how you see that kind of evolving over time?
Andrew Marsh:
30:02 So this is Drew. I'll take the first piece on the load growth, and I'll let Rod talk about the green tariff. So I mean, overall, our load growth for the industrial side continues to be robust. I went through some of the drivers for our main industries in my prepared remarks, those are in really good places than we do with the announcements that we talked about with U.S. Steel and Sempra, and we are continuing to see demand it. But the nature of it is evolving. And you see that in and what's happening there. I mean, those customers are looking for clean, green options at a low cost, and we are well situated for that. And as a result, that's sort of our opportunity from a generation perspective. A lot of the other fundamentals that we've had all along are still there, proximity to the Gulf Coast, proximity to the Mississippi River, an available workforce, supportive communities, all of that is still there. it continues to attract investment from our customers and for others from outside the area today. So relative to the pre-pandemic, I would say that's pretty good. But post-pandemic, we're seeing that shift to wanting that clean electrification opportunity. And that is what we are seeing this year, as you go into '22, it's a little bit lower. But as you look out to '24 and beyond, we certainly expect it to continue to ramp up on that clean electrification opportunity.
RodWest:
31:45 And I'll simply add. Leo alluded to the 30 terawatt hours of an addressable market through 2030. And – and the efforts that we've taken internally to engage differently with those customers to kind of identify how this demand might play out. What we saw with U.S. Steel and Sempra we think, underscores the thesis that the opportunity for growth is there. We'll share far more details about how we see the next five years playing out at Analyst Day. But the early indicators are that we're pretty confident that our industrial customers, in particular, and we're seeing it kind of flow down into the smaller commercial sector. There -- they've already made public their plans to reduce their carbon emissions, and we think we have a unique opportunity to play a role in helping them get there. And that does foreshadow for us, a great demand for our green products, also underscoring, as Leo alluded to in his comments, the significance of our low emitting and efficient gas generation as well as our nuclear fleet, not to mention the up to 11 gigs through 2030 for solar. But more to come at Analyst Day, but so far, early indications are looking really good for our ability to help our customers meet their sustainability objectives.
Andrew Marsh:
33:20 That’s helpful. Thanks for that. And kind of…
Rod West:
33:22 On the green tariff, okay.
Andrew Marsh:
33:27 That’s helpful. Thanks for that and maybe picking up on the point there, without front-running the Analyst Day, are there any broad strokes that you could provide for us as far as themes or other topics that we might expect at the Analyst Day update wise?
Leo Denault:
33:44 Well, I think as I mentioned, Jeremy, we're going to go a couple of extra years as we always do at Analyst Day and those opportunities that Rod talked about, even if you think about U.S. Steel and Sempra, for example, 24 and 27 in service desk. So this acceleration really picks up as you get out kind of the '24 and beyond time frame. So I think that will be the -- as far as the major theme, we'll talk a little bit about what we what we may be seeing in that regard. So more detail [Technical Difficulty].
Operator:
34:25 Hello. One moment, please. We ask that you may on the line, the conference will resume shortly. [Technical Difficulty]. We apologize. The speakers have returned.
RodWest:
35:22 All right. So I don't know, Leo, if you want to respond to [Indiscernible]…
Leo Denault:
35:25 I don't know if you got the last answer. I know Jeremy, you had asked about the Analyst Day. And I was mentioning that we'll go a couple of years out farther than the 2024 current outlook. And that will be interesting because what we're starting to see from these electrification opportunities and these growth opportunities, if that's about the time things can start to show up is 2024 and beyond. You can think about U.S. Steel and Sempra, those two announcements, those are 2024 and 2027 and in-service dates for those facilities. So the opportunity that we're talking about does start to show up really outside the balance of the current capital plan. So that will be probably the biggest pieces that we'll be talking about.
Jeremy Tonet:
36:17 Got it. That's helpful. And just one more, if I could. With regards to Grand Gulf, given stronger operations in 2021. Just wondering if you could update us, I guess, how things are looking right now operations-wise in '22 expectations. And has this kind of improved performance and really kind of coming through when needed, improved stakeholder conversations? Just wondering if you could provide any update there.
Leo Denault:
36:45 Well, Grand Gulf has improved operations, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, had is highest generation output ever in 2021. And it's our expectation to continue to have that performance going into the future all be better as we continue to through outages, upgrade the equipment associated with facility our nuclear plants are going to be very, very important to the economic development of our jurisdictions. And as we talk about electrification, I think one thing that goes unnoticed is the already clean nature of our fleet. As one of the cleanest generating fleets in the country with some of the lowest rates in the country, some of these decarbonization objectives can be met by electrifying processes just using the grid power that we have today even before we build out the renewables because it already meets Scope 2 needs that some of our customers have. 37:49 The objectives of the majority of our customers are decarbonization. So we have a lot of dialogue with them about the nuclear fleet being an important part of the decarbonization. So I think it's -- the dialogue around nuclear has changed significantly in terms of its importance in the future of the economy of the states in which we operate. So it's a holistic approach. It's an important part of not on the reliability of the system, but the sustainability of the system. And as more and more customers demand carbon-free energy that follows their load, we're going to be an advantage in the jurisdictions that have nuclear power.
Jeremy Tonet:
38:37 Got it. Actually, one last one, if I could. Just any updated thoughts that you have on advanced nuclear small modular reactors and if you think that this could start to enter the Entergy plans towards the end of the decade here.
Leo Denault:
38:53 Well, certainly, we have folks who are following the development of all different kinds of technologies in the nuclear space. And should we get to a point where some form of SMR is economically viable, we'd certainly make it part of the mix because as I mentioned, the nuclear the decarbonization is what everybody is after. And today, the most reliable way to make a lot of energy without emitting carbon through nuclear power. So we're following those developments across the board. To the extent they become economically viable, we would certainly pursue it. And as history has proven, our jurisdictions are typically open to the development of new assets create jobs, high energy intensity and to really benefit economic development. So too early to say how quickly those will become part of the resource mix. Certainly, there's a lot of development left to be done. But given the focus on carbon reduction, people are spending a lot of time and effort as the federal government on making sure that we're supporting that sort of R&D.
Jeremy Tonet:
40:05 Got it. That’s very helpful. I leave it there. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
40:08 Thank you, Jeremy
Operator:
40:11 Thank you. And next, we have on the line Michael of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Michael Lapides:
40:18 Hey, guys, Thank you for taking my question. I actually have a couple and they're kind of unrelated to each other. First of all, on the Orange County project, seems like it's a long construction time frame, four years, right, if you get approval in May, June time frame, but in service not till May of '26? Is that due to the hydrogen capability being added? Or is there some other driver? Normally, combined cycle is a little bit quicker than that?
Leo Denault:
40:47 No, there's nothing really. I mean, by the time we get the regulatory approval, get into the process, there's a little bit more work done at this stage on the hydrogen side, but it's not a significant cost driver or anything like that at these early stages to get to the 30% blended capability. So nothing out of the ordinary. It's a big plant.
Andrew Marsh:
41:09 And I would say that, Michael, that given our history of construction around CCGTs would come in underneath the expected time line in pretty much every instance. So I wouldn't expect that we would end up in June of ‘26 unless there was some other kind of weather-related issue or something else going on.
Michael Lapides:
41:28 Got it. Okay. And then an unrelated topic, the FERC put out its policy statement about gas infrastructure projects and GHG emissions. And it obviously matters to you, you're not building pipelines of material size at all or anything, but lots of companies in your service territory who are major customers who either are trying to build new pipelines or trying to build new LNG facilities or other petchem-related energy-related infrastructure. Just curious how you see this process changing the permitting for new gas infrastructure? And what that means for your Louisiana and Texas service territories longer-term?
RodWest:
42:17 Yes, Michael, it's Rod. As you might imagine, we're closely aligned with our – our industrial customer base, as you have alluded to, in terms of what it might portend for the future. It fits into our point of view that perhaps this might be a catalyst for the acceleration of decarbonization efforts, all of which fuels our point of view around our ability to help them achieve few of their objectives, whether it's through the Scope 2 resources from our electrical supply or any opportunity we have to electrify sort of their scope processes. But just extrapolating from that FERC ruling for us, we're viewing it through the lens of what's the implication for the customers, them moving faster as a condition of permitting to take advantage of the other market advantages of locating, expanding in our service territory. So it is unclear how it will ultimately play out. But as you might imagine, we are giving thought to how that applies to other potential customers like Sempra most recently as they're working through their permitting process. And we are stakeholders in those proceedings for that very reason.
Michael Lapides:
43:54 Got it. Thank you, Rod. Much appreciated guys.
Andrew Marsh:
43:58 Thanks, Michael.
Operator:
44:01 Thank you. And next on the line, we have Jonathan Arnold of Vertical Research. Your line is open.
Jonathan Arnold:
44:09 Hi, good morning, guys. Just a quick one on longer-term financing. Drew, I think you sort of talked about being done once you've done the '22 to '24 reduced equity raise. Is -- how do you think about that sort of post '24 period is something sort of similar to the run rate you've effectively been doing here, a sensible assumption? Or could you be sort of out of the capital raise business for a few years like you've been in the past?
Andrew Marsh:
44:50 That's a good question. Jonathan, obviously, we've talked a lot about the types of financings that are available to us and what would be good in certain situations And the financing with the equity capital markets is useful because it gives you a firm idea of what you're going to get and it's a liquid market and you can close quickly. And so that's what we've been doing here recently because we have a very near-term need. And if you're talking about needs out beyond 2024 there are different options that become available because it is such a long-term thinking. And so it's not just capital markets, some of the other things that are out there that we've talked about before, might be available to you from a strategic perspective rather than a capital markets perspective. But that's longer term, that's not anything that we would be thinking about necessarily right this minute. But as you look out beyond our horizon period, there are other options available too.
Jonathan Arnold:
46:04 Okay. And just one -- just to make sure I've got this straight, the $300 million or so that you did under the ATM, that's not yet settled. Those shares are not yet in the share count, correct?
Andrew Marsh:
46:18 That's correct.
Jonathan Arnold:
46:19 Okay. Thank you. And then just on one other thing. Can you remind us or maybe tell us what went on with the Liberty County solar project and were there any lessons learned around that for a better outcome next time around? Or just use some reflections there?
RodWest:
46:38 Yes. This is Rod. The Liberty County project was pulled not because the commission didn't recognize the benefits of the actual project. That particular one, and again, it was unique to Liberty County, had more to do with where the Texas Commission was in terms of how they viewed the Liberty County project and its implication inside of ERCOT. And so I don't want to send a signal that there was anything necessarily untoward with the project. We pulled it because we wanted to come back to the commission, one, when they actually had a full commission -- and I will share with you the lack of a full commission was also influential in their reticence to approve the deal. And so it's a -- it was a short time timing play for us. We had greater needs for capital, and we were also recognizing that there was a robust response to additional RFPs and decided to pull it. But it does not in any way thwart our belief, or in our view the Texas staff's belief, in the viability of those projects. So we expect to come back with more, but I didn't -- don't want you to overread anything into it.
Jonathan Arnold:
48:05 No. Do you expect to come back with that particular project, or it was just with other things [Indiscernible]?
RodWest:
48:12 Well, the timing of that particular one, there's going to be -- there might be more to come there, but there's more than a robust opportunity for us to fill our needs with the other projects. So I won't give any signal into that specific one, but the pipeline is quite robust.
Jonathan Arnold:
48:33 Great. Thank you, Rod.
Operator:
48:38 Thank you. And next on the line, we have Paul Zimbardo of Bank of America. Your line open.
Paul Zimbardo:
48:52 I want to follow up on some of the potential storm hardening acceleration where you talked about some of those data points leading up to the Analyst Day. Should we think of that as purely incremental capital? Or could that kind of mitigate some of the capital already in the plan as you don't need to do some other work around storm hardening?
Leo Denault:
49:14 It's really an acceleration of things that we've identified could be done. So -- for example, in our current 3-year outlook, there's around $2.7 billion of T&D investments that you could considering – could consider resilience investments. About $1.7 billion of that to the T Space, about $1 billion of it in the D space. We've been doing resilience spending in a combination of new projects that we do and then we do storm hardening after the fact when we're repairing after a storm as well build to the new standards. What we'd be looking at with the resilience spend that we would put out is are there things we could do faster than they would have otherwise been on the schedule. So it would be incremental in the time frames that it would be proposed if that makes sense as opposed to being done five years later or something like that, if that makes sense, Paul.
Paul Zimbardo:
50:22 Yes, it does. Now that's clear. And then the other question I had was just given some of the broad inflationary pressures, how are you thinking and comfort level about ability to execute in Arkansas relative to the 4% rate cap?
Andrew Marsh:
50:39 Yes, this is Drew. I'll start and maybe Rod can add to it. Obviously, we're not immune from whatever inflation issues that are out there. And so we're monitoring it closely. There's different pieces to it. There's the fuel piece, which gets collected through a separate fuel rider in Arkansas. And that might move the 4% cap up a little bit, but that's not going to hinder our investment there. 51:15 On the O&M side, we haven't seen the kind of pressures that we've been hearing about setting in other sectors. That doesn't mean that we have had some been dealing with it on more of a spot basis. And ramping up our continuous improvement to help manage against the potential for acceleration of inflation more broadly in our business. And then on the capital side, we are seeing some pressure on the capital side, particularly when talking about some of the solar projects. 51:52 But in the RFPs that we've been conducting recently and that we expect to conduct, we're still in the very early innings of our renewable investments. And while we've seen some pressure on some of the projects that we've already have sort of underway. The bulk of it is to come and all those expectations already have built in understanding of the inflation environment have and the supply chain that we're dealing with and everything else. And those projects are still very robust. They have strong NPVs for the customer. And so we'd expect them to get support from the retail regulators as well. And that kind of offset with fuel costs and other things, we think will fit into the caps in Arkansas, in particular. So right now, we don't see any real challenges. I mean we're obviously monitoring inflation very closely and adjusting our business and ramping up continuous improvement in order to manage it, but we don't see anything immediately in our way.
Paul Zimbardo:
53:08 Okay. Thank you very much for that.
Operator:
53:13 Thank you. And next on the line, we have Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd:
53:21 Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
53:23 Good morning.
Andrew Marsh:
53:24 Good morning.
Stephen Byrd:
53:25 I wanted to follow up on Jeremy's questions just on nuclear operations, and it looks like there's been good improvement there. And just wondered if you could speak to just dialogue with the NRC. You're not on Column four and looks like operations are improving. But is there any additional color you can give in terms of the dialogue with the NRC on nuclear operations?
Leo Denault:
53:47 We continue to have a lot of dialogue at all levels from the resident inspector to the regions, to the headquarters in Washington, certainly around not only operations, but license transfers, et cetera. So I'd say our relationship with the NRC is strong, and it's open. I meet with resident inspectors when I'm on site. I meet with the region on a regular basis, and I mean all the commissioners when I can. We had to do a lot of it virtually over the course of the last couple of years, but we continue to have a very robust and open dialogue with the NRC, and it's a very constructive relationship.
Stephen Byrd:
54:34 Understood. And has there been sort of recognition of the improvements in operational performance of your nuclear fleet?
Leo Denault:
54:42 Yes. Absolutely.
Stephen Byrd:
54:43 Okay. Great. And then just one last one for me. This is a common question kind of across many utilities. But just given the commodity cost outlook, could you just speak a bit to the outlook for customer billing? Because you especially residential customer bill increases across your footprint? I know residential is a smaller percentage for you all than some utilities, but I'm just curious, given the commodity outlook, what the sort of bill increase outlook is for you.
Andrew Marsh:
55:09 Yes, Stephen, it's Drew. So there's a couple of things going on in our bills, and it depends on the jurisdiction in particular. I already talked about inflation and what that means. Going back to the fuel piece of that, when you talked about Louisiana and Texas, Winter Storm Uri in 2021, raised the fuel costs quite a bit in those two jurisdictions for 2021. So now as the fuel curve has come up a bit, it's not as much of an impact, frankly, on customers in those jurisdictions because we already had some high fuel prices because of Winter Storm Uri. And then as you look forward, the fuel curve is, of course, a bit backward dated. And our expectations are typically above the forward curve once you get out a few years, and that's still the case. Obviously, there's a lot of other things besides inflation going on in the price of natural gas today. 56:13 But we think we're pretty well situated from a customer perspective there. And then also in Louisiana and Texas, you have the securitization thesis coming on in the next probably 18 months or – well, hopefully, by the end of the year, frankly, to get all the securitizations done in the Louisiana. So that would probably be by the beginning of next year, you'd see the full effects of those. That's a pretty big step up. particularly in Louisiana. But once we get past that, I think the growth rate in the bills should be fairly reasonable. And we've historically said at or below inflation. Obviously, that means something different today. But our at or below inflation is probably going to still be true based on historical expectation for inflation less than 3%. So that's what we'd expect to see once we got past sort of the securitization and the current higher costs associated with fuel.
Stephen Byrd:
57:17 Very good. Thank you very much.
Andrew Marsh:
57:20 Thanks, Stephen.
Operator:
57:21 Thank you. And our last question comes from the line of [Indiscernible] of UBS. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst:
57:34 Assuming all goes well at the Louisiana Public Service Commission, what are the steps for getting storm recovery that you'll have? There's the securitization that you touched on just a minute ago. Can you walk through the steps in the amounts that you expect to be coming in?
Leo Denault:
57:57 Sure. So in Texas, we've already got the orders. And so we're in the process of setting up the actual sourcing of securitization funds, which should take place in March or April, that's I think in the neighborhood of $290 million is the expectation for that and assuming we get the outcome in Liana today, there's approval by the LPSC in the next few months, we would set up the transaction for that. That would be around $3.2-ish billion, including the $1 billion of Ida funds. That's going to be a little bit different than the Texas transaction, that's going through the state effective we have already approval from the State Bond Commission to get that done. On the first piece, we'll be setting that up here, hopefully, very soon. And then, of course, the remainder of the Ida costs would be hopefully by the end of the year in a similar process.
Unidentified Analyst:
59:10 Okay. Thanks.
Leo Denault:
59:14 Thank you.
Operator:
59:17 Thank you. And now I will hand the conference back over to Bill Abler for closing comments.
William Abler:
59:27 Thank you, Chris, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on February 25 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occurred prior to the date of the 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website on regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
60:19 Then this concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect and have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Entergy Corporation, Third Quarter 2021 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speakers presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. During the session will need to press star one on your telephone. If you require any further assistance, please press star 0. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Bill April or Vice President Investor Relations you may begin.
Bill Abler:
Good morning. And thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, William Renault, and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions we request that each person ask not more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those forward-looking statements due to a number of factors which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation, and our SCC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information, reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo (ph).
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Bill. And good morning, everyone. Today, we're reporting quarterly results that keep us firmly on track to meet our financial commitments. Third quarter adjusted earnings were $2.45 per share. With good visibility into the rest of the year, we are narrowing our 2021 guidance range to 590 through 610 per share and expect to achieve 2022 and 2023 results in line with our outlooks. Further, we are extending our outlooks to include 2024 and see our steady predictable growth of 5% to 7% percent continuing through this period. Additionally, we achieved the milestone of raising our dividend by 6% and aligning with our earnings growth. This happened on the schedule we previously communicated and represents another commitment met. We have developed a more resilient business and despite $65 million of non-fuel revenue losses in the third quarter due to Hurricane Ida, we are maintaining our financial commitments. Our resiliency provide stability that is valuable to all of our stakeholders, particularly customers and owners. The quarter was heavily impacted by Hurricane Eta, which made landfall as a strong category for hurricane bringing powerful destructive wins across New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and beyond. Our coastal communities were particularly hard hit by both strong winds and storm surge. Ida disrupted the lives and businesses of many of our customers and communities and Entergy was there to help when they needed us. We gathered a restoration force of 27,000 our largest ever. Representing Entergy employees, contractors, and mutual assistance crews, from 41 states across the country. I would like to take a moment to personally thank our employees and the crews who answered the call, to come help restore power to our impacted customers. Further gratitude goes to our employees who worked restoration despite their own homes being damaged by Ida. They epitomize what it means to put our customers first, I never cease to be amazed by the dedication and effectiveness of the many restoration workers who step away from their lives for weeks at a time, help our customers and communities get their lives and livelihoods back up and running again. Despite IDAS wins creating significant damage and destruction across our power grid with close to a million peak outages, our team restored customers at a rapid pace. In just over a week, we had roughly half of all customers restored. Metro areas like New Orleans and Baton Rouge saw restoration essentially completed by day 10. Within 3 weeks, more than 98% of all affected customers were restored. And it's easy to lose sight of the fact that this restoration was successfully accomplished while dealing with the effects of the pandemic. Entergy also helped our customers and communities throughout the recovery process by developing -- deploying 165 commercial scale generators to power critical community infrastructure like medical facilities, gas stations, grocery stores, municipal water systems in community cooling centers in advance, and power being restored. In addition to restoration work, Entergy's employees contributed countless hours to their communities and Entergy shareholders committed $1.2 to $5 million to help affected communities rebuild and recover. While power has been restored to customers who can safely take it, our job is not finished. We are committed to minimizing the effects of IDA on our customers bills. We will work with our regulators to seek securitization of Ida storm costs, which is a proven and low cost means of recovery. Further, we are coordinating with key officials and stakeholders, including Louisiana Governor Edwards, the City Council of New Orleans, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Louisiana congressional delegation and the Biden administration seek federal support that could offset the cost of our customers for Ida in the 2020 storms. There's widespread alignment amongst state and local leaders on the compelling case that louisiana has to obtain federal support. We are fully aligned with this perspective. To be clear, any federal funding that Entergy utilities obtain will reduce the customer obligation, dollar for dollar. We're also committed to mitigating the impacts of future storms. Entergy has made significant transmission and distribution investments. Nearly $10 billion over the last 5 years, which made our system more resilient. We've seen those new investments performed well under the most challenging conditions. Wind damage to our transmission structures, for example, has occurred most almost exclusively to older structures built to prior standards. It has become clear that major weather events of all types are occurring more frequently. And with greater intensity. Hurricane Laura made landfall as the strongest storms hit the Louisiana Coast since 1856. Then exactly 12 months later, Hurricane Ida hit with almost equal force. Our resilient standards and asset programs have never been static. And we've continued to evolve them. And as I mentioned, our investments are working as designed. However, the uptick in severity and frequency of storms is compelling us to take a fresh look at how we can make our system more resilient, including the pace at which we can achieve it. Even prior to Ida. We're actively deploying multiple options along our resiliency scale, particularly for our service area of south of I10 and I12, which has the greatest exposure to Hurricane strength winds and flooding. Evaluating these resiliency options needs to be done under future climate scenarios. And we're taking into account important considerations, such as customer affordability and sufficiency of materials and skilled labor. This customer-driven investment will be significant and we will work collaboratively with our regulators and other stakeholders to determine the optimal path forward. Coming back to the quarter, I would like to highlight that despite dealing with a major storm, the business continued to run well without missing a beat. We've made great progress in several open proceedings. first, EBITDA Arkansas filed a unanimous settlement for its formula rate plan, and the Arkansas Commission has agreed to cancel the hearing and take up the settlement based on the filed testimony, which is positive. New rates in arkansas will be implemented in January. In New Orleans. We recently implemented rates at the level that reflected all adjustments proposed by the counsels advisors. So there are no further proceedings there. We also are pleased to note that Entergy, Arkansas reached a settlement with key customers of it's green promise tariff filing. If approved, this tariff will enable us to offer green solutions to meet the growing sustainability demands of our customers. And we're making progress on other open proceedings. And Entergy Louisiana, its FRP rates went into effect. Entergy Arkansas received approval for the West Memphis solar project. Entergy Texas reached an unopposed settlement on its 2020 storm costs filing. And Entergy Texas also filed for approval of the Orange County advanced power station. And the Louisiana 2020 storm recovery and securitization process remains on track. We continue to make progress on de -carbonizing our fleet. We've announced 5 gigawatts of solar and our supply plan through 2030 with a goal of doing more. And an update to our supply plan in renewables growth will be provided next week at EEI. In addition to helping meet decarbonization goals, the cost of renewable resources relative to conventional resources continues to trend favorably. And renewable resources provide an important edge against rising and volatile natural gas prices. We'll provide more details around our latest resource plans at EEI. Last quarter I discussed ways in which Entergy can help our industrial customers meet their sustainability goals. While many of expressed long-term goals like net 0 by 2050, even more have developed shorter-term interim goals that will require action by the end of the decade. Clean electrification is one of several important tools that are industrial customers have as means to achieve their objectives. Clean electrification provides a great opportunity for load growth. And we will require significant capital investment in renewable generation, transmission, and distribution. The load growth that comes with electrification will help pay for incremental customer - centric investments. We'll have more to discuss regarding the opportunity we have to help our customers meet their sustainability objectives next week at EEI. While it is important to discuss these longer-term growth opportunities, I want to make sure we don't lose sight of the very solid based investment plan that we have in front of us. Over the next three years, we have a $12 billion capital plan that is designed to deliver reliability, resilience, and improved customer experience, and environmental and cost efficiency benefits to our customers. When paired with our well-defined regulatory constructs, a plan will deliver 5% to 7% adjusted EPS growth for our owners over the next 3 years. That's a very solid base plan. And beyond this strong foundation, these other opportunities and renewable generation, clean electrification, and resilience acceleration will serve to extend our runway of growth throughout the rest of the decade. We look forward to continuing the conversation with you at the EEI Financial Conference. Now, Drew will review the quarterly results.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Today we're reporting solid results even with the challenges from Hurricane Ida. Summarized on slide five, our adjusted earnings per share was $2.45, slightly higher than a year ago. We continue to execute our strategy and we are firmly on track to meet our commitments. In fact, with three quarters of the year behind us, we are narrowing our guidance range to $5.90 to $6.10. We're also affirming our outlooks and extending the outlook period through 2024. and we recently raised our dividend to align with our adjusted EPS growth rates. Turning to slide 6, our investments to improve customer outcomes continue to drive growth. That includes rate changes to recover those investments, as well as associated new operating expenses. Industrial build sales were 10% stronger than a year ago. We saw increases across most segments with largest increases in primary metals, petrochemicals, transportation, industrial gases, and Chlor Alkali. This reaffirms the strength of our industrial customer base. And in a world with supply chain constraints and higher energy prices, our industrial customers, businesses remained strong and competitive. These industrial sales were strong despite Hurricane Ida. Overall, across all classes, we estimate that third quarter revenues were approximately $65 million lower as a result of Ida. Hurricane lowers impact on third quarter 2020 was approximately half of that. Other O&M was higher this quarter as planned. This is partly due to higher costs for distribution operations, including reliability costs, higher expenses in our power generation function, and higher health and benefit costs. Moving to EWC on Slide seven, you'll see results were slightly lower than a year ago. The key driver was the shutdown and sale of Indian Point. Operating cash flow for the quarter as shown on Slide eight, the quarter's results is about $300 million higher than last year. The increase is due largely to improve collections from customers, including collections associated with investments to benefit customers and Winter Storm URI. This was partially offset by expenditures related to higher natural gas prices. Slide nine summarizes our credit and liquidity. We expect to maintain our current credit ratings and we continue to expect to achieve targeted rating agency credit metrics as storm restoration spending is securitized and we retire storm-related debt. We'll take a minute to discuss our balance sheet, beginning with a quick update on Hurricane Ida on Slide 10. Over the past several weeks, we've refined our cost estimates and we've shaved $100 million off the upper end of the range. The total cost is now expected to be $2.1 to $2.5 billion. We've also updated our estimate of the non-fuel revenue loss, to $75 to $80 million the lower half of our previous range. While our net liquidity, including storm reserves remained strong at $4 billion, we are also working to ensure timely storm cost recovery. That starts with the successful restoration effort and proceed through two avenues. First, Entergy, Louisiana amended its 2020 storm filing to request an additional $1 billion to provide early liquidity for Hurricane Ida costs. And in Texas, we reached a settlement on the 2020 storm costs filing. And that is now before the PUCT. Second, we haven't improved the efficiency of our storm invoice processing to accelerate our filings and ultimately cost recovery. We plan to complete financing for the 2020 storms by early next year and Ida by the end of next year. And our work isn't over, will continue to identify ways to further reduce business risk. As Leo highlighted, we're looking forward to a conversation with our customers, retail regulators, and other stakeholders about how we best accelerate and implement a strong resilient plan. We have already hard and more than half of our critical transmission and distribution structures along the Gulf Coast to standards implemented after Katrina and Ida. Continue to move the bar higher by reevaluating current standards using the latest weather data. In addition, a comprehensive resilience plan needs to include the strategic placement of assets to allow higher-risk community to recover more quickly. For example, microgrids, distributed energy resources, and deployment of generators Leo highlighted to certain critical customers. The aftermath of storms could be very helpful in supporting communities as they recover. Going to more depth on this in our conversations of EEI. In addition to physical resilience, our regulators know the importance of a healthy credit at the operating companies to support customers. And they have put in place time-tested cost recovery mechanisms such as securitization, as storm reserves to support that need. We are fortunate that and looking to recover the 2020 and 2021 storm costs, we're starting with some of the lowest rates in the country. We have significant electrification growth potential that could help pay for incremental customer centric investments and future storm costs. All of these will support oupr credit has a regulators and key stakeholders aligned with us around a strong resilience acceleration plan. In addition, we continue to execute on the exit of EWC and were less than a year from completing our plan. The resulting improvements were recognized by S&P last fall through our improved business risk profile and by Moody's just this past quarter through changes to our rating thresholds. Those changes remain in place and our ratings reflect future storm risk. As a result, we were able to reduce our 2021 to 2024 equity need. Combined with our ATM transactions, our future equity need is more than 50% lower than the $2.5 billion communicated in Analyst Day last year. Moving to slide 11, we have a clear line of sight on the remainder of the year. And for the third year in a row, we are narrowing our adjusted EPS guidance. In this case for 2021 to $5.90 to $6.10. We're also affirming our longer-term outlooks of 5% to 7% adjusted EPS growth and extending to 2024. Our confidence in our solid base plan continues to grow. that key expression, that confidence is the dividend. For the last several years we've discussed our goal to align our dividend growth with our adjusted EPS growth. Our Board of Directors recently declared a $0.06 increase in our quarterly common dividend, dividend. Which is now $1.01 per share. That's a 6% increase as planned. We expect to continue this growth trend going forward, obviously subject to board approval. That's good news for our owners who provide the capital needed to meet our customers' evolving needs. Today, we're executing on key deliverables and we have a solid base plan to meet or exceed our strategic and financial objectives. In less than a week, we owe Rod and I will be imported to meet with many of you in person for the first time in almost two years. We'll provide our typical updates on considerations for next year's earnings expectations and will provide our preliminary 3-year capital plan, including a positive update on our expectation for renewables. We will also talk about the significant long-term customer - centric investments beyond our current outlooks from renewables, clean electrification, and acceleration of our system resilience. We're excited about these opportunities ahead and look forward to talking to you about all of it at EEI. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this question or a comment at this time, please press ( operators instructions )on your touchtone telephone. If your question has been answered, you wish leave with yourself from the queue, please press the pound key and we also ask that you limit yourself to two questions. Our next question -- I'm sorry, our first question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim.
Shar Pourreza:
Hey! Good morning guys. How are you doing?
Everyone:
Good morning Shar.
Shar Pourreza:
Just a quick question here. It's starting maybe high level -- Leo, if it's okay, would -- kind of regulatory complaints from New Orleans. Do you have a sense for how the council wants to proceed at this point? Obviously they're looking for input into everything from operational response to ultimate ownership of the assets. Do you envision a path where you don't own the assets and the more or on the contrary, or is there an negotiated outcome where the city authorizes incremental spending like more transmission interconnection funded by E&O customers, to address their concern?
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Shar. I would say, first of all, obviously, what we've been doing recently with the Council is, we've got through the formula rate plan. got those rates in effect. Both council as well as the LPSC and others as I had mentioned, were all aligned on approaching the federal government for offsets to customer costs through potentially CDBG funds and then even in the future in terms of storm hardening as it relates to infrastructure. That's really been where we are in terms of what's been going on recently, it's if -- all focus has been really on how do we get the next steps done in what's logical progression to what we want to do. And that is to support the credit below vnO As it relates to those other items they are still out there and we plan to co-operate with the Council as they go forward. In most of those instances, we are still wanting to hear from them in terms of what their objectives are as it relates to whether it's the ownership structure or what have you. So those are processes that they began and to the extent that they have objectives will work collaboratively with them to meet those needs. And we think that however it works out, it will work out fine for us and for them.
Shar Pourreza:
Just lastly, for me and then I know you sort of touched on that a little bit around your prepared comments and it's been obviously immediate question with Investors is around the storms and maybe the expenses that were incurred. Could we just maybe get an update on some of the other mitigating factors for customer Bill head rooms. And we obviously talked about volume metric growth and the macro backdrop, but there is obviously, and also there's work you're doing with the LPS in New Orleans to get federal support. But how are you -- I guess, thinking about other charges rolling off and potentially having the Bill headroom to continue kind of investing in capex, especially as we're seeing your 24 numbers in line with the 6% midpoint growth in 24. So, could we assume this run rate remain healthy despite some of the near-term concerns around build pressure and escalating storm issues?
Andrew Marsh:
[Indiscernible] this is Drew. Could you tackle that first and then I'll let Rod and Leo pitch in. I'll mention a couple of things. First of all, the securitization is what we're moving forward with in Texas and Louisiana for the recent storms. But there's also a bunch of securitization is also still rolling off. And that includes costs associated with the ICC (ph) and Hex's (ph). I think that comes rolled off next year. Same -- similar and Louisiana goosed off and, Ike rolling off and even Isaac costs are going to start to roll off maybe in 2024. So those are relatively near-term that can take some of the pressure off of the securitization costs. Also on natural gas prices. There's been a lot of discussion about natural gas prices. You obviously, a lot of people are experiencing higher natural gas prices at highlight some of the investments we've made in high efficiency CCGTs that diversification in our fleet for nuclear, it also highlights the stronger business case for solar, but the forward curve for natural gas is somewhat, as you know, backwardated and the prices get pretty low. In fact, if you just go out a couple of years, our internal forecasts are higher than what the nymex curve would say by the time you get out to something like 2024. So that's -- we don't necessarily view that as a long-term problem. Certainly it's a challenge for our customers right now. Starting with Winter Storm Yuri in the price bikes then, but we've already recovered all of those costs and we're moving forward. And then finally, for some of the growth capital, that's out there, we highlight the 3 areas associated with significant potential investments. Starting with resilience and accelerating our resilience program. That's really kind of in lieu of future securitization to the extent that we can put more resilience in place. And then what we were already planning that would offset these future securitization costs. So that's a different portion of the bill, so to speak, than we would normally see. And then of course, with renewables, fuel costs, the ONM associated with that. And if you look at our capital plan and we'll talk about this at EEI. And there's been quite a bit of rotation in our capital plan and the generation states from future CCGTs to renewables. And so that's taking up bill space that we're already planning to use. And then finally, the clean electrification as Lee. Leo mentioned in his remarks, that includes incremental sales. And that should provide space for that incremental investment. So we believe that all of that should -- there are spaces for all of these to happen, end even accelerate as we go forward in the next few years.
Shar Pourreza:
Got it. I think that was helpful. Thank you for that. I appreciate it, guys. So I'll leave it at that.
Leo Denault:
Thanks. Shar
Operator:
Question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JP markets.
Jeremy Tonet:
Hi, this is actually Brandon Travis on for Jeremy. Thanks for having me. First question, I'll follow-up with the second one. Can you just comment on the build back better framework and the implications that may have on Entergy in its current form? And then just particularly as it relates to nuclear hydrogen renewables ahead of your plan refresh at EEI.
Leo Denault:
Sure, sure. There's a lot in there. They certainly as we look for support for things like hydrogen and support for things like existing nuclear. We view all of that. In addition to continued support for renewables, we view all of that is -- as positive towards our ability to keep a low cost profile of the future benefits associated with our capital plan. We're really, really, I guess -- I guess I'll start by saying I'm cautiously optimistic that there will be an infrastructure, infrastructure bills that will be passed. It's every day, there's new news one way or the other in terms of how that's going. You're here from. But as you know we're pretty well-positioned in the hydrogen space. We have significant fleet of existing nuclear plants. We're deploying a lot of new renewables. So all of the -- that focus on tax credits, particularly production tax credits is really -- we view that as highly supportive of what we're already planning on. Looking forward with. And when you anticipate having the capability, at least as we're interpreting things today. And I know there's a lot of devil in the details to come to be able to utilize as much of that as we can for the benefit of our customers. But again, as you know, we're very excited about the hydrogen space. As we -- as I mentioned in my remarks, we made the filing associated with getting the Orange County advanced power station, which will be hydrogen capable, approved in Texas with all the hydrogen infrastructure that's around us. That will be very, very important for not only us, but for the industry as we look to utilize long-duration storage, critical factor, factor in anyone's ability to get to net 0 by 2050. And I'd also say that's well supported by the fact that the industrial gas customers in our service territory are all exploring green, blue, and pink hydrogen as well. And so I think -- specifically we will have to see exactly where everything ends up if it gets done. But we see it as a nearly a way for us to accelerate what we're already trying to do.
Jeremy Tonet:
That's helpful. Thank you. And then we are curious on what drove the delay on the Sunflower solar project. If you could say that it was maybe supply chain-related, or if there's anything else specific that you can point to there. Thanks.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah. It wasn't really supply chain-related, is just some onsite challenges that our partner ran into. But we expect it to be constructed early next year. And then we'll proceed on with it.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. Thanks [Indiscernible] Appreciate it.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America..
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Good morning team. Thanks for the time. So just first off, I'll leave some of the bigger details for EEI, but just following up here on the opportunities around renewables and the reconciliation ability. To the extent in which direct pay happens here, just how meaningful could this be? Especially given the prospective acceleration that you all are talking about coming with ya here?
Andrew Marsh:
You're talking about refundable PTC?
Rod West :
Yeah. The refundability and how that improves your credit metrics that hopefully.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah. That would certainly help and also potentially change some of the investment profile that we have. Because right now we're assuming tax equity partners for all of our own transaction to facilitate the investment tax credit today. And to the extent that there are refundable PTCs that are available and it's more economic for our customers then -- than I think that we would be moving more towards 100% ownership. And so something that looks like 70, 75% ownership of each facility.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it right. So it's both capital opportunity and credit metric enhancing or you're saying it's not decisively credit head thing because of the higher capital and you have an updated the equity component yet either.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. It probably helped a little bit, but it's I don't know if it's going to -- it's more neutral. I would think for us right now.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Okay. That's good color. Thank you. And then separately, a little bit further afield here. Any progress on transmission here in Siri? I know that's been out there for a bit. Obviously, we've got some others in the sector resolving or the -- settling their issues here. Any thoughts?
Rod West :
This is Rod. Good morning. On the every front, short answer is no. The litigation matters that have been pending for some time as we shared before, [Indiscernible] and have any specified timeline. We are hopeful that between the end of this year, beginning of next -- of 2022, we'll begin to see some resolution, I think starting first with the ROE cap structure matter, but the short answer is no material changes because it's all in FERC's domain at this point.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
All right, excellent wildwood to EEI to fall further, guys, customer OCC.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI.
Durgesh Chopra:
I will cede it back to someone else. My questions have been already asked and answered. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.
Steve Fleishman:
Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Morning, Steve.
Steve Fleishman:
By the way, Rod, my team is putting in a good word for [Indiscernible] forest. comments [Indiscernible]
Steve Fleishman:
We've got 2 graduates. So just first on the support from the federal government. And could you just talk a little bit more about the path to kind of -- is there certain bills? Is this just going to be an executive? Or just -- can you just talk a little bit more about how we'll learn about this?
Leo Denault:
Sure. So -- I'll start and let Rod jump in because Rod has actually been down this path before have post Katrina as it relates to the CDBG funds we're acquired for New Orleans. As you know, governor Edwards has made an appeal to the government for funds to support recovery for a variety of reasons, as it reported, as it relates to 2020 storms, as well as Hurricane Ida. And in those requests of the administration, he's put in play -- he's put in about $1.2, $1.3 billion for utility restoration offsets for our customers. So the process has been for us to, to work with our congressional delegations, the LPSC, the state council, and the governor is trying in convince effectively the federal government to appropriate dollars to go. They would go through HUD to the state. In the form of community development block grants. And then we're also positioning for HUD to vital opportunity for a waiver so that the governor can actually allocate those dollars to investor-owned utilities in addition to what muni's and co-ops and housing and other things that obviously are very, very important. We're working through that process right now. A lot of us have spent time with our delegations. We've spend time at the White House. We're spending time with agency, secretaries. So all of that is in place to try and work toward offsetting costs associated with not only Hurricane Ida, but this would also go back to 2020 storms, which was also part of the Governor's request. And Rod, If you have anything to add to --
Rod West :
Yeah. And I guess the only thing that remains uncertain is the timing. Just like I made reference to FERC and some of the series things before. There's no specific timetable for the administration congress are hood to act on the Governor's request. It's now in their hands. I think the most significant development from our vantage point is that we have clear alignment amongst the delegation and express support from the White House. And our governor for the utility customers that's a big deal. As we think back to our experiences during Katrina, it took a while to get that alignment. That the objective of offsetting on dollar-for-dollar basis, the regulatory compact impact of storms on customer bills. There's no lack of alignment around the desire to achieve that, so that part we've been able to close the gap
Andrew Marsh:
on quicker than in prior storm disaster events. Now comes the ultimate decision-making process of allocating those funds to the states so that the governor could industry, though. Timelines uncertain, Steve.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. And then the same alignment you talked about focusing on better resiliency. I mean, I think you've talked about how your newer polls have held up well to these two storms but there's just a huge amount of [Indiscernible] placement that could be needed to probably do that. As we're thinking about this, is this something that would likely end up being done through kind of a rate base type mechanism or something different than that?
Rod West :
If we were to accelerate the capital program, the short answer is yes. That if we are -- obviously we are remindful of affordability in this conversation. But if we were accelerating a resiliency buildout You would expect that we would seek some type of alignment from the regulators with some type of recovery rider that might operate outside -- might have to operate outside of an existing FRP, or some adjustment to the FRP to attack this specific. Rick assets kind of renewal and resiliency plans. So it play out on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, as you know. But yeah, I think the answer to your question is yes. It would play as a -- as a rate base play. But on -- but on accelerated basis outside of the normal -- normal ratemaking.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. And then -- that's helpful. And then just on the -- as you mentioned, you lowered the equity financing need by more than half when you did the update a month or 2 ago. Just any better sense on timing and are you still looking at options other than just straight equity issuance to facilitate that?
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, Steve, this is Drew so we haven't updated anything except what we've said before. That's through 2024 and we've also said that we could accomplish all of this through the ATM program. That doesn't mean that we aren't looking at blocks or preferreds. Those are still out there. But we would look to do those opportunistically depending on market conditions. And we've been executing successfully with the ATM over the last several months. We will continue to do that unless, like I said, an opportunistic going come along and we can execute with the block. but otherwise we'll just continue to complete with our -- with our ATM and we should get it done fairly quickly, would be my guess.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Steve.
Operator:
Our last question comes from Jonathan Arnold, with Vertical Research.
Jonathan Arnold :
Good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold :
Just a couple -- From your comment Leo, of the beginning, there's knows for the outstanding issue with the New Orleans City Council, I was good to hear. I recall at one point they were -- prevented you from implementing the formula rate is decision effectively last week, just really move you beyond that, is that, or what were you saying?
Rod West :
Yes. Rod. Yes. The decision to implement the FRP basically obviates the conversation around any push back on the normal operation of the Formula Rate Plan as we had settled with the Council. So that is net positive in the continuing discussions with the Council.
Jonathan Arnold :
Great. Thank you, Rob. Just more broadly, that started to be I feel some noise around the cost benefit of Entergy's membership of mitre in some of your jurisdictions. And I'm just curious whether you have any perspective as to whether we might see any changes, and what kind of -- what venue sort of four. [Indiscernible]
Leo Denault:
Jonathan, obviously, our participation in MISO today has been very valuable to our customers we've saved about $1.75 billion normally over the period of times since 2014 when we joined. And the 2013. So certainly there has been a benefit to my -- so where we see our regulators taking issue. And we're actually -- we're supportive of them. It's just making sure that we get the allocation of cost of major transmission projects done correctly. And making sure that as we would like to see that the people get benefit to major transmission upgrades are the ones who actually bear the cost of major transmission upgrades, as to people who don't get any benefit fair on that costs. So we're aligned with our regulators in that, in that concept and the theory. We're certainly not in a position where we're looking to exit MISO at any point in time. We entered MISO because of the benefits, we've obviously seen those benefits. But as the world evolves, and as [Indiscernible] capital plans evolve, and the transition to renewables evolve, and differently, North versus South, we just need to make sure that we continue to evolve the process cost allocation in a thoughtful way, that's all.
Jonathan Arnold :
Great. Thank you there.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
I'll now turn the call back over to Bill for closing remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Kevin. And thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 5th and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called, Regulatory And Other Information, which provides key updates on regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant Company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that conclude today's presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2021 Earnings Release Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Bill Abler, Vice President Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Bill, and good morning, everyone. I'm happy to report another solid quarter. Our adjusted earnings were $1.34 per share, including a negative impact from milder-than-normal weather. The underlying utility performance was strong and our team successfully executed on multiple deliverables across the business. Our execution not only this year, but over the last several years has resulted in strong growth and lower risk. This in turn has provided us more financial flexibility, which was most recently recognized by Moody's. The result is enhanced ability to manage risk and lower equity needs to fund our growth. The bottom line is we're on track to deliver on our commitments including our financial results. We have a clear line of sight to achieving our 2021 guidance, as well as our longer-term financial outlooks. And with the added financial flexibility from our lower business risk profile, we expect to be in the top-half of those ranges. Our 3-year $12 billion capital plan is the foundation. It is designed to deliver important benefits to our customers and will result in 5% to 7% adjusted EPS and dividend growth. Our capital investments will improve customer outcomes along several dimensions, including reliability, resiliency, affordability and sustainability. Our plan also supports our expectation of at least 5,000 megawatts of renewables by 2030. delivering on our environmental stewardship commitments. There is a great deal of certainty around the execution of our plan as more than 90% of our investments today are tied to enhancing technology across our system to improve reliability and resiliency. 90% of our investments will be recovered through efficient and timely regulatory mechanisms, such as FRPs and riders. And 90% of these investments are ready for execution from a regulatory standpoint. Additionally, we were able to manage our costs to provide certainty to our stakeholders through both our flex spending program and continuous improvement. These initiatives allow us to manage our customers' bills and keep them affordable, while also providing steady predictable growth in earnings and dividends for owners. We have consistently maintained rates among the lowest in the country, and we have achieved 7% compound annual growth in adjusted EPS for 2016 to 2020. Our accomplishments so far this year keep us firmly on the path to meet our objectives. One important objective is increasing our renewable and clean energy resources. To that end, Entergy Texas began the process to seek approval to construct the Orange County Advanced Power Station, a large scale hydrogen capable facility that represents a significant milestone in our strategy to provide clean energy that also supports reliability. We received approval from the Arkansas Commission for the Walnut Bend Solar project. We will own this 100 megawatt facility, which is expected to be placed in service in 2022. It will provide clean energy for our customers in Arkansas and possibly provide capacity under a green tariff. We recently filed our proposed [green promise tariff] [ph] in Arkansas to allow for the sale of designated renewable energy to interested customers. Many customers have expressed interest in such an offer. And in fact, customers had input into the development of the proposal. We have received signed non-binding letters of interest from 20 customers, including Walmart, a global technology company, a major retail pharmacy company, nearly a dozen hospitals or hospital networks in Arkansas University, and a number of large manufacturing customers. Our customers are telling us what they want and we're listening. We're working to bring them offerings such as [green promise] [ph] to help them achieve their sustainability goals. We also continue to make progress on our annual FRPs, which provide for timely recovery of investments that benefit customers. Entergy Mississippi's FRP was approved and the full rates are in effect. And we submitted our annual filings in 3 jurisdictions
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting results for another solid quarter. As you can see on Slide 5, we have experienced robust sales as we recover from the impact of COVID-19. And we continue to execute on our key deliverables. We're well on our way to achieving our goals for the year, and we are affirming our strong guidance and longer term outlooks, while pointing to the upper end of the range for each. Turning to Slide 6, you'll see the primary drivers for earnings in the quarter were straightforward. We continue to see the effects of our investments to improve customer outcomes, green rate changes to recover those investments. We also saw effects of the COVID-19 recovery. Sales were higher than last year, despite negative weather in the quarter. Our industrial sales improved 7.1% year-over-year driven by economic recovery and growth, our industrial customers are now running at levels exceeding 2019. Commercial sales also are continuing to recover as businesses reopen and residential sales are beginning to taper as workers go back to their offices. On Slide 7, you'll see a little more detail on key sector indicators for our industrial customers. These 4 sectors collectively represent nearly half of our industrial sales. As you can see the economic indicators are healthy and at or near multiyear high points. Inventories are back in alignment. Commodity spreads have improved and volumes and margins are doing better across the board. Overall, our industrial base has rebounded nicely from the challenges of 2020. You are fortunate to have a resilient and competitively advantaged industrial base. Turning back to the earnings drivers are spending increased as we return to more normal business conditions. This increase is expected, as we significantly reduced costs last year to offset the effects of COVID-19. The spending includes increased scope of work and are generating plants, including outages differed from the past year. You also have incremental spending for new plants and service, and in our focus areas of reliability and improving the customer experience. Our O&M expectation for the full year remains $2.7 billion. And we will continue to utilize our flexible spending tools to achieve steady predictable results. Moving to EWC on Slide 8, you'll see the results were lower than the prior year. The key driver was the sale of Indian Point to Holtec. The sale resulted in a pre-tax charge of $340 million, driven primarily by the nuclear decommissioning trust exceeding the decommissioning liability. The sale of the Indian Point is significant accomplishment and an important milestone in our exit of EWC, and one which further improves our business risk profile, the impact of which I will address shortly. Operating cash flow for the quarter is shown on Slide 9. The quarters result is slightly higher than last year's operating cash flow returns to more normal levels. This change is due primarily to improve collections from customers, which are offset by a few items. Fuel prices increased compared to last year, and we saw a negative cash flow impact from the tightening of fuel and purchase power cost recovery. Severance and retention payments were higher at EWC relating to the closure and sale of Indian Point. And we also had some remaining payments for non-capital 2020 storm costs. Our current credit metrics are shown on Slide 10. Our parent debt to total debt is 22.4%. And our FFO to debt is 8.3%. Our FFO to debt remained suppressed in large part due to the financial impacts from storms. As we mentioned the past few quarters, we expect the metric to return to targeted levels in 2022, after we received securitization proceeds and pay down the incremental debt. We've made our storm recovery filings in Louisiana, Texas and New Orleans. As Leo noted, both Louisiana and Texas passed legislation to support off balance sheet treatment for securitization. And last week, Entergy Louisiana made it securitization filing. Recovering storm cost through securitized debt is the best alternative for customers to help strengthen our balance sheet. As we communicated, we have several options to meet our equity needs. In this past quarter, we utilized the at-the-market equity program. As of the end of June, we had sold approximately $73 million of common stock of which approximately two-thirds were forward sales, which could settle as late as next fall. Finally, I'd like to discuss the Moody's advisory that was issued this past week. So affirming series investment grade ratings, Moody's did place SERI on negative outlook citing the currently pending cases filed against SERI at FERC by Retail Utility Commissions. Moody's indicated that these cases have the potential to erode series earnings power and cost recovery. While we are, of course, disappointed by this change, we recognize that the level of claims brought against SERI approach the value of Grand Gulf and the regulatory environment in which SERI is operating is far from constructive. In the same advisory, Moody's affirmed the parent investment grade rating and outlook, recognizing the Entergy's larger size and diversity could withstand adverse outcomes at SERI. In addition, Moody's recognized our improved business risk profile, which is a result of our successful multiyear strategy to wind down EWC merchant business and grow our utility business. To do this, they reduced the cash flow from operations minus working capital to debt threshold that's a bit of a mouthful, for Entergy Corporation from 15% to 14%. We are pleased with the recognition of the de-risking that we've accomplished in our business and combined with S&Ps simpler recognition last fall, we are excited about the enhanced financial flexibility that our work has unlocked. Moving to Slide 11, the recent recognition of our de-risking efforts and incremental balance sheet capacity, we are early in the process of determining its full impact on our plans and outlooks. With that said, there are some early takeaways. First, the incremental capacity significantly increases our confidence in our ability to execute the current business plan. Second, we will not need as much equity to fund our utility growth. While we are affirming our 2021 adjusted EPS guidance range of $5.80 to $6.10, as well as our longer-term outlook for 5% to 7% adjusted earnings per share growth. The combination of the improved confidence and lower equity need places us in the top half of our guidance and outlook ranges. We have a clear line of sight on our capital plans to benefit customers and a robust balance sheet to support that investment both underpinned by a strong continuous improvement program, and discipline flexible spending plans. We plan to invest for the benefit of our customers in project designed to improve reliability, sustainability, resiliency, and customer experience. These investments and programs further support community economic development, and employee development, all while keeping our focus on low rates. Finally, the incremental balance sheet capacity resulting from our de-risking efforts will enhance our ability to unlock the significant investment opportunities that will flow from working alongside our commercial and industrial customers that Leo described to help them lower their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Today, we are executing on our key deliverables. And we are firmly on track to meet or exceed our financial objectives. We are investing in customer solutions to enhance our customer experience. And our investments in renewables and hydrogen technology will continue to support our sustainability efforts, and those of our customers to provide new opportunities in the future. We are very excited about the growth opportunities ahead. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, good morning. It's actually Rich on for Jeremy. Thanks for taking our questions today.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Rich.
Unidentified Analyst:
Maybe just starting with the equity message, first, I realize you laid out some of the drivers behind this. But just wanted to drill down more specifically on the share-count aspects for 2021 as well as just the overall evaluations. Can you speak a little bit more just to the timing of updating for the new Moody's outlook? And what other considerations around business mix and where the plan stands now could factor into the lower equity needs?
Andrew Marsh:
Sure. So I'll talk about the time. This is Drew. I'll talk about the timing first. We have been working on this a long time. But we just got the recognition from Moody's in the past week or so as I mentioned. And so, we are still early in the assessment of what the overall impact means. I pointed to a couple of the early elements associated with it. We expect to complete that this fall. It could be sooner. I would say probably no later than EEI. But it could be sooner than that. And as it relates to something like the share count or specifics around size, I don't have those kinds of details available to give you today, other than to say, we believe it'd be meaningful, it'll be a meaningful change. In terms of the evaluation, which is I think part of the question that you had in there, we still want to make sure that we are hitting our earnings and credit expectations. We will still need to issue a little bit of equity to do that. But the opportunity is much more robust in front of us now. We think it's been significantly de-risked. We have a lot more confidence, as I said, in our ability to execute. But we don't have specifics that we can give you today. A couple other sizing or I should say evaluation perspectives, one is that as we have talked about extensively, we have a significant growth opportunity ahead of us. And we want to make sure that we have the capacity to invest into that opportunity as it materializes. And then, Moody's specifically also talked about SERI and our ability to manage that risk as it's presented right now, specifically around the uncertain tax position case. And their perspective was that we should be able to manage that risk and still meet the expectations around earnings and credit. And so, we want to make sure that we have that capacity built in as well. And of course, we still believe that we're going to be successful in SERI. I know that wasn't really a question. But if that doesn't materialize, that would be incremental opportunity for us to invest in the business.
Unidentified Analyst:
Got it. Thanks for the color there. And then, maybe just switching gears to the CCGT in Texas, what is the timeline for regulatory approval? And do you expect the hydrogen aspect to impact approvals process at all?
Rod West:
It's Rod. Good morning. From the procedural standpoint, the process will begin at the commission right around the Labor Day timeframe. We're zeroing in on that. And then the procedural schedule will be set by the PUCT. And that process could run 6 to 12 months if we're efficient in the way that we're pursuing it. But again, that's up to the PUCT in Texas. And you asked the question around the hydrogen component. I want to make sure I heard the question correctly.
Unidentified Analyst:
Sure, just curious if, given the novel nature of the hydrogen component, if you expect that to impact the approvals process at all?
Rod West:
No, the hydrogen component as it's currently configured represents approximately 5% of the overall cost. And we believe we have a compelling case for why having that flexibility benefits our customers, and certainly would support the CCN. So it's novel, of course, and we're prepared to explain why it's beneficial. But more importantly, bringing our customer benefits along, when we think about the industrial opportunity that we're - that both Leo and Drew referenced. We think that also adds to the viability of hydrogen being part of the CCN process at this stage.
Leo Denault:
Jeremy, I'll just add to what Rod said, there are 2 advantageous components to the hydrogen piece of this. One is certainly in the environmental space, that hydrogen is a cleaner fuel. The other is that what we are going to end up with at the end of the day is a dual-fuel unit. It'll be able to run on natural gas, or hydrogen, or any combination in between. And so, if you think about resiliency, that optionality provides not only environmental benefits, but an added level of resiliency, which we've all seen is something that we need, as we start to deal with weather events.
Unidentified Analyst:
Understood. Thank you for the color there.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, good morning, team. Congratulations on some of these updates. Really well done.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
If I can, if I can try to rehash a little bit. I know it's early in the process, but maybe the other way to ask this is, what are the big puts and takes as you think about the outlook now, relative to new targets, et cetera? I just want to make sure that, as you think about it, what are the building blocks that you're, shall we say, assessing here early in the process? And then related to that, if you can just sneak this in there? Where are you just in the financing plan year to date? I know, this is all fluid and dynamic. But what have you done thus far this year, relative to the full year plan and expectations here if you can around that?
Andrew Marsh:
So, Julien, this is Drew. In terms of the big puts and takes, I mean, I think the first thing is just sort of the back of the envelope math, in terms of what the - how much put and take is out there. And when you go from 15% to 14%, given the size of our cash flow, it's somewhere in the $1.7 billion to $2 billion range. And it is sort of growing over time. So it's a lot of extra capacity. And what we are considering in terms of the building blocks, I think, as I mentioned, I think there's probably 3 big ones, right? One is, now, okay, so how much incremental equity do we really need right now, that'll take up some of that capacity. One is, how much opportunity is really out there for growth in the commercial industrial space, as we ramp up our ability to work alongside our customers to manage their Scope 1 and Scope 2 positions. I mean, those are probably the 2 big ones. Then Moody's specifically talked about our ability to manage identifiable risks that are out there. And they pointed to SERI specifically, and if you take the ALJ's recommendation around uncertain tax position, that's in the ballpark of a little over $500 million. That could be a piece of capacity as well. Certainly, we are very comfortable in the way that we are positioned in that case. And we can go through that. And we have in the past, as you know, Julien. So, I mean, I think that is additional, something that we're thinking about as well, making sure that we have the capacity to manage that risk like that. And that Moody's was pointing at that. So, I mean, those are the 3 things. And, we certainly had a forecast before this ruling last week that said, we were going to hit our earnings expectations, we were going to hit our targets on credit, those are still the case. Now, we have extra capacity to do that and manage through these new opportunities and these risks. So it's incrementally better for us, because it really de-risks our ability to execute.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right. And the press, is that still in the current here. I just want to understand on this specific financing.
Andrew Marsh:
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Julien. What was the question again? That's certainly something that's on the table for us still. But we are looking at - we're sort of stepping back and thinking about, “Okay, so what's the best way for us to proceed, given that we have this extra capacity?” And so, we want to think through it a little bit before we proceed with any specific financings. And once we get finished with that, then we will start moving forward and communicate with you all about what our plan is.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
And sorry to rehash slightly, your comments on the upper half, I just want to be extra clear about this. That is strictly tied to dilution and equity needs and that is not reflective of any changes in your cost cutting efforts and/or perhaps more critically low trends and especially industrial low trends there and et cetera.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, so we were very comfortable in our guidance and outlooks before, just to be clear. And this - the fact that we don't need to issue as much equity starts to move the earnings per share up. So that is a driver for helping us move to the upper half of the range. And that in the additional confidence that we have, because we have now had additional flexibility to achieve this earnings outcomes and the financial flexibility that we have available to us now. So the combination, I would say of those 2 things that allows us to, say, we think we're going to be in the top half of the range with some work to do to refine that for you all going forward.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right. But these are the factors, presumably are still independent?
Andrew Marsh:
That's correct.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right. Excellent. Well done. We'll speak to you shortly. All the best in this process.
Andrew Marsh:
Thanks. Appreciate it.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Vertical Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hi, good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just a quick one, again, on financing, given the lower need does that make you sort of more likely to look at something which might put this whole and their need to bed quicker, as opposed to sort of doing it through the plan, any thoughts on that at this early stage?
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, Jonathan, that's a good question. Certainly, that is a possibility now, we have pleaded our assessment. But that is something that we would consider if we could do it. We're mindful of the so-called equity overhang. We understand that. And so we're thinking about that is definitely a consideration as we're doing our assessment.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then, could I just to double set, I want to make sure I'm clear on what the prior plan was? I think, it was up to $2.5 billion, but that was out through 2024. Is that correct?
Andrew Marsh:
That's correct.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then just finally, you obviously from the Analyst Day, you also had a 2024 range out there, which you've not been including in the last couple of slide decks. I've just 3 reasons, why we wouldn't sort of continue to use that and why your comments about the upper end wouldn't also sort of fold into that longer-term outlook that you gave, whenever it was.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, so I mean, I can't go out right now, because we haven't got that information available. But our expectation is to drive steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth. And to the extent that we want to be steady and predictable that might imply what you're looking for.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Thanks very much and thanks for the update.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Jonathan.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Steve Fleishman:
Hey, everyone.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Steve.
Steve Fleishman:
A couple of things, just on those 3 considerations, you mentioned, Drew, that one of them was the growth opportunity. I assume this is on, as you talked about, on the industrials as they look to clean up and electrify more. Just when you talk about that as a growth opportunity, are you referring it to more as a kind of rate based CapEx or as a sales and cash flow?
Leo Denault:
So, Steve, that's a good question. There's a couple of growth opportunities that we're assessing right now. One, as I mentioned in my script, which doesn't have to do with your environmental benefits, necessarily, is part of it is. The assessment we're doing a resiliency across the system, which could lead to more T&D investment going forward. So that's an area that that I did want to point out, the assessment of that, in conjunction with what's going on with infrastructure in Washington, could be a combination of your rate base assets, plus some costs that are actually picked up by the states and the federal government through potentially infrastructure bill depending on how that all works out. The big opportunity, though, and we've been talking about this for a while, obviously, the size of the emissions footprint of our industrial base. And if you just go on the internet look at our industrial customers are, and look at their websites, they all have sustainability objectives that many of which are public. And so there's a couple of ways for us to help them out. One, what we already do when they provide electricity from us and some of the cleanest electricity in the country. So their Scope 2 emissions are lower. To drive those even lower, we've been discussing things like green tariffs with those customers. And that really makes the deployment of our renewables more efficient. And so, for example, we've got that solar facility that we got approval for in Arkansas, filing a green tariff in Arkansas, we already have customers like Walmart, who want to talk to us about taking a slice of those facilities, and make the deployment of those more efficient, in a way that could accelerate our investment in renewables. If there's a large uptake of that, particularly if that spreads over into our industrial customers, which we're already having discussions with them on that. Then the big opportunity is exactly what you said, is to attack their Scope 1 emissions. And that really is getting outside of just merely adding generation to the system for technological improvement. Now, we will be adding for load growth. And so you can think about it as its new load with new sales for new processes that today are not electrified, that would provide us the opportunity to deploy assets to help them meet those objectives. And primarily that could not only accelerate, but increase the size of our renewable footprint going forward. We're in the early stage of assessing the size and timing of that. So we'll be laying out more as we go. But it would be rate base additions to meet regulated utility sales for things like using natural gas compression on a pipeline today, electrifying that if you're using fossil fuels to - for compression LNG process that can be electrified. If they're co-generating with highly inefficient and high emitting generation on-site today that could be electrified by us or utilizing green tariffs or to the extent that we develop hydrogen over time that could be part of that mix as well. So it's a pretty significant opportunity that that we're in early stages of investigating rather a lot of discussions with our customers about what their needs are.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. Great. And just one other question on just the change in the equity plan, so obviously, it's great that you're targeting, seeing things now in the upper half. But actually, the amount of equity, just that difference to get you in the upper half by 2020 - in these years is actually, it's only, I don't know, maybe $300 million less equity, and you talk to potentially $1.7 billion, $2 billion of more capacity. So could you just try to kind of tie that together in terms of how to think about that? Is it - how should I just think about that?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, this is Drew. I think that we are early in our assessment is probably the best way to think about that. So we got the news, that we got the recognition last week. And so we haven't completed our assessments about, what this might mean for us going forward. And, I think, what we wanted to get you early out there that we see ourselves in the top half of the range, we have more work to do around that we have a couple of things that need to factor into the analysis like you just discussed with Leo, around the growth potential that's out there, there are a couple of risk items found there that we want to make sure that we haven't had to manage. And if we can manage through them without using that capacity that's incremental capacity is available for us. But, yeah, I think you're looking at the right thing. There's a good opportunity for us out there going forward.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. So it sounds like you're obviously going to update balance sheet, but also almost really a full refresh of the capital plan to for some of these things that Leo just mentioned.
Andrew Marsh:
That's right. There's that opportunity out there that we're still framing it all.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Steve.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Freeman with Mizuho. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Paul Freeman:
Thanks and congratulations. I guess, my first question is, should we assume that the longer term FFO to debt target now is going to be 14%?
Andrew Marsh:
No, not right off the bat, because we still have some expectation of having some capacity to manage risks that are out there. But I do fully expect us to utilize some of the capacity for sort of the capital formation changes that we were just talking about and for some of the growth opportunity that we're talking about. So I wouldn't say goes all the way down to 14%, unless some of those risks were to materialize, but that's not what we're trying to do right now. The idea would be to get pass some of those risks, and then maybe we reassess whether we go down to 14%. But I don't think it would go all the way to 14%, right now.
Paul Freeman:
So at some point, you'll provide sort of an amended FFO to debt target?
Andrew Marsh:
I think, I have one more thing. From an Entergy perspective, I don't know that we're going to change Entergy's perspective. I mean, I think we're talking about going from 15% to 14%. The Entergy - our Entergy view is going to be well above 15%. I think, we may still actually stay above 15%, either Moody's addressed down closer, between 15% and 14%. But we may not actually amend to the Entergy target, we are still working through that.
Paul Freeman:
And then do you need clarity on SERI, and in order to sort of determine what your ultimate equity needs are going to look like and when would you anticipate a final SERI order?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, I mean, talk about the SERI order first. Yeah, I could the first part of that uncertain tax position in the sale leaseback we expect possibly by the end of the year, but more likely into next year. Yeah, it could be in the first quarter, it could lead into the spring. So yeah, we're getting closer on that. But I don't think we need that to start thinking about what we might do differently. We might be mindful of that as an ability to continue to hit our marks. But I don't know that we necessarily need that to get started on our changes in our capitalization plan.
Paul Freeman:
So it's more likely that you'll have a better feel for the equity around the end of the year, around EEI, right?
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, I know what I said earlier was that, I would think EEI at the latest, hopefully sooner.
Paul Freeman:
Great. I think that's it for questions for me. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And it looks like our last question will come from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Your line is open, please go ahead.
Paul Patterson:
Hey, how's it going? Good morning.
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning. How are you, Paul?
Paul Patterson:
I'm managing. So, just I think I got everything. So around EEI, we're going to be getting an update. It sounds like on all these opportunities, is that how we should think about the - you guys are in early assessments right now, but we'll get more of a picture as to sort of what these opportunities and how it folds into the capital plan, everything, is that the timeframe we're looking at?
Leo Denault:
Certainly, we'll have update on what opportunity-set looks like, what we're thinking and how it's evolved by then. The good news about the opportunity that we were just talking about is that it's a pretty long runway opportunity. It's significant opportunity that's got a long path. As you imagine, our customer base is going to be reducing their emissions over time. Some of them have, for example, their own net-zero objectives. Some of those might be as early as 2035. Some of those go out to 2050, that sort of thing. So, it's a significant opportunity that's got a long runway. So we'll get to the early parts of it as it develops. So it's kind of thing we'll continue to update. And as I said in the answer to Steve's question, it's really a load growth question and then the resource mix that we acquire to meet that load, which, again, the objective is clean energy. So it'll probably have implications for what you see in the generation mix.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. And just to sort of clarify, this is basically because of the, just to make sure that I understand, the customer footprint that you guys have, their ambitions and their decarbonization ambitions and the potential to help. Is there any cost advantage that you think these customers might get? Is it just purely decarbonization? Or is there is there anything else that would be driving this? Is it just basically, look, we're the utility, they want to do this? That would mean electrification, and we're in a pretty good position to do that? Or is this the deployment of new technology or anything that we should think about that, that would be turbo-charging and evolving?
Leo Denault:
Well, obviously, cost is going to be a factor, our load rates factor into it. And we certainly need to continue to help our customers be competitive as they go forward. It's going to depend on the process, for example, Shore Power is the exact same opportunity, where you've got - a ship pulls into dock. It's burning diesel fuel, to keep the lights on while they do maintenance on the ship before they go back out into the Gulf of Mexico, for example, to help with oil services out there. When we electrify that ship, we not only reduce their emissions, which was the original discussion around it, but it does lower their cost, because the trade from our electricity to diesel fuel is positive. So it does 2 things for them. It lowers their cost and it improves their emissions, both of which make them more competitive as they bid for offshore work. So it's going to be a combination of all of those things.
Paul Patterson:
Awesome. Well, it sounds like a great opportunity. I look forward to hearing more about it.
Leo Denault:
Great. Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. And I'm showing no further questions and I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Bill Abler for any further remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Michelle, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9, and provides more details and disclosures of our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of the 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet will be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2021 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session.[Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Bill Abler, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Bill Abler:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions. We request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Bill. Good morning, everyone. We had a strong first quarter, and our team successfully executed on several fronts. I’ll begin with the highlights. We are reporting first quarter adjusted earnings of $1.47 per share. That's an excellent start to the year and it keeps us on track to deliver on our commitments to you and all our stakeholders. In addition to solid earnings, we reached settlements of several important issues; reducing risk, providing long term clarity and solidifying a clear path for our future growth. In Arkansas, we resolved the FRP through settlement and legislation, which included a five year extension and an equitable outcome for the netting adjustment. We reached agreement on a three-year extension of the formula rate plan in Louisiana, our largest jurisdiction. We received an initial decision in the System Energy ROE and capital structure case. While we believe we have strong arguments for a better outcome in the final FERC decision, the ALJ recommendations would be manageable within our current long term forecasts. We filed the joint settlement agreement among all parties paving the way for the sale of the Indian Point Energy Center to Holtec before midyear. We are pleased with the outcomes of these proceedings as they provide certainty for you, our owners, and regulatory clarity with more than 90% of our capital plan to be recovered with timely mechanisms. This enables us to continue to make investments in a cleaner generation fleet and a more reliable delivery system that benefit our customers and our communities and support the long term growth of our business. Last quarter, we provided a comprehensive update on our clean energy efforts. We are intently focused on expanding renewables while pursuing other clean energy solutions like hydrogen and carbon capture and investing in the utilities carbon free nuclear fleet. So far this year, we have initiated three requests for proposals totaling 1000 megawatts of renewables. We are also exploring structural options for renewable projects that will lower the cost of these investments for our customers, and help ensure that we have the capital required for other needed investments that benefit our customers. Our renewable portfolio has grown significantly. We have nearly doubled our renewables capacity over the past three years with announced projects and RFPs we have clear line of sight to more than 2500 megawatts by the end of 2025, which will more than quadruple our renewable capacity from 2020. And we expect to double that with more than 5000 megawatts of renewables by 2030. In addition to renewables, we're also looking at other technologies that will help us achieve net zero carbon emissions. Those technologies include -- that to combine with renewables to provide short term storage flexibility. We are actively developing options to utilize hydrogen to support and leverage a large renewable fleet and provide clean energy with long term flexibility. We see hydrogen as a form of long duration storage for renewables, which when combined with our nuclear fleet, allows us to add additional intermittent renewable power to the grid and yet maintain reliable, dispatchable power that is 100% clean. Entergy’s service area is well positioned to play a key role in the transition to green hydrogen. As we are in the heart of hydrogen producers, pipeline, storage, and industrial users. We have relationship with Mitsubishi Power to advance our future in hydrogen. Together, we are working on the Orange County power and storage project, which will be hydrogen capable day one, and eventually able to run on 100% hydrogen. We're also developing the Montgomery County Innovation Center to advance electrolysis to produce hydrogen. Long term, our goal is for all of our capacity to be low or zero emitting. In addition to operating one of the cleanest large scale generating fleets in the country, we are committed to helping our customers meet their sustainability, reliability and cost goals through electrification. This is an excellent long term opportunity for us to create sustainable value for our customers across the Gulf south. We've already described how our shore power initiative has the potential to lower our customers emissions, and upgrading costs while we grow our business. In March, we announced the electric highway coalition, a multistate electric vehicle charging initiative. This collaboration will increase the number of charging options across multiple states, thereby improving convenience of long range driving with electric vehicles. Our fleet plan will also improve our carbon footprint. With the help of our vendor partners, we have set a goal that all newly acquired passenger vehicles, forklifts, pallet jacks and similar equipment be fully electric starting in 2023. As Congress puts together the legislation to implement the overarching vision of President Biden's infrastructure initiative, we see potential opportunities to improve services to our customers, improve the resiliency of the power delivery system, enhance our transition to low and zero carbon power generation and produce growth for our region. The proposal is far from [fine] [ph], but the environmental and social goals are aligned with our values and the work we are doing. Because of the improving economics of renewable resources and our customers desire for green power to support their own sustainability goals, we believe there will be support for projects that will benefit all of our stakeholders. With policy support, those projects can be done faster and at a lower cost. On Monday, we announced leadership changes in our utility organization that will sharpen our customer focus. David Ellis has been named our first Chief Customer Officer. He will lead utilities strategic efforts aimed at delivering extraordinary customer experiences, while also bringing to market innovative solutions to keep pace with evolving customer needs and expectations. David has nearly 30 years of experience in customer solutions technology, energy management and reliability. Deanna Rodriguez will succeed David as President and CEO of Entergy New Orleans. Deanna has been with Entergy for 27 years. Her industry experience combined with her background in regulatory affairs, make her ideally suited for the role. The addition of David as our first Chief Customer Officer as well as Deanna’s move to New Orleans show our commitment to improving our customers experiences and building the premier utility. We all know that our employees rose to the challenges of 2020. And their resiliency has continued this year. The ice and freezing temperatures of Winter Storm Uri this past February presented challenges across many aspects of our operations. Our employees worked tirelessly to balance the system and minimize customer outages. We committed $650,000 to help community non-profits and qualifying customers who were affected by the winter event. Grants went directly to local non-profits assisting low income customers with emergency needs including food banks, and SBP, an organization that helps communities rebuild after weather events. Additionally funding was also provided to the power to care, which provides Payment Assistance to Entergy customers who are low income seniors and people with disabilities. We also implement a new bill payment options for customers experiencing financial hardship. Indian Point Unit 3 will shut down in just a few days and we expect to complete the sale of that plant in just over a month. The Indian Point team is finishing strong as operations wind down in fact, they are finishing so strong that they set a new world record for the longest continuous run for a light water reactor. I would like to thank the employees of Indian Point for their dedicated service to the plant, New York and to Entergy. Through this entire shutdown and sale process, we have remained committed to our employees and all those qualified and willing to relocate have been offered positions. We look forward to them starting the next phase of their careers with us. As I said, it's been a very productive start for 2021. And we will continue to successfully achieve the milestones that keep us on track to deliver steady predictable earnings and dividend growth for you, our owners, while investing to benefit our customers and creating value for all our stakeholders. Before I hand it over Drew, I encourage you to read our recently released 2020 integrated report, “Forward Together”. The report outlines the significant accomplishments of 2020. When faced with circumstances that threatened to divide us, we chose to tackle challenges head on and move forward together. We supported our customers, employees and communities. We champion diversity, inclusion and belonging and we delivered on our financial commitments. The report outlines in detail the solid foundation that underlies our strategy to deliver steady predictable growth, including sustainability leadership, among the lowest retail rates in the country, one of the cleanest large scale generation fleets and getting cleaner, a robust customer centric capital plan, constructive regulatory mechanisms, and a commitment to continuous improvement for the benefit of all of our stakeholders. With the solid foundation that we have built over the last several years and the significant opportunities that lie ahead, we are more excited than ever, for what our future holds. I will now turn the call over to Drew who will review our first quarter results as well as our outlooks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Today we are reporting strong results for the quarter. As Leo mentioned, we successfully executed on several fronts and resolved key regulatory proceedings. As a result, we continue to improve the clarity on our strong path forward, we remain confident in our future growth and we are affirming our guidance and longer term outlooks. As you can see on slide five, we have a strong start for the year with adjusted earnings of $1.47 per share. Turning to slide six, you'll see that the primary drivers for the positive quarter were straightforward and largely a result of investing for our customers and executing on our strategy. We continue to see the effect of rate actions across our jurisdictions to recover the investments we have made to benefit customers. Operating expenses including O&M and depreciation were also higher. Revenue sales were stronger with and without the effects of weather, and the weather was largely due to winter storm, Yuri. This is tempered by lower sales quarter-over-quarter and other customer classes due to the effects of COVID-19. Although overall sales were in line with our expectations. This quarter's results also included the reversal of a regulatory reserve that we recorded in fourth quarter 2020. The Reserve reflect the Arkansas Commission's original order on the 2021 formula rate plan. With further legislative and regulatory clarity on the netting adjustment methodology reserve is no longer needed. And income taxes were higher due to items have benefited 2020. Our first quarter financial performance combined with an improved result in Arkansas has put us in a good position. Following up with the plan, we discussed last quarter, we're now able to pull flex levers and put back some of the spending in investments for the benefits of our customers. Moving to EWC on slide seven, as-reported earnings per share were $0.19, $0.74 higher than the prior year. The key driver with better market performance of EWCs nuclear decommissioning trust. As Leo mentioned, we filed a joint settlement with the New York Public Service Commission earlier this month, which is a key milestone for the sale of Indian Point. And we're on track to shut down the plant in two days as well as close the sale near the end of May. Over the past several years, we have worked systematically to eliminate risks associated with exiting the business. This includes regulatory risk, commodity price risk, operational risk as evidenced by in Indian Point’s record run and risk for employees. In fact, we have said many boys will continue their careers in other areas, other areas of Energy's operations or with Holtec. The result is that we have dramatically improved our business risk profile and are at the threshold successfully exiting EWC next spring. Slide eight shows operating cash flow for the quarter. The result is lower than you may be expecting but it's caused by two timing related factors of which you are aware. First, Deferred fuel cost, mostly due to winter storm Yuri and discussed in our last call are approximately $350 million in the quarter, and we expect to recover them over the next few months. And second, the payments for noncapital costs related to last year's hurricane restoration efforts were approximately 200 million. These hurricane restoration costs will recover through our storm recovery filings. Despite this quarter's results, our three year operating cash flow expectation of more than $10 billion has not changed. As you might anticipate this affects our current credit metrics which are shown on slide nine. Our Parent debt to total debt is 20.3% and our FFO to debt is 8.2%. As we have mentioned for the past few quarters, our FFO to debt is temporarily suppressed in part due to financial impacts from storms, including winter storm Yuri. FFO is lower as a result of the higher deferred fuel costs in the non-capital portion of the storm restoration costs, while debt is currently higher as it was used to pay for the restoration efforts. As we said, the debt will return to normal once we received securitization proceeds next year. We made our first storm recovery filing in Texas this month, and we will file in Louisiana in New Orleans in the near future. Also legislation is moving ahead and Louisiana and Texas to support off balance sheet treatment. And both dates this legislation has already unanimously passed one legislative chamber and now moves forward to the other. We remain committed to maintaining our investment grade profile and exporting credit targets and we still expect to be at or above 15% for FFO to debt next year, and to remain below 25% for Parent debt to total debt. Moving to slide 10. We are affirming our 2021 adjusted EPS guidance range of $5.80 to $6.10, as well as our longer term outlooks. As Leo mentioned, we settled the Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan and resolve the Entergy, Arkansas formulary plan, including the appropriate netting adjustment methodology, and a five year extension. Our O&M and capital spending plans are aligned with these outcomes. In addition, as we progress through the year, we'll continue to utilize our flexible spending levers to support steady, predictable earnings growth. Looking ahead, we continue to have a clear line of sight on our 5% to 7% annual growth rate for adjusted earnings per share. And we expect to grow our dividend commensurate with our EPS growth rate in the fourth quarter of this year, subject to board approval. We have a solid foundation to achieve our stakeholder objectives built on operational excellence and risk reduction. As we move forward together with our stakeholders, we see a clear path for future growth through our core utility, business and emerging opportunities associated with sustainability and improving our customer experience. This includes hydrogen and renewables on which we are keenly focused as we have discussed, and which we expect to benefit all stakeholders and support our growth trajectory throughout the decade and beyond. We see 2021 being another successful year for Entergy and we look forward to great opportunities ahead as we work toward our goal to become the premier utility. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Constantine Lednev:
Hi, good morning. It's actually Constantine here for Shar. Congrats on a great quarter. A couple of quick questions here. So you reiterate guidance and kind of the strong result of the first quarter. Are you starting to trend to the top half of your current range given the strong results and maybe some of the moving pieces here? And is there some sort of reserve in the current plan for the SERI complaint on the leaseback and tax issues? Any kind of color you can give?
DrewMarsh:
So this is Drew. On the first question, obviously, it's just the first quarter it's early in the year, I would say we're off to a really good start. And in some of the things that are in our numbers, this quarter, we have said that we would flex up to put the spending back in that we had taken out to adjust for the order like for example in Arkansas. So I would say we are we are very comfortable in our range right now. But since it's only the first quarter, we're not making any adjustments just yet. And then as in regard to the reserve for SERI on the [insert and tax position. We have not] [ph], as we said before, we haven't made any reserves for that position, we still believe that we have a good position in regards to that case. And nothing has changed in that regard that would cause us to think otherwise because nothing's changed. We haven't taken any reserves from an accounting position.
Constantine Lednev:
That's excellent color. And just one follow up on kind of given the recent regulatory outcomes and kind of how you move your plan around. Has that changed that two and a half million dollar equity need outworks kind of maybe a few moving pieces there and given the disconnect between the stock, are you potentially looking at any kind of alternatives to satisfy that equity content, whether it's different instruments or any kind of asset modernizations versus issuance?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So in regards the amount nothing has changed, in that regard. And that we are, we're still where we were, when we talked to you last summer. The other thing associated with the methods in which we might go access that equity capital, we've talked a little bit about that in the past, certainly, we have the ability to go do walk equity. But more recently, we put a plan in place to do at the market. And next week, we have our proxy results, which we've requested from you, all our owners, to, to allow us to do preferred equity, we think that gives more flexibility, in terms of accessing that capital. And we think we can do it in a more shareholder friendly way because it gives us the opportunity to potentially convert and not dilute our existing owners today. So that's something that we're looking to, to get next week. And so we'll know the result of that. In regards to I think the other thing that you're hinting at is something that we addressed last quarter as well around the potential sale of a portion of equity from an operating company. Going forward, and as we said, there is a difference between obviously the cost of equity at the operating company and where we are trading today. So that that is something that we were we would look closely at but that is still very much a strategic decision that’s a long term decision. And it's sort of masquerading around as a financing decision. And it's really not because you can't do the transaction and then close in a couple of days, you're going to be waiting 18 months to 24 months, because you got to go get regulatory approval in our jurisdictions. So it does make it ideal from that perspective. There are other considerations that you have to also take into account, in addition to the regulatory and the timing risk, as we've seen, others execute on that it didn't actually solve their credit problem. They ended up getting downgraded anyway. So that's something that we would be have to be keenly aware of. But as a strategic issue, it's something that we pay attention to. And it's something that we are evaluating and continue to evaluate because of the price differences out there, because strategic question that it starts to get into the more M&A stuff around. Okay, so if you do this, when you go ask for approval, can you execute on it? We think there's some value there. And will it distract you from other things that are going on in the utility business, our ability to execute. So that's kind of a long answer around what sort of financing question but really turns into an M&A question on the on the key point that I think you're looking for.
Constantine Lednev:
Yes, that's, that's very helpful. And thank you so much. And thank you guys for taking the questions today.
Drew Marsh:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Jeremy Tonet:
Hi, good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Jeremy Tonet:
I just wanted to kind of dive into trends in your territory a bit more. What do you see behind 1Q sales? And do you have any sense on more recent trends and how sales may come in over the balance the year as we reopen post COVID here?
Rod West:
Hi, it’s Rod West. From a sector perspective, most of the year we were expecting in the residential for instance, residential and commercial sector. We're seeing recovery from COVID in the industrial sector, where we've had and talked about our outlook and the growth there. We're seeing that sector also recovering from COVID. But in the short term, take into account some of the challenges from the recent winter storm. That said, our stakeholder engagement with specific customers within each segment support our confidence and our on-going outlooks for sales growth. So everyone is in their own way, recovering from both COVID and, and the winter storms. But we have line of sight in each sector that supports what we've shared with you from an outlook perspective on continued growth. And that's just that's not only 21, but beyond.
Drew Marsh:
And Jeremy, I'll add that in and Rod referenced the winter storm, but it had an outside and outside impact on our industrial customers as of last quarter, so it's minus 3%, quarter-over-quarter, but [within] [ph] less than 1% down without the winter storm. So that's, that's a big impact. And you can see that kind of play out in our overall view for the year. Because that's not weather adjustments that we would make, we don't weather adjust the industrial customers. And then I'll also add, just from a macro perspective that we are seeing some good signals in the industrial space. We are, we see that inventories for some of our key pet chem and refined products customers are trending back to normal. So some of that inventory overhang has gone away. As a result, we've seen margins improve, crack spreads, or geographic spreads, Henry hub to Asia and Europe, for example, are trending in the right direction. And, it looks like the housing market is starting to tick up. So that could help out our core alkali customers. And, some of the just the basic macro factors, like oil prices are better now. And the dollar still hasn't rebounded all that much. And those are all sort of positive signals for our industrial customers. So we, we, we've looked at those signals, and we're optimistic, although we want to see it show up in the sales as well.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it, got it. So it sounds like the weather depressed things a bit there. That makes sense. And just want to turn to carbon capture for a minute here. You mentioned that and just wondering, what do you, what prospects do you see in the near term there? Do you think that the 45Q as they're written now may be combined with OCFS, makes these projects economic? And I guess, what's unique about your territory is just, given the backdrop of oil and gas there, it seems like it could be more economic to do it in your area versus maybe other areas in the country. So just wondering if you could talk about how, near term that potential is or how you guys, might stand up versus others?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, well, thanks. That's, that's a carbon capture is just one piece of the puzzle here. And I think our service territory really bodes well across a variety of new technological advancements, and again, will be helpful not only for the power sector, but for the people who produce some of those commodities as well as the people who consume those commodities. So you've probably seen a lot of press lately about what a lot of our customers are doing in both hydrogen and carbon capture, as well as renewables. So there's, there's a significant amount of opportunity for us, whether it's 45Q as it stands today, or whatever happens with infrastructure, legislation or tax policy around that. It's really early in the game, but certainly, the administration has been has been very clear that new technologies that provide the opportunity to lower the carbon footprint of the power sector and our industrial customers are all fair game for tax credits. All fair game for, other support and initiatives that could help accelerate the development of things like not only renewables, battery storage, but carbon capture, hydrogen utilization and hydrogen production, hydrogen transportation, hydrogen storage, all of that is, when you say how do we how do we line up, those people who are talking in other sectors about carbon capture and talking about production of green hydrogen or all our customers. And so, how near term is it that's why we are investigating those technologies on our own with our customers and through our JDA with Mitsubishi to try to tease out the technologies, tease out the costs, and accelerate the ability to utilize those. If you think about it, if carbon capture and hydrogen, for example, become more economic and get to market faster, and our deployment of renewables can increase, and go faster, so that all works really hand in hand. So, early in the game, I think there's a lot of support, both through extension of existing policy plus the potential for new policy, we're working closely not only with the industry, but with, with folks in Washington and the administration ourselves. Plus, with our partners and our customers to try to try to really advance the ball on this, because we think we're uniquely positioned as it relates to all of those. Because it's vital to us, it's vital to the, to the customers that we have as well. So really think there's a lot of momentum behind it at the moment as well.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That's very helpful. Thanks for that.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the mind of Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Your line is open, please go ahead.
Durgesh Chopra:
Hey, good morning team. Thanks for taking my question. Drew, can I just go back to your commentary around the salary reserve? Did I did I capture that correctly that you did not change your sort of your reserve amounts or your accruals after the LGA decision? So do I take that to mean that sort of the decision was in line with your recommendations? I'm just trying to see what the implications might be your guidance and long term growth rate once you do receive a final outcome?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, no good question. And I was actually I thought referring more to the uncertain tax question. But in regard to the ROE, and capital structure, the answer is actually the same. We didn't we didn't change our reserve position. I would say that we were exactly in line. In fact, it was a little bit below our expectations. We talked about a three cent sort of on-going drag versus what we had in our own models internally. It doesn't change any of our outlooks. But that was a little different than our expectation. That would, if it stands, translate to a slightly higher need for us to reserve at some point, if the FERC comes out. At the same place that the ALJ does, I think it would be 20 million to 25 million kind of one time on that change. But yes, we, as you saw, we filed last week, to see if we could convince the FERC that it ought to be a little bit higher. So we'll wait to see how that comes out. But if we will need to take a charge on the ROE cash structure piece of about 20 million, 25 million down the road, if the ALJ Position stands.
Durgesh Chopra:
Got it? Okay, so modestly worse. Okay. Understood. And then maybe just can I get your thoughts on sort of your capital allocation priorities? I mean, there's a, obviously a large balance of deferred costs as it relates to storms. And I'm sort of thinking about the timing of getting to your 15% of -- debt in 2022. And how sort of patient are the credit rating agencies are going to be? And then, does that, call for a higher layer of equity in the plan? How are you thinking about all of that stuff?
Drew Marsh:
And that's a good question. So when we take the -- I think this question really hinges around the rating agency piece of this. And if you look at our metrics from S&Ps perspective, I think we're in good shape. Even through all of this, we're above the downgrade thresholds that they've written about. And we continue to our forecast continues to pull away from those thresholds. So we're, we're comfortable with where we are on the S&P metrics. The Moody's metrics are a little more challenging, as you know, because their cash flow from operations to debt, not including working capital. That is that sort of that 15% threshold. And that's what we've been really aiming for. And we still believe we're going to get there next year. We're, in order to do that, we have to get past these cash flow, these cash flows that we've experienced for the storms, some of the ones that I talked about this quarter, and we need to get to the securitization. And ideally, we'll be able to do that off sheet as well. And as I mentioned, that legislation is moving forward in both Texas and Louisiana to do that. So I think we're actually in good shape to achieve all those objectives. In terms of the conversation with Moody's I mean, obviously, you'll have to talk to them to get their perspective. But I think they understand what's going on. They understand that we have very good solid mechanisms between fuel recovery. And with securitization, we have a history there. And they can see the results in the in the legislature going forward. So they're very comfortable that we are going to be able to make that progress. And they've actually written that they expect us to hit their target until 2023. So we're actually right aiming to hit their target a year earlier than they would expect us to. So they, the conversations are going very well with them, I would say because it we just had our annual review, which is in typically in the spring. And we have, as we've talked about, and we're talking about today forecast which should achieve our targeted objectives.
Durgesh Chopra:
That's super helpful. Sounds like you have some, you have some runway of time to get to that level. And assuming that regulatory filings go your way, you'll be able, you'll be able to get that fraction faster than then, they were targeting you to get to that level. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Appreciate it. Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Julian Dumoulin with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Julian Dumoulin:
Good morning team, thanks for the opportunity. Good morning. If I can pick it up off the last question here. Just as you think about the latest series of developments in the regulatory front. How does that square against capital spending? Largely it seems intact? But I'm also thinking here about rate pressures, the slight downtick in sales, and obviously, some of the storm impacts. How do you think about some of the mitigating impacts, or offsets to ensure your capital spendings intact, and obviously reaffirmed your earnings guidance trajectory today. So on balance, things are clearly in place. But I want to address maybe the bill pressure impacts implicit.
Drew Marsh:
Sure, sure Julian, this is Drew. So actually, in terms of our capital spending, we probably we didn't pump capital this quarter. But we've actually accelerated some of the capital primarily in Arkansas. We had, as you probably recall, at the beginning of the year, we had pushed capital back to make room for the December order. And with the more recent order, we've moved the capital back forward. So it's about 200 million that we moved out of 03, most of it into 01 sum of into 02. Excuse me, 22. Sorry, I'm 20 years behind. But in terms of in terms of the rate pressure of yes, as you know, that's something that we talk about, very, we talked about a lot. And we watched very closely, that actually beginning to improve, work through our continuous improvement. And the and some of the other things that have been going on, have the biggest step change that we've seen in terms of our rep, pressure is as good as it turns out, going to be between 2020 and 2021. And now that we've gotten through all of our regulatory proceedings for the year, we think we're going to be able to manage that pretty well. Going forward using 2021 as a baseline, we're much closer to kind of a 2% growth rate in sort of an average bill. And I think that that on going forward should be very achievable in a regulatory framework.
Julian Dumoulin:
Yes. Excellent. I appreciate that. If you can just embrace than elaborate. How do you think about perhaps the renewable angle you alluded to earlier? I mean, we've talked about this in the past, you brought it up in the comments prepared again, obviously, you're you have, I suppose, three RFPs out there at present, but can you can you address that, or your latest thinking on that front?
Drew Marsh:
Well, as I mentioned in the my prepared remarks, Julian and as we've been talking about, more I think since last analysts day. We start with a really clean fleet. As you said, we've got RFPs for 1000 megawatts outstanding right now, our current thinking is that the renewable path be about 2500 megawatts by 2025 up to 5000 by 2030. And I think the right way to think about it is we're trying to make, a low cost reliable and sustainable footprint. And, and as we look going forward, as technology improves, as prices come down as battery storage gets more economical that just makes the possibility for renewables to play a bigger part in the resource plan going forward a reality and that's what you've seen and we evaluate resource plan on a regular basis but we don't stop with the resource plan. We evaluate each individual project on a regular basis and so as you know we've got the Orange county power and storage station that we'll that we're developing that on day one will have hydrogen capability and with being provided in the development space to be 100% hydrogen capable at the point in time when that makes sense to the extent that gets accelerated that allows us to put more renewables into our footprint because we got that long-term storage flexibility. So when you think about our resource plan we're just trying to meet the need that when you flip the switch the lights come on. That's the need we got to meet. We want to do it as efficiently and cleanly as possible and that just as technology has come to the point where that's a bigger and bigger renewable footprint. And again if some of these other technologies are viable and cost-effective that really helps accelerate their renewable deployment as well. And so we continue to evaluate every project and every resource plan with those things in mind. So I'm excited about the possibility that 5000 gets bigger at some point and we've got a lot of time between now and 2030 to make that happen and with again the infrastructure support coming out of the policy environment that only will tend to make that technology advance further, faster and be more economical for our customers if there's again that policy support.
Julian Dumoulin:
But to clarify here, if you don't mind the structural options that you're alluding to for renewable projects that sounds like how you finance or somehow structure incremental opportunities beyond what you're already talking about?
Leo Denault:
Well, it would be utilized to structure for the opportunities we're already talking about because if you think about it Julian, the -- if we can make them more cost effective for our customers through those structural options that frees up capital to spend on other things that improve the level of service that our customers receive whether it's on the PND front customer solutions front or in other renewable projects as well.
Julian Dumoulin:
All right. excellent. Well, congrats on all fronts here. Speak to you guys.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you and our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrd:
Hey, good morning. Thanks so much for your time.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Stephen Byrd:
Maybe just following up on Julian's question a little bit on clean energy. It sounds like there's a pretty significant chance that we might get a congressional action that would essentially extend the solar and wind tax credits for a very long time, create a new energy storage tax credit, potentially provide more support for carbon capture and storage and a few other things hydrogen as well. I guess first just on the utility side if you saw that kind of long-term federal support that really does change the economics meaningfully would that trigger essentially a sort of a formal sort of reassessment of your resource planning across or is it more just opportunistic you sort of keep that in mind in the future or is it I'm trying to kind of think about whether that caused you to sort of immediately want to rethink some of the resource plans you already have.
Leo Denault:
So Stephen. It's a great question we're already rethinking the resource plan based on the potential for those kinds of initiatives to occur. As I mentioned the resource plan, it's not like we said it and then we just put it on autopilot and we're going to follow through on it regardless of what happens. So we're already looking at the plan that we have and determining based on different policy scenarios what that might do to change the economics such that the plan itself is changed. And again as I mentioned the more support, policy support for these technologies that occur the lower cost they are for our customers and the faster they're going to accelerate in terms of their development as viable. We see that as having a positive impact on the cost to the customers as well as the sustainability of the resource plan itself. So I mean the short answer is absolutely. We're already looking at what those impacts might be and certainly like everybody else in the industry we're playing our part in helping the congressional leaders and the administrative leaders understand what those impacts might be on the industry on Entergy and on our region and as I mentioned earlier there's not only a growth opportunity for us in some of these policies but the people who are making hydrogen today Stephen are in our service territory and are our customers. The people who are utilizing that hydrogen are in our service territory and are our customers. So it's our intention to work with them in helping them meet their sustainability goals and their sustainability requirements depending on what again comes out of legislation and an administrative situation in Washington to help them with their sustainability objectives. So if you think about major hydrogen producers today through gas reformation if they're going to have to get carbon capture or renewables we want to be there to help them with that.
Stephen Byrd:
That's extremely helpful actually the last part of what you mentioned Leo kind of brings me to my second question which was just on, I guess especially hydrogen and carbon capture. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more about sort of the role of Entergy in helping your customers? I guess, I'm thinking about frankly degree of technology risk you're willing to take, commodity risk, what sort of the range of possible roles that Entergy could have helping customers pursue those technologies. Would you mind just elaborate a little bit on that?
Leo Denault:
Sure. Certainly we're in that early phases of evaluating exactly what their needs are, what they want to do and what their exposure is as well as how we want to participate. So we're really in the range of investigation right now. One is for example with our fleet itself what we're going to utilize on the Montgomery County Innovation Center that I talked about that is a 22 megawatt electrolysis facility that we're looking to develop where we would be obviously creating green hydrogen that we would then test in our own facilities as we use that as a precursor up to then how Orange County Is going to utilize green hydrogen in its own for the production of electricity. At the same point in time to the extent carbon capture is something that a hydrogen producer might want to utilize our ability to provide them with economic renewables would be a way to obviously create new load and new renewables for us to be able to help them with that and to the extent that they want to pursue electrolysis in their own production of green hydrogen and we can provide the clean energy whether it's through nuclear or through renewables we can do that as well. So we're investigating on all aspects of that. At the same point in time there is transportation infrastructure down here in terms of pipelines and everything for that. We need to look at how that transportation tees up to our own facilities as well as amongst the service territory and then we've got storage facilities that are capable of being converted to store hydrogen and so we're looking at that and what role that can play not only for us but for our customers. So there's a wide range of things that we're looking at. Obviously our lane is to be the utility in all of this but as this progresses and we collaborate with Mitsubishi and we collaborate with our customers the opportunity to be the utility and provide the electricity for all this to happen should be pretty significant if it all plays out and I would say that the creation of the customer organization where we announced David Ellis's position within Rod's organization that's going to be a pretty significant organization that we're developing is designed to help and collaborate with those customers on these new needs that they have. So I know that wasn't a specific list of projects Stephen but it's more of a pretty wide-ranging opportunity where we're going to stay in our lane but yet we're going to really pursue being able to make it reality.
Stephen Byrd:
No that's really helpful color. That's all I have. Thank you so much.
Leo Denault:
Thank you Stephen.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Liesman with Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead. All right it looks like his line disconnected. So we'll move on to our next question which comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Vertical Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hello?
Leo Denault:
Hey Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Yes. I'm just curious you talked about CapEx and potentially pulling things forward or having them less deferred but when I look at the guidance you gave for this year was just under $3.5 billion and it looks like you already invested a billion six in the first quarter. So just maybe trying to get a little more of a sense of is that just timing or could this year's number be a good bit higher than what you were looking at before and maybe what's driven that is really a much bigger quarter than you've had in a while?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So I think for the year I think it is probably just timing elements. I don't think that there's any sort of massive acceleration versus what we had previously planned other than to say that we pulled some of that capital in Arkansas up from 2023. So I think that I want to say it was in the $150 million to $175 million for this year and so that's at this point I think that would be the only difference from what we previously published for 2021.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. So just a big first quarter in terms of projects span and anything in particular Drew that was driving that?
Drew Marsh:
Nothing comes to mind that would be something that would stand out.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay and then could you also could we just get an update on where you are on arrears and customer bad debt and you starting to see any improvement there? How does it look versus where you were at last quarter?
Drew Marsh:
Sure. So from where we were at the end of the year, I think we've improved a little bit not a lot. We kind of got stalled out because of the winter storm a little bit and we expect Arkansas and New Orleans to lift their moratoriums in May. So that should give us a clearer path to start to move those rears a little bit lower but at this point they're still, I would say they're still around $300 million. They're down from where their highs were by I don't know 10% or so but they still have a ways to go.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great and then I think that one other maybe related issue looking at the residential sales a little more to what extent I know whether adjustment could be an art rather than a science but to what extent are those do you think you're still seeing that work from home benefit is that starting to fade and just still more comment there?
Rod West:
We're actually seeing increasing customer counts and the usage per customer which is more of an indicator for us for a long-term view usage for customer has sort of flattened out in the residential sector but we are expecting the actual growth rate quarter-over-quarter to begin to moderate as folks begin to return back to a more normal for us load shape the way that it plays out as people go back to work in school and things of that nature but we're tracking it rather discreetly and no real surprises for us thus far.
Jonathan Arnold:
Thank you Rod.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question comes from the line of Andrew Russell with Scotia Bank. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Andrew Russell:
Hey thanks. Good morning everyone. My first question is on renewables. If you can just elaborate a little bit you gave a lot of details on the size of the opportunity overall but what's your latest thinking on utility ownership versus PPAs potential role for tax equity partners and how that might affect any of the rate-based or CapEx and therefore balance sheet impacts relative to third-party PPAs?
Drew Marsh:
So hey Andrew, this is Drew. So we do expect to own a good portion of the solar opportunity that's in front of us. We think that we can be extremely competitive for a couple of reasons and one of them you alluded to in terms of the tax equity partnerships that allows us to manage that invested tax credit and work around some of the challenges from being utility. And so that's probably the main thing that's out there. Obviously we're working hard on bringing our costs down just like everybody else in the sector but we think based on the last couple of RFPs where we've ended up we think we're getting much more competitive in that space and so we expect to own a big chunk of those things going forward. I will say I don't at the end of the day doing all PPAs is probably not going to be that great for our balance sheet and it might actually start harming the customer. So that's something else that we are paying attention to but I think in order to avoid that we really just have to get competitive on the RFPs and make sure that we win our share.
Andrew Russell:
Okay and I assume there's no change to your assumptions when you talk about the CapEx and cash flow and equity needs outlook and all of that. Have you changed your assumption on a win rate if you will?
Drew Marsh:
No, we haven't changed our assumption and we still are working to figure out okay so the second half of this decade where a big chunk of that renewable comes in, what does that look like but we would expect over time if we're successful in our strategy that the win rate should improve for us.
Andrew Russell:
Okay. Great. Then last question, thank you for all the cash flow and details on the Texas windstorms. My question is do you see any need or opportunity for incremental CapEx to improve reliability whether in terms of undergrounding or winterizing your regulated power plants there?
Drew Marsh:
Certainly as it relates to the winter storm specifically which is not different than any weather event that we have, a major portion of our after action analysis will include strategically what can we do to make the system more resilient and the winter storm is no different and so we're doing a comprehensive look at all of our facilities in all of our functions not just in the generation side but transmission, distribution as well to get what's the right balance of cost and reliability that we want to put in it. So that is ongoing. I wouldn't say that that's a significant amount of capital that would go into those facilities compared to size capital budget as it sits today. But certainly we're looking at and proven resiliency and all the investments that we're making in the normal capital plan are meant to improve power quality and reliability and so as we do, for example, with our transmission system all of the new stuff we build is to a higher standard than what we built 20 years ago. And as we saw in hurricane Laura all the stuff that we built with the new technology which stood the hurricane it was the stuff that we built 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago that was destroyed and all the new stuff is the new stuff. So that's a continuing and continuous analysis for us to how do you improve the resiliency just on a day-in day-out basis and the weather events like the winter storm gives the opportunity to learn even more.
Andrew Russell:
Okay. Thank you very much and congratulations to David Diana on their promotions.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And this does conclude today's question and answer session and I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Bill Abler for any further remarks.
Bill Abler:
Thank you, Michelle and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our quarterly report on form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Entergy Fourth Quarter 2020 Earnings Release and Teleconference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the call over to David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions. We requested each person ask no more than one question and one follow up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Before I turn to my remarks, I would like to give you an update on the winter storms we experienced last week. Severe weather conditions affected most of the country including our service area. In order to balance the system, MISO directed us to conduct rolling power outages. Our system is back to normal operations. Our thoughts are with all of our customers and communities who were impacted by the weather. Our employees once again demonstrated their dedication by working around the clock in difficult conditions to quickly restore service where needed. As always, I am grateful and humbled by their commitment. We're still working through our numbers, but our preliminary assessment of the cost is approximately $125 million to $140 million associated with mobilizing crews and restoring power and approximately $400 million of incremental fuel costs. We have fuel recovery mechanisms in all of our jurisdictions and we will work with our regulators to recover these costs in a manner that mitigates the impact on customer bills. I will now turn to our discussion on 2020. Today, we are reporting strong results for another successful year. Our adjusted earnings per share are $5.66. That's in the top half of our guidance range. We achieved these results by overcoming revenue challenges with our flexible spending program. We just set a goal to reduce 2020 costs by $100 million. And we exceeded that target by approximately 50%. Underlying our strong performance was the foundation that we have built over the last several years; we've become a resilient organization prepared to create sustainable value for all our stakeholders, even in extraordinary times. It's what our stakeholders expect from us and that's what it takes to be the premier utility. Challenges are a natural part of doing business. No company is immune and Entergy is no exception. As 2020 prove the test of sustainability is less about challenges, and more about how we are able to achieve our goals regardless of the circumstances. Because of this solid foundation and our proven track record, we are confident in our continued success in 2021 and beyond. As such, we are initiating 2021 guidance and affirming our longer-term outlook. All in line with what we shared an Analyst Day last September. In 2020, we brought online four large generation resources that are cleaner and more efficient than our older assets, providing customer savings and environmental benefits that will help us meet our sustainability commitments. These assets also give us dispatch flexibility that is important for system reliability. Renewable Energy is also a key part of our strategy to achieve our sustainability goals. Our clean energy efforts have escalated over the past few years. We now have more than 500 megawatts of renewable resources in operation. These resources come in many forms small and large, owned and contracted. And some are innovative solutions like the New Orleans residential rooftop project, where we own the solar systems that are installed at low income customers' homes. Those customers get a fixed bill credit on their bill, providing economic benefits to those who need it and renewable energy for all customers. We have approximately 450 megawatts of solar projects currently being installed. We have another 880 megawatts of solar resources either in regulatory review, or RFPs. We plan to solicit another 800 megawatts of solar this year. This is only the beginning. And we will continue to grow the number of renewable energy facilities across our region. Almost half of our capital was for distribution and utility support investments that are closest to the customer experience. A portion of these costs is for our advanced meter project. We have now completed the installation of 70% of the 3 million advanced meters we are deploying across our service area. This is an exciting milestone as we enter the final phase of our three-year journey. Advanced meters help our customers better manage their energy usage and bills, and it lays the foundation for new technological capabilities over time. With billions of real time data points available, we'll be able to gain new insights that will drive fundamental change in the way we serve our customers while consuming the least amount of energy resources. We invested $800 million in our transmission infrastructure, excluding storms, our transmission investments benefit our system and our customers, as they reduce congestion, strengthen service reliability, enhanced system efficiency and resiliency, and support economic development in our jurisdictions by enabling service to new customers. We completed several important projects, some of which proved critical during the active storm season. These new structures built to modern standards, which stood the record winds from Hurricane Laura, and were critical to restoring power following that storm. These projects are all part of our plan to improve the resiliency of our infrastructure, and provide a higher level of service to our customers. In 2020, we continue to work collaboratively with our regulators for the benefit of customers. In the face of difficult times due to COVID-19, we collaborated to find solutions. Early on, we suspended disconnects and work to set up payment plans for customers who couldn't pay their bills. In all our jurisdictions, we received accounting orders, deferred costs associated with COVID-19, including bad debt expense from accounts that we don't expect to collect as a result of the pandemic. We also work with our commissions on rate recovery mechanisms that give us the opportunity to recover costs that are benefiting our customers. Public Utility Commission of Texas finalized the new generation rider, which provides for full and timely recovery of capital costs associated with new generation, where timely recovery helps us create value for our stakeholders in Texas and ensures that the communities, we serve remain economically competitive. The Texas Commission approved the use of this rider earlier this year for recovery of Montgomery County power station. The city council of New Orleans approved a unanimous settlement that resolved Entergy New Orleans rate case and FRP filing, we will make the first of three annual FRP filings later this year. We also had annual FRP rate actions and Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. We plan to submit filings in Louisiana and Texas in the first quarter of this year and in New Orleans in the second quarter to request recovery of 2020 storm costs. As we have done in the past, we will seek to securitize these costs. With current low interest rates, this will result in significantly lower cost to customers as compared to typical recovery. Louisiana's and Arkansas FRPs expire with the 2020 filings. And we've requested renewal both. Discussions are ongoing and we will provide updates as we get them. In spite of the positive outcomes in 2020, the Arkansas Commission's order for our 2021 FRP rate change fell short of our expectations. We believe the order incorrectly applies the law and results in an unreasonable outcome. We requested a rehearing on the Commission's order, and we expect to receive their decision on our request and the FRP extension by March 15. You should note that our guidance and outlooks today reflect the Commission's December order, and extension of the FRP. Our leadership and sustainability and environmental stewardship have been a long-standing hallmark of who we are, and are led to measurable, undeniable results. For the past two decades, our emissions rate has been well below the sector average, our utility co2 emissions rate has decreased nearly 40% since 2000. And today, we operate one of the cleanest, large scale power generation fleets in the nation. Our fleet is one of the cleanest, as we have not only set meaningful reduction targets, but we continue to exceed them. The most recent example is our environment 2020 goal, where we committed to maintain carbon dioxide emissions through 2020 at 20% below year 2000 levels. Our actual 2020 emissions were 27% below 2000 levels, beating our reduction goal by 33%. Looking ahead, our business plan supports our 2030 commitment to reduce our utility carbon emissions rate by 50% below year 2000 levels. Achieving this objective calls for continued transformation of our portfolio. To that end by 2030, we anticipate that our generation portfolio will include at least five gigawatts of renewables with potential for more. During that timeframe, we also plan to deactivate approximately four gigawatts of legacy gas along with the remainder of our coal assets. Going forward, we will not build any large scale generation that isn't hydrogen capable. As we transform our portfolio, we will work with our regulators to do so within a framework that balances reliability, affordability and environmental stewardship, while enriching the economies of the communities we serve. To support our longer-term net zero goal, we're exploring emerging technologies through a partnership with Mitsubishi power, we will develop innovative solutions that include large scale battery storage, carbon capture and sequestration, and hydrogen-based strategies. While we are not relying on hydrogen to meet our 2030 commitment, we believe it will be a part of creating a carbon free future. Hydrogen is an important technology that will allow utilities to adopt much greater levels of renewables to meet growing sustainability needs. Hydrogen storage, transportation, and utilization attributes will allow us to leverage today's pipeline and generation technologies in a manner that supports a highly reliable and fuel diverse electric grid. In the Gulf South, we have a distinct locational advantage. And we are uniquely positioned given the existing hydrogen infrastructure in Texas and Louisiana. Existing infrastructure today in our service territory includes more than 3.5 billion cubic feet of hydrogen capacity, two of the three hydrogen salt caverns operating in the United States, and more than 1,100 miles of hydrogen pipelines, which is 60% of the United States infrastructure. In addition, two of the largest hydrogen producers in the world are our customers. We also have more than 860 miles of co2 pipelines in our service area, which would facilitate carbon capture and sequestration. These are just a few of the advantages for our service area, which presents us with unique opportunities. To advance our work on hydrogen we were working on a few projects but I'd like to share. Orange County Power Station was selected in Entergy Texas's request for proposals, that facility will have the capability upon commercial operation to utilize up to 30% hydrogen. Longer term, the turbines can be configured to operate on up to 100% hydrogen at modest incremental cost. The facility is conveniently located near existing hydrogen pipeline infrastructure that can be connected to the plant to utilize hydrogen when feasible and economic. We own a storage facility with three caverns; we are evaluating converting one of these caverns to hydrogen. We are taking advantage of the existing hydrogen pipeline infrastructure in the Texas industrial corridor near the Orange County Power Station. And we are developing a four phase plan to support access to hydrogen fuel across our fleet of hydrogen capable plants. We are also in the very early stages of developing a green hydrogen demonstration plan, Montgomery County Hydrogen Innovation Center. This project will teach us important lessons about electrolysis operations, and ultimately lay the groundwork for future full-scale projects. We're excited about these projects and our collaboration with Mitsubishi. As we lead our industry to make hydrogen a reality that will create green jobs in the Gulf South region. We will provide updates on these initiatives as we have new developments. Being the premier utility means doing our part to create a more sustainable future for our customers, our communities and the world. A goal we continuously strive for in everything we do. In 2020, we are once again named to the Dow Jones Sustainability North American index. We are the only electric utility received this honor 19 years in a row. We are very proud of this recognition as DJSI is one of the most respected independent sustainability measures in the world. We earned perfect scores in the areas of climate strategy, water related risks, materiality, environmental reporting, social reporting and policy influence. This past year, our employees demonstrated once again, why Entergy is best in class in storm response. During a storm season unlike any other in our history, our commitment to health, safety and preparedness is one of our proudest achievements. Our teams worked around the clock to safely restore service, to rebuild infrastructure and to help our communities recover while following virus prevention protocols. For our employees' extraordinary efforts, we received broad support from local, state and federal officials. We also received five emergency response awards from EI. This marks the 23rd consecutive year EI has recognized Entergy employees for their emergency response. 2020 was another successful year for our company. Everything we accomplished gives me confidence in our ability to meet our goals and commitments going forward. We've proven that we are resilient company prepared to respond to adversity and deliver on our mission to create sustainable value for our stakeholders. It's what our stakeholders expect from us and that's what it takes to be the premier utility. Despite obstacles imposed by the pandemic, mild weather and storms, our employees found ways to connect innovate, drive growth, and build toward the future, all while meeting our financial commitments. The fundamentals of our company are strong and the drivers that uniquely positioned us to be the premier utility remain firmly in place. We consistently meet or exceed our guidance expectations. We have line of sight on 5% to 7% adjusted EPS growth. And by the end of the year, we expect the same for our dividend growth rate subject to board approval. And as we mature in our continuous improvement efforts, we aspire to permanently reduce O&M costs and redeploy those resources for the benefit of our stakeholders. I am as excited as ever about our future. I will now turn the call over to Drew to review our financial performance.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Today we are reporting strong results for 2020. As Leo mentioned, we successfully managed lower revenues by lowering our O&M expense by approximately $150 million, which exceeded our $100 million cost reduction target for the year. Our results today are a validation of a strong resilient company we are. As a result, we are confident in our continued success going forward and are initiating our guidance and affirming our longer-term outlook. I'll begin with a review of results for the full year and then provide an overview of guidance for 2021. Starting on slide 6, Entergy adjusted EPS for 2020 was $5.66, $0.26 higher than 2019 and the top half of our guidance range. Moving to slide 7, there were many drivers that are straightforward and laid out in the release. The key area focus for us in 2020 with O&M. We offset the negative impacts of storms, COVID-19 and unfavorable weather with approximately $150 million of cost reductions. And to do this, we identified a number of cost cutting measures early in the year and deliberately executed on our plan. Slide 8 lists some of the actions taken. We are proud of what we've accomplished yet we are not surprised. Our employees have built the culture, processes and resources to successfully deliver on our commitments to all of our stakeholders, even during extraordinary times. And that's been important this year more than ever. Our results further strengthen our competence in our success going forward as we affirm our earnings expectations from 2021 through 2023. Results for EWC summarized on slide 9 are generally in line with our expectations and we continue to make good progress on our exit of that business. Full year operating cash flow shown on slide 10, was approximately $2.7 billion. As you would expect, storm costs were a large driver, as were lower collections due to COVID-19. Decreased collections for fuel and purchase power costs and unfavorable weather also affected the metric. Lower unprotected, excess ADIT returned to customers partly offset the decrease. Our cash and credit metrics as of the end of the year are shown on slide 11. Our parent debt to total debt is 21.6%. And our FFO to debt is 10.3%. As we mentioned last quarter, our FFO to debt is temporarily lower in part due to the financial impacts from the storms. We expect the metric to return to target levels as we receive storm securitization proceeds next year. As we have strong precedents for storm cost recovery. We plan to submit initial filings over the next few weeks. We'll also pursue off balance sheet treatment in Louisiana and Texas. We remain committed to maintain our best investment grade profile and a supporting credit targets including at or above 15% for FFO to debt next year, and below 25% for parent debt to total debt. Moving to slide 12; with the resiliency we've demonstrated in 2020, we are confident in our continued success in 2021 and beyond. Our 2021 adjusted EPS guidance range is $5.80 to $6.10. And our current plan puts us firmly at the $5.95 midpoint. This and our 2022 and 2023 outlook ranges remain the same as the outlook we presented at Analysts Day. We continue to target a 5% to 7% annual growth rate for adjusted earnings per share. We also expect to grow our dividend commensurate with our EPS growth rate starting in the fourth quarter of this year, subject to final Board approval. On slide 13. Going backwards, we've outlined a few of the key drivers for 2021 earnings growth. We also include more detailed assumptions in the appendix of a webcast presentation, beginning with the top line a full year of 2020 rate activity following significant investments to benefit customers will contribute to 2021 growth. We will also make annual FRP filings during the year. We project utility O&M a little under $2.7 billion in line with our disclosures from Analysts Day. Depreciation expense is expected to increase and net interest is expected to decrease due to lower AFUDC as new plants came online in 2020. We also anticipate that our effective income tax rate will be higher. Our guidance and outlooks reflect the December APSC order in Arkansas, and assume an FRP extension in both Arkansas and Louisiana. In Arkansas, we are reprioritizing our O&M and capital investments to more closely align with the ordered recovery structure. To the extent the order is reversed, we will plan to readjust our O&M capital to deliver the customer benefits that those investments would produce. While we continue to monitor risks, we have already identified flexible spending levers in the event needed. We're also exploring permanent upside opportunities through solar investments and further continuous improvement. As Leo mentioned, 2020 with a strong year for our company, we exceeded our $100 million cost reduction target and delivered on our commitments to each of our four key stakeholders in the midst of unprecedented times. Looking ahead, the fundamentals that underlie our steady predictable growth are strong. Our guidance and outlooks remain the same as we presented at Analysts Day and provide clear line of sight to the 5% to 7% adjusted EPS growth rate. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country. And our solid strategic operational and financial plans will upgrade the service level that we provide to our customers. Our proven and disciplined flexible spending program helps us adapt to financial headwinds or tailwinds so we can meet our financial commitments. And in the fourth quarter of this year, we expect to grow our dividend commensurate with our 5% to 7% EPS growth rate. We have significant opportunities ahead and we are well positioned to be the premier utility. Before turning the call over to Q&A, I want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank David Borde for his great work as Vice President of Investor Relations. He built solid relationships with all of you. And the good news is he will not go far. He will work with Rod to help bring our vision of the future utility to life. And for the next few weeks, he will reach out to many of you to introduce Bill Abler, who is taking over leadership of the Investor Relations team. Bill has a strong commercial background in both commodities and utilities. And he will be an excellent representative for us with you. And as, both Dave and Bill are backed by a very strong team with discipline processes. So you should not expect any change in the level of service you will see from up there. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Hi, guys, it's actually Ryan on Jeremy. Just wanted to kind of start off with kind of the order in Arkansas and you guys were very clear about reaffirming the guidance and potential offsets with capital and O&M. And I just wanted to kind of dig a little bit more of what some of those offsets you are thinking about Arkansas to kind of offset this potential negative order. And then if you kind of get a positive kind of outcome on the rehearing should we be thinking about maybe top end into the range for 2021.
DrewMarsh:
This is Drew. I'll take that. And then Rod can provide any other framework elements as needed. But so we are adjusting, as I mentioned in my comments, we are adjusting our O&M and capital to prepare for or respond to, I guess, the order that we got to December, and you can see that in some of our capital disclosures. There is some other just normal pining capital moving around and some of the jurisdictions, but the main thing is in Arkansas, that's the primary thing that we are taking action to adjust with. In terms of potential upside, as I also said in my remarks to the extent that we were able to get the order reversed, we would anticipate putting most if not all depends on what the order would say, back into our capital plan, so that our customers can benefit from the capital and O&M that we are planning to deploy in Arkansas. So that's what's going on there.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Okay, that makes sense. And then just as a follow up, I mean, obviously, the stock price has kind of been at depressive levels recently, just wondering if you kind of have any thoughts on what's kind of required to kind of get the stock moving or kind of reassure market confidence. And then if kind of stays at depressed level that you'd think about any type of transaction deep maybe sell down in some of these utilities to maybe offset some of the equity needs going forward?
LeoDenault:
Well, I'll start, and I'll let Drew talk about the last part of that, Ryan, but the best thing we can do is continue as we have over the last several years to continue to execute to meet our commitments to our customers, and to meet our commitments to all of you, which just means being disciplined about our capital, and O&M spend about where it is and what level it is, continue to improve the level of service that our customers receive from us, and continue to hit or exceed the numbers that we committed to all of you. And that's what we intend to do.
DrewMarsh:
And then I'll just talk about M&A and sales and possible portions of utilities certainly, of course, we're always open to anything that would be value creating for our stakeholders, which is always our number one rule in M&A anyway, is to, we would want to make sure that we're creating value for our stakeholders. Other considerations are execution and distraction from the things that we are doing to further create value for stakeholders already under way. The second one is probably the one that makes it perhaps a little bit challenging for us in the sense of trying to do that for equity raises because we would likely require approval from regulatory Commission's in order to do any sort of M&A activity at the APCO and so while we might be able to find good value, if you're - if we were counting on that for an equity raise, and we had to go through the regulatory process that would create a lot of uncertainty in that equity, right. So probably not the best path for us but certainly if there is value creation opportunity out there, then we would be looking at it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.
StephenByrd:
Hey, good morning. Just wanted to I guess, step back and talk about the impacts to the system from just really unprecedented weather impact that you all noted, as you think about sort of lessons learned from Texas, and just from your other utility businesses, I know you're spending a lot on sort of making your system more resilient. But are the lessons learned sort of resulting in potential for further, either acceleration of spending or changes to plans? Whether it is generation plans, renewables plans, et cetera? Or is this just sort of consistent with your overall focus on resiliency and these recent data points, just kind of reaffirm sort of the existing approach that you're taking?
LeoDenault:
Well, I guess, I'll start out and let others chime in. But, Stephen, certainly every event that occurs has unique attributes that allow us to have lessons that we learn. And so whether it's the Hurricanes or tropical storms Harvey is different than Laura, for example, in terms of what the impact it had on reasonably similar areas of our service territory. And what we've experienced, obviously, we're still in the process of getting the lessons learned about the events that we saw last week. So we always, I wouldn't say that it's inconsistent with the plans we have for resiliency. But certainly every time we go through any kind of event, we will learn something that we will apply to the next events. So there are things we learned in Katrina that have really served as well, for every event that occurred after that, both in terms of what we do to our system, and how our capital shapes up, but also as well as our processes and our operations and our interactions with the industry, et cetera. So there will be lessons learned, and they will direct our activities potentially differently. I wouldn't say that it's going to create an incremental capital spends or anything like that, potentially redirection of it. Now, it could provide some incremental capital spend, if, when working with our regulators, they determine, we jointly determined that there are things that we need to do more quickly than we otherwise would have done. But I wouldn't say right now that there's some anticipation of a change in the size of the capital plan, going forward because of these events, might be a change in direction for some things just to prioritize differently. But everything's a learning experience. And we'll continue to do that. And as I said, events last week, we're still unpacking everything there.
StephenByrd:
That's helpful. Maybe just one last for me just on nuclear operations, just curious more broadly, how are you feeling in terms of operational progress, performance, just trends and any recent developments there? Or is it sort of fairly consistent with prior messaging there?
LeoDenault:
In the majority, it's consistent with where we've been. I would say that we continue to work with Grande Golf, we have some work to continue to do there to get that plant into the space where we want it to be, but majority of it is on track.
StephenByrd:
Understood and the Grande Golf work is that sort of just general operational improvements? How would you sort of highlight the work needed there?
LeoDenault:
In the equipment reliability space, for the most part, as you know, we've gone through a couple of major outages with big equipment modifications, the most recent equipment modification determined control system, we've had some issues coming out of that outage with some of the equipment associated with that modification. So we're going to continue to work through those, get those knocked out and get the plant up to the level of excellence that we desire.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners.
SharPourreza:
Hey, good morning, guys. Just a couple of questions here. Firstly, just on the cost savings you presented $150 million that was $150 million in savings that was obviously executed in 2020. That was well in excess of your original $100 million, right. So just curious to the level of recurring cost savings, you think you can - you think you can take it to 2021 and sort of continue on that momentum? And can you find sort of incremental opportunities especially on the corporate side i.e. we've seen several peers generates significant cost savings from, for instance, real estate optimization. So wondering if this is also potential leverage you guys go through COVID and the learning curves there.
DrewMarsh:
Hey, Shar, this is Drew. So most of the savings that we saw in 2020, I would characterize as more one time in nature; they're part of our flexible spending efforts. And those are typically looking for ways to take action to manage to outcomes in that particular year. And so we would not necessarily see those as recurring. But this year, we've identified new ones that we would be able to use to manage this year, if needed. And we had continued on last year, after we said that we got to $100 million looking for more in the event that we needed it. And it turns out, as you know, that we need all of it. There - having said that, there were some things that were identified as potential continuous improvement elements and sort of fit into those other buckets, although they were relatively small, I would think in the 20% range. And those are now accounted for in our outlooks as part of our O&M expectations. And there are other things that we are looking at. We are driving our continuous improvement efforts forward. Things like real estate optimization are in the spotlight for us, as we think about how we manage our workforce of the future. And that's an easy one to consider as we go forward. So those things are part of what we're looking at. And some of those expectations are now getting baked into our outlooks.
SharPourreza:
Got it. And then just maybe a timing on when your update around those, on the additional levers?
DrewMarsh:
Well, I think they're just part of our ongoing process. We don't have anything today. We don't have any specific timetable that we're working towards; it's just an ongoing element.
SharPourreza:
Got it. And then just on Arkansas, it's good that you're confirming or reaffirming that depending on whatever outlook happens in the FRP order that you're comfortable with the plan, midpoint of guidance embedded there. It sounds like you're obviously shifting or optimizing CapEx and O&M away from Arkansas. So I'm kind of curious, what - have you had any dialogue with the commission around sort of that strategic move, and I'm wondering where you redeploying the capital spent.
RodWest:
Shar, it's Rod. Good morning, the conversation as you know with the stakeholders is ongoing. And we won't comment specifically about any aspect of the give and take. But it is known in Arkansas that one of the consequences of us not having clarity around the FRP. And the extension is just that we would have to revisit how we deploy capital in Arkansas. And those conversations have been ongoing since the December order. And it's part of the motivation, why we're working the various avenues to turn that the conversation around. But they are aware of our point of view around the capital plan; we're not talking about specific puts and takes. That said our point of view that we shared with you earlier about why we thought the FRP provided us the best opportunity to create sustainable value for customers, as played out during dependency of the FRP. And why we feel so adamant about the propriety of the extension. And so I think that that message will resonate. There's more to come in terms of how it plays out. But that's about all I can speak to it, but you're raising a great point. We're all motivated to create value.
LeoDenault:
And the question about where it's going at this point is not really going anywhere. Yes, to the extent that we are optimistic that we can get some reversal of December order. We are waiting to see if we would want to put that capital back in place.
SharPourreza:
Got it. Dave Borde, congrats on sort of the new leadership position and Rod make sure you're working really hard. Thanks, guys.
RodWest:
I don't think you have to worry about that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI.
DurgeshChopra:
Hey, team, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Can you, sorry if I missed this, but have you quantified in terms of financially? What impact if any, does sort of last week's event have for you?
DrewMarsh:
Yes, so this is Drew. So Leo, in his remarks mentioned some of the cost elements up to $140 million in terms of restoration costs, and an incremental $400 million in terms of fuel costs. So I'll give you a little bit color, and there will be more specific numbers in the K which will file in a couple of days. But on the fuel cost, I think it's all in it's about $500 million, I would say about $100 million is kind of what we would normally have expected. And that gives you to the $400 million that Leo was talking about. Of the $500 million, about $200 million of it is in Louisiana, and that is about 90%to 95% EOL and the rest in New Orleans, about $150 million is in Texas. And these are all round numbers. As I mentioned, you'll have specific ones later, there is a positive deferred fuel balance in Texas of about $90 million that'll help offset that. And then in the neighborhood of $100 million and Arkansas and around $50 million and Mississippi. So that's kind of how that would all break down.
DurgeshChopra:
Understood, that's super helpful. Really, thank you. So it's essentially $400 million increment to what you might have otherwise expected on a normal basis.
DrewMarsh:
Yes. In February, and I'm talking about the month of February really?
DurgeshChopra:
Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thanks. And then just quickly, can you sort of - so the slide here says the Arkansas FRP extension first quarter, right, just can you remind us what the date is of that final order? And then in terms of like what to look for? Could that get extended? Just any color on when we may get resolution on that front?
RodWest:
Yes, this is Rod, March 15 is the date that the Commission has set for itself to issue the order for both the 2021 FRP and the renewal of the of the FRP extension.
Operator:
Our next question comes from [Steve Liesman with Wolfe Research.]
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Yes, thanks. Good morning. So this was a helpful update. Thank you and just the Louisiana FRP extension. I think you continued settlement talks there. Could you just maybe give color on your confidence and be able to settle that case?
RodWest:
Steve, Dave, I can, well, this is Rod. But I can tell you that the conversations in Louisiana are going perhaps consistent with our expectations slowed only by the last certainly the storms and occasionally COVID. But the types of issues that we've been working through with our stakeholders and the regulators have been consistent with expectations. We're targeting the resolution of the Louisiana renewal by the end of March. And that said we'll be monitoring that progress as we have others but March is our target to resolve that all things being equal.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Okay. Great. And then separate, different question just Drew on your financing plans is there - I might have missed it. But is there any update or changes in your equity issuance plans for the three-year period?
DrewMarsh:
No, no new changes from what we described in Analysts Day. We have made some progress. We got the aftermarket program up and running in January. And then we will have a proxy finally coming up. We'll have a request to get the authorization to issue preferred equity. So that should be coming up soon. But those are the only two things that are noteworthy since our last disclosure.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Okay, and then just on after market, is there like a timeline for that part of the financing you're targeting or -
DrewMarsh:
No, there's no timeline. We don't have any additional information there.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Paul Fremont with Mizuho.
PaulFremont:
Thank you very much. I guess if I heard you correctly in Arkansas, your guidance is essentially contingent on an FRP extension. Are you expecting that to come through a negotiation or through a final Arkansas public service commission rate order?
RodWest:
The answer without being sounding trite is yes. So whatever progress we're able to make to date in through the 15th, which is only two and a half to three weeks away, we'll incorporate whatever progress we make. The assumptions we're making in our guidance and outlook assume the December order and an FRP, presumptively, with a December order. But it's our confidence and our ability to manage to expectations with whatever would be the likely or reasonable components of an Arkansas order. And so that's really the commitment we're making today that our outlooks are tied to those two primary assumptions.
PaulFremont:
Right, but would your guidance hold if the FRP were not renewed?
RodWest:
If the FRP was not renewed, then we would likely have to see what the circumstances were, obviously, we have the ability, if needed to, for instance, file a rate case or take some other remedial action. And so from a planning standpoint, we're contemplating all of those scenarios, but it's too early for us to know which levers we'd ultimately pull. But our commitment is to manage to those likely outcomes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Julian Dumoulin with Bank of America.
JulianDumoulin:
Hey, thank you, team. Good morning rather.
LeoDenault:
Don't you get we are having a 24x7 shop as you don't know what time of day it is.
JulianDumoulin:
Feels it that way. But if I can, let me come back to the planning scenarios we talked about a second ago. So you're talking about cost reductions, CapEx levers, and also a series of flowcharts, if you will, around what you could do? Can you elaborate a little bit on all these levers? Like, if you were to pursue this out, would you file a rate case later this year in Arkansas, or are litigious and appeals strategy, the first way to go? How quickly when you think about the different scenarios would you pursue one over another? And how quickly could we come back with a cost savings program and CapEx program to preserve at least the integrity of returns I suppose?
LeoDenault:
Julian, I appreciate the question. I guess we're in the midst of discussions and these orders, and we're only a couple of weeks out from resolution. So I think it'd be best for us to just defer commentary around all of that until we get the outcome. Since it's pretty prompt.
JulianDumoulin:
Yes. Understood. But to be clear about this, it sounds like you've got contingencies already running on both costs and CapEx levers as it stands today.
LeoDenault:
Correct.
JulianDumoulin:
And then the second quick question, if I can probably related on the subject of bill impacts and how you think about cumulative bill impact, how do you think about the total trajectory, knowing what you know about storms and otherwise, as well as the pace of CapEx and sales trajectory in 2021 onwards? Are you anticipating at this point in time across your service territories?
LeoDenault:
So make sure we get to everything that was in there. So you're correct, right. We've made adjustments to our plan to anticipate what we think is the likely outcomes in the FRP renewals for any regulatory process going forward, so that is incorporated in our thinking and obviously in our outlooks based on what we told you today. And certainly from a bill impact standpoint, we're obviously going to work through all of these processes, whether it be the storms from last year, or the storms from last week, and try to make recovery work for - keep the company in the right space as it relates to our credit profile, and earnings as well as to keep our customer bills mitigated as much as we possibly can, which is what we've always done. So the tools that we talked about, whether it be securitization, or normal ways that we handle fuel cost recovery, or some of the options that we've taken those in previous times, all that'll be on the table to where we can make it as minimal and the impact on customers as we possibly can while we continue to meet, for example, our credit and earnings commitments.
Operator:
That's the next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Vertical.
JonathanArnold:
Yes, good morning, guys. Could we get maybe an update on where you are on say on rate and incremental bad debt since you updated last quarter?
DrewMarsh:
Sure, Jonathan. This is Drew. So as of the end of the year we had recorded bad debt expense of $112 million. Our normal bad debt expense in any given year is about $25 million. So that incremental $87 million was recorded as a regulatory asset, because we have orders in each of our jurisdictions that would allow us to recover those costs. The arrear is typically runs about three times higher than the bad debt expense. And so that number is pretty consistent, we've seen it begin to level off, but we need to see where it goes with this latest round of storms, and a little bit of backtracking on disconnects because of the storms. And we never did get often disconnects in Arkansas or New Orleans. So those two jurisdictions have continued on for a little bit longer. But that's kind of where we stand right now.
JonathanArnold:
So just to be clear, I understand that for the rate numbers more like a something in the 300.
DrewMarsh:
Correct.
JonathanArnold:
And as you reserved just or written off for fees or recovery 30 half a third, roughly?
LeoDenault:
That's correct.
JonathanArnold:
Okay. Thank you for that. And then just if I may, on the quarter, and just an understanding that the numbers are a little better than the full year, it looks like you had $0.23 of tax related benefit for the year, but you were sort of shooting for $0.15 when you last updated guidance on Q3 and so there would be a sort of $0.08 incremental held versus what you were expecting and maybe another $0.07 or so P&L. Am I reading that right? Or is there a better way to think about that?
DrewMarsh:
No, that's correct. There are some details in the appendix which talk about those things for 2020. And sure they are on the fourth quarter, most of that is in the fourth quarter, it was related to just annual true up that happened to work out in our direction, there was a small item that we found, which was an opportunity for us. But that's consistent with what we've been doing for a long, long time. Obviously, the big item, we adjusted out which we committed to you all we would do. And so going forward, any of those annual true up, they might break for us, they might break against us, and we have to manage within that. We do expect to find some small items going forward. But we're not counting on it. If you look at our tax rate for 2021 it's a 22%. And I think we're not disclosing it. But in our plan, we actually have it drifting back up to around 24%, 24.5% beyond that. We've had it lower for the last years as you know because we had all the AFUDC from the projects, all pretty much all of which went online in 2020. So that positive tax effect isn't as strong going forward.
JonathanArnold:
So is it fair to say it sort of helped you $0.15 or so in Q4?
DrewMarsh:
It did. We also weren't planning the $0.16 regulatory provision from the Arkansas order. So it kind of balanced out.
JonathanArnold:
For sure, yes. I got it. And then I may have missed this. So make sure I obviously noticed your CapEx down I guess 2021, $300 odd million best follow up to 9% was, is most of that sort of dialing back in Arkansas, or some other things going on?
DrewMarsh:
That is that is primarily Arkansas there. We we've taken some capital out of 2021 and 2022. We put a little bit back in 2023 in Arkansas. There were some other timing elements of the other jurisdictions, but the main impact is Arkansas.
Operator:
Our next question comes from James Thalacker with BMO Capital Market.
JamesThalacker:
Thanks so much. Good morning, guys. Just real quick follow up. And I think I know the answer, you reiterated your ranges, I guess through 2023 as well as the midpoint. And I think in relation to Steve's question, Drew doesn't sound like your financing plan has changed? Has there been any change? I guess in the cadence of that financing, and maybe to look at it is fairly ratable. But just kind of given where the FFO metrics are, should we assume that maybe some of that equity is a little bit more front end loaded or still ratable?
DrewMarsh:
So we haven't, we don't have any additional information provide on timing. Other than what we've said previously, we do expect to issue some equity this year. And then we have the $2.55 billion by 2024. But outside of that we don't have any other timing or amount, items that we would disclose right now.
JamesThalacker:
Got it and the $1 billion ATM that you were mentioning, I think you guys put that in place in December that was part of that original financing plan, too just to clarify.
DrewMarsh:
That's correct. It's one of the tools that we were putting in place, with the other being the authorization requests for preferred equity
Operator:
Our last question comes from Ryan Levine with Citi.
RyanLevine:
Thank you for taking my question. I just wanted to follow up on some of the bad debt items. Can you remind us exactly what in your 2021 earnings guidance is around bad debt expense assumption? And if there's any incremental off of initial assumption from the events from last week, appreciate the $400 million of incremental fuel costs number, so curious if you've adjusted any of your bad debt assumptions on that regard.
LeoDenault:
We have not adjusted our bad debt assumptions for that. Right now, I believe it's probably fairly normal around the $25 million amount that I was talking about earlier. Obviously, we'll be monitoring that closely. And seeing where all the COVID arrears actually fall out, we have an estimate, as we were discussing earlier, there are about a third. Ultimately, we would expect to be able to recover those costs through the regulatory process. But we don't have exact numbers yet. This is - that part's a little bit uncharted territory, we'll see where it comes out.
RyanLevine:
Are there any regulatory approaches or tools that you have, or any potential political responses to help mitigate that potential incremental bad debt expense?
LeoDenault:
I don't know about regulatory tools. I mean, we have the orders that are already in place. We are working closely with customers to try and mitigate the impact on customers, we've done a number of things to put new deferred payment plans in place, we've been working hard with our customers, we've renegotiated 1000s of plans with our customers already, to try and help them out. We've invented new ways to get likely funding to our customers and other community tools that are available. We've actually worked with some of our retail regulators to do some of that in New Orleans and other jurisdictions. So there are a number of things that we have underway to try to mitigate the impact and we are trying to work hard and communicate very closely with our customers to make sure that they know where we are and with our retail regulators at the same time.
RyanLevine:
Okay, and in fact to just squeeze on one last question, in terms of - what's the regulatory approach to enable a path forward for Louisiana and from your other jurisdictions to fuel LDCS with hydrogen, in light of your hydrogen strategies that you highlighted?
LeoDenault:
Well, from a regulatory process standpoint, it would be the same process we use to with our resource planning. So whether it's an RFP process, recovery of those of the investments we make for those resources would go through our existing recovery mechanisms. But to the extent there are some nuances, where the current mechanisms don't account for some of the really forward-looking aspects of the hydrogen or any new technology. We'll be talking with our regulators about closing whatever those gaps are. But we have an existing process thus far with the RFP and the riders would have.
RyanLevine:
Appreciated, thank you.
LeoDenault:
And I'll just repeat the LDC is a very small piece of our overall business. I think the rate base is only about $200 million or so overall.
Operator:
I'd like to turn the call back over to David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Michelle. And thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on March 1, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Entergy Third Quarter 2020 Earnings Release and Teleconference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Mr. David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions]. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are once again reporting strong quarterly results, which keep us firmly on track to meet our financial commitments. Third quarter adjusted earnings were $2.44 per share, and we're on pace to exceed our $100 million O&M cost savings target for the year. With 3 quarters behind us, and the confidence and clarity we have for the remainder of the year, we are narrowing our 2020 guidance range, which is now $5.60 to $5.70, and we are affirming our longer-term outlooks. 2020 has presented challenges for all of us around the world. We've endured a global pandemic, including its economic impacts. We've witnessed social unrest, and we've had a record-breaking storm season with back-to-back hurricanes hitting our service area. Yet no matter what 2020 threw at us, we remain steadfast in delivering on our commitments to our customers, our communities, our employees and our owners. That's what our stakeholders expect from us. For the past several years, we've built the culture, processes and resources to successfully deliver on our commitments even in the face of extraordinary times. Our comprehensive incident and storm response plans ensure we are always ready and prepared to respond to extraordinary events. Our best-in-class capital projects management team delivers projects on budget and on schedule, even in challenging environments. Our proven cost management program helps us confront financial headwinds so we can meet our financial commitments. And our disciplined continuous improvement program identifies permanent cost savings to deliver incremental sustainable value for all of our stakeholders. Our strong results today amid these extraordinary times demonstrate the progress we've made over the past 7 years to build a simpler, stronger and more resilient company. We are on track to achieve not only our commitments for 2020, but also the long term strategic, operational and financial objectives we laid out at Analyst Day. We have a strong 5-year customer-centric capital plan that will elevate our customer experience. We will create incremental value for our 4 stakeholders through continuous improvement. We will continue our legacy of sustainability and environmental leadership for a cleaner world. And we will maintain our long-term vision for a steady, predictable growth in earnings and dividends, and we see a path to continue that growth beyond 2024. The professionalism and dedication of our employees and our organization were once again on full display when Hurricane Delta made landfall in Southwest Louisiana on the heels of Hurricane Laura. Delta caused 493,000 outages at its peak. With the help of our mutual assistant partners, we were able to deploy 12,000 workers and nearly all of our customers were restored within 5 days. We showed why we are best-in-class in storm response as we successfully managed to back-to-back major hurricanes all amid a global pandemic. That's what we prepare for, and that's what we do. In fact, Zeta is expected to make landfall this evening in Southeast Louisiana. We've activated our storm response plan, and we are fully prepared and ready to respond. For our restoration efforts, we have received broad support from local, state and federal officials and as one local official put it best during Hurricane Laura, as soon as the storm passed, Entergy was everywhere. Of course, our thoughts and prayers are with everyone who is impacted by these storms, especially those in Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas who endured the most damage. Beyond our thoughts and prayers, we've provided financial support to affected communities. Entergy shareholders granted more than $730,000 during the third quarter to help families and communities recover. We are deeply grateful for our employees and partners and dedicated themselves to restore the electric service that is so critical to the communities we serve. The storms also proved the strength and resiliency of our modern infrastructure. For example, in the past two years, we completed the Lake Charles and the Nelson Dermaina transmission projects in the Lake Charles area. Those projects were designed to Withstand 140-mile per hour winds. Every structure from those projects remain standing after enduring the brunt of Hurricane Laura, the strongest storm to hit Louisiana in over 150 years. This is a direct result of our plan to improve the resiliency of our infrastructure and provide a high level of service to our customers. By contrast, many older structures in the same path, which were built to less resilient standards were destroyed. We rebuilt those structures using modern design and technology, and they remained intact throughout Hurricane Delta. These improvements to our transmission system will provide benefits to our customers for many years to come. In the midst of all of this, we continue to make progress on our key long-term deliverables. Our renewables efforts have escalated over the past few years. And this quarter, we've achieved several important milestones. Louisiana customers began to receive power from the capital region Solar. The largest solar facility in the state. We have a 20-year power purchase agreement for the output from the 50-megawatt facility. Entergy New Orleans completed Louisiana's largest commercial rooftop solar project. Approximately 7,000 solar panels provide 2.4 megawatts of clean energy to New Orleans residents. We announced 3 new solar projects from our request for proposals. Entergy Arkansas is planning to purchase Walnut Bend, a 100-megawatt solar farm. Entergy Texas announced 2 projects from Insuranceage renewable RFP. The first, Liberty County Solar will be a 100-megawatt owned resource. The second, Embrel Solar will be a 150-megawatt facility from which we will purchase the output. We are requesting approval from our regulators to move forward with these selections where required. We also continue to make progress on partnering with our customers to offer renewable resource options to help meet their sustainability goals. 61 tax-exempt companies subscribe to Entergy Arkansas' Solar energy purchase option, purchasing power generated by the Stuttgard Solar energy Center. By participating in this utility level arrangement, these customers will save anywhere from 18% to 28% and on their electricity usage. These renewable projects will bring clean energy to our customers and will help us achieve our environmental commitments. At Analyst Day, we laid out climate strategy, and we told you how renewable investments will continue to grow significantly as we move towards achieving our 2030 carbon reduction goal and ultimately, our commitment to achieve net 0 emissions by 2050. We already are the largest provider of renewable energy in both Louisiana and Arkansas. In Entergy, Mississippi is building the largest utility-owned solar facility in that state. We have a meaningful commitment to grow our renewable portfolio for which we plan significant investment by the end of the decade. As always, subject to the approval and direction of our regulators. We will continue to engage and work with our regulators and stakeholders to expand the use of renewables under a framework that ensures we balance reliability, affordability and sustainability. In 2002, we established our portfolio transformation strategy to replace aging, less efficient assets with modern, cleaner, highly efficient assets. We've deactivated approximately 6,500 megawatts of older generation with an average heat rate of approximately 13,000. And we've added more than 9,000 megawatts of modern generation with an average heat rate of approximately 7,300. These newer resources have, on average, a 50% lower emissions profile than the assets we deactivated. And not only are they cleaner, they also provide significant savings to our customers from lower fuel costs. Looking ahead, we will propose building resources that will have fuel optionality to be powered with hydrogen. We'll also look at retrofitting existing assets to enable the use of hydrogen fuel and carbon capture and sequestration technology. We are already working to make this a reality. We recently submitted a proposal in Entergy Texas' RFP for resource that is selected and approved, will be developed with the option to be powered partially or fully with hydrogen. And that asset could also utilize carbon capture and sequestration when that technology becomes economical. Our portfolio transformation strategy has led to measurable undeniable results. For the past 2 decades, our emissions rate has been well below the sector average. Our utility CO2 emissions rate has decreased approximately 30%. And today, we operate one of the cleanest large-scale fleets in the country. And we will only continue to get cleaner as we maximize the use of new modern technologies to serve our customers at the lowest reasonable cost while meeting our environmental commitments. We've talked to you about our unique framework, which illustrates the certainty of our capital plan. 90% of our capital plan is based on the need for system modernization and is not dependent on customer growth. More than 90% will be recovered through timely rate mechanisms, and approximately 85% of our capital plan is ready for execution from a regulatory approval standpoint. Our constructive and progressive regulatory mechanisms provide clarity to our plan and give us confidence in meeting our financial commitments. On October 15, New Orland City Council approved the unanimous settlement agreement that resolves Entergy New Orleans rate case and FRP filing. Under the agreement, Entergy New Orleans will submit the first of 3 annual formula rate plan filings in mid-2021. The agreement also sets Entergy New Orleans' equity ratio at 51% for the duration of the FRP. The settlement does not address the 9.35% allowed ROE. We continue to believe that this ROE does not adequately reflect Entergy New Orleans' business risk profile as evidenced by the recent downgrade by S&P. We will continue to explore adjustments to the allowed ROE in our discussions with the City Council and its advisers. Entergy Texas also submitted its first filing, utilizing the new generation rider recently established by the Texas Commission. The filing requests a $91 million annual revenue requirement from Montgomery County Power Station effective when the plant is placed into service. At Entergy, we play a vital role in every region where we operate. This responsibility is never clear than during our incident response to events like major storms and the current pandemic. But our commitment to sustainability extends far deeper than just incident response. We demonstrate our leadership through our daily actions, such as our climate strategy, attracting talent and developing our workforce, our commitment to diversity, inclusion and belonging and initiatives that strengthen the well-being of our communities. At our Analyst Day, we published a comprehensive ESG presentation that outlines our leadership in sustainability, which I encourage you to review. As I said at the outset, 2020 has validated that we are now a simpler, stronger and more resilient company. We are prepared to successfully respond to challenges, and that's been important this year more than ever. With much of 2020 behind us, we've delivered strong results despite the challenges of a global pandemic and its economic impact, social unrest across the country in an active storm season with back-to-back hurricanes hitting our service area. We are excited about the prospects ahead of us. The fundamentals of our company are strong and the value drivers that uniquely position us to be The Premier Utility remain in place. We are strategically, operationally and financially on track to meet the commitments we've made to our stakeholders. We have some of the lowest rates in the United States and are committed to maintaining that advantage. We have a significant investment plan that improves the level of service for our customers through innovative solutions that meet the outcomes they expect. We have one of the cleanest large-scale generation fleets in the country. And we are a leader in sustainability with a commitment to achieve net 0 carbon emissions by 2050. We have a clear line of sight to 5% to 7% growth in earnings. And by the end of next year, we'll start to grow the dividend commensurate with those earnings. And as we mature in our continuous improvement efforts, we aspire to lower our costs and do even better for the benefit of our stakeholders. We look forward to continuing the conversation with you at the EEI Financial conference, and Drew will now review the quarter's results.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo noted, our strong results this quarter demonstrate the progress we've made to build a strong resilient company, prepared to deliver on our commitments through extraordinary times. We're on pace to exceed our $100 million cost savings target for the year. And with the confidence and clarity we have for the remainder of the year, we are narrowing our 2020 adjusted EPS guidance range, which is now $5.60 to $5.70. We're also affirming our longer-term outlooks as we remain focused on building the Premier Utility. Entergy adjusted earnings for the quarter were $2.44 per share. Drivers were straightforward. Starting with utility on Slide 6, we saw a positive effects of regulatory actions associated with our customer-centric investments in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We experienced lower sales volume due to the impacts from Hurricane Laura, COVID-19 and less favorable weather. O&M was once again lower in the quarter as we successfully manage through a challenging environment for the benefit of our stakeholders. And depreciation and interest expenses were higher as a result of our continued customer-centric investments. At EWC, on Slide 7, as reported earnings were $0.15, $0.85 higher than a year ago. The key driver was lower asset write-offs and impairment charges due to the sale of Pilgrim in the third quarter of 2019. In addition, strong market performance for EWC's nuclear decommissioning trust funds positively contributed. The quarter's results also reflected lower revenue and lower O&M, primarily due to the shutdown of Indian Point 2. Slide 8 shows operating cash flow decreased approximately $145 million. The main drivers were lower collections from customers due to the impacts from COVID-19 and higher pension funding, $70 million reduction in the unprotected excess ADIT returned to customers partially offset the decrease. Before we turn to outlooks, I'd like to quickly cover Hurricane Delta. As you can see on Slide 9, we estimate the total cost to be between $250 million and $300 million. We plan to consolidate these costs with those from Hurricane Laura and our regulatory recovery filings. Of course, we are also monitoring Hurricane Delta and will act on those costs appropriately based on the need and working closely with our retail regulators. Now turning to Slide 10. We have a good line of sight on the remainder of the year, and we are narrowing our 2020 adjusted EPS guidance, which is now $5.60 to $5.70. We are also affirming our longer-term outlooks. For 2020, we're successfully managing lower revenues from weather, COVID-19 and major storms. And to date, we are on track to exceed our $100 million cost reduction target, which allows us to deliver on our commitments to our customers, employees, communities and you, our investors. Our credit metrics and liquidity position are outlined on Slide 11. Our liquidity remains strong, and you can see that as of September 30, our net liquidity, including storm reserves was $4.3 billion. Our parent debt to total debt was 22.4% and our FFO to debt was 11.8%. The FFO metric included the effects of returning $119 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers over the last 12 months. Excluding this giveback and certain items related to our exit of EWC, FFO to debt would have been 12.5%. Clearly, our FFO-to-debt ratio this quarter is unusually low. As you would expect, this is largely due to the effects of COVID-19 and Hurricane Laura and the acceleration of cash being returned to customers as a result of COVID-19, such as deferred fuel. Debt has also increased as a result of financing of storm costs near term. We expect these to cycle through over time. We remain firmly committed to achieving an FFO to debt target at or above 15%. And we are confident we will reach that level, but the timing will be affected by the recovery of our storm costs. We expect to achieve our targeted metric when storm securitizations are received. This is consistent with what we have communicated to the rating agencies. And both S&P and Moody's have written constructively about our credit post storms. In fact, Moody's expects us to meet our FFO-to-debt target in 2022, which aligns with a non-expedited securitization plan. And S&P raised Entergy's business risk profile to excellent, S&P's best business risk profile. This is an important outcome as it recognizes the work we have done over the past few years to de-risk our asset portfolio and build a strong, resilient business. While we have made great progress, as Leo mentioned, we are nonetheless disappointed by the recent downgrade of Entergy New Orleans. S&P's actions demonstrate the importance of supportive regulatory constructs, ROEs and capital structures to maintain the financial strength of our utility operating companies. Preserving credit quality is essential to keep costs low and fund needed investment for customers. This past summer, we had another successful quarter. Despite the impact from storms and COVID-19, we delivered on our customer, employee, community and investor objectives. We are meeting key goals as reflected in our 2020 deliverables. And as we demonstrated at Analyst Day, the fundamentals of our business are strong, and we remain uniquely positioned to be the premier utility. We look forward to continuing the conversation with all of you at EEI. With the conference so soon after Analyst Day, we will not provide additional materials. Nevertheless, we did include in the appendix of today's webcast presentation, our preliminary 2021 drivers and our 3-year capital plan through 2023 by operating company, two disclosures we typically provide to you at EEI. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Jeremy Tonet with Jpmorgan.
Jeremy Tonet:
Just want to start off with the O&M savings that you have -- you've really kind of succeeded with achieving this year. I'm just wondering where that stands, I guess, year-to-date, so far? What's driving your ability to kind of get to that target and go above that target? And how much of that could be kind of recurring into next year? Just trying to get a feeling on those items.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Jeremy, this is Drew. That's a good question. I think it relates to the operating leaders in the company, really following the plan that we laid out early in the year. And we talked about this really actually on our first quarter call about how we plan to go get the $100 million and then it was identified. And we have actually pretty much run the exact game plan that we talked about back then. It had to do with some operational planning, deferring some maintenance items during outages and things like that. Those are probably the primary drivers, and we had to do that with reliability and safety in mind, of course, at all times. And then there were a number of things that we identified that were related to COVID-19, a lot of employee expense related items, travel, cost for gathering and things of that nature. Now that we're working in a more decentralized fashion. So those make up the bulk of the opportunities. And I'll say that typically, we -- in any given year, we have what we call Flex spending opportunities, and those largely include the things that I just talked about. But not all of them are necessarily repeatable. There may be different types of options in any given year, but our goal is to manage to an objective where we meet our steady, predictable earnings and dividend growth because that provides the financial flexibility and the credit quality that we need to continue to grow. At the same time, we do always look for continuous improvement opportunities and some of the things that I talked about could contribute to that. Namely some of the things that allow us to work differently today that we've discovered, some of the more decentralized learning, some of the employee expenses like travel. We may not have to travel as much. And so we're examining those things closely to see if they will fit into our continuous improvement programs and ultimately get reflected as continuous improvement. And that effort is where we would see opportunity on an ongoing basis to create more headroom for our customers for incremental customer investment.
Jeremy Tonet:
Got it. That's very helpful. And just one more, if I could. Could you provide kind of color on local sales trends? And what assumptions went into kind of underpinning your expected 3% growth in 2021? How have your thoughts kind of evolved since the Analyst Day?
Andrew Marsh:
I'll take that one as well. They haven't really evolved much in Analyst Day. They're pretty much exactly where they were at that point. But we do expect continued rebound in the economy year-over-year. And so that's where the growth is mostly coming from. I will say, like I said at Analyst Day, our experience to date has been the so-called V-shaped recovery. But at Analyst Day, we said that given the economic forecast that we had seen, we were not forecasting a continuation of that being necessarily. We were smoothing that out and making it a little bit of a longer-term recovery. And so that's what's reflected in our forecast. And that is sort of that 3%. So we're not seeing as much of a rebound as we might have if we saw the more of the V-shape recovery. That opportunity is still potentially out there because like I said, our experience has been more of the V-shape thus far. So perhaps we have a little bit of conservatism built in. If the economy does, in fact, slow down, we should be well positioned.
Operator:
And our next question comes from James Thalacker with BMO Capital Markets.
James Thalacker:
Just two real quick questions. I guess, first, just following back, Drew, you answered the question on the FFO year -- quarter-over-quarter. But I also noticed that in your slides that you're talking about an average share count for 2021 is now 204 million shares versus $201 million in '20. So could we can infer that you've kind of made the decision on the form of equity that you'll undertake in 2021 and any considerations on timing we should be thinking about?
Andrew Marsh:
No new considerations on timing. We are going to have to access equity capital by the end of next year, which is consistent with what we've been talking about. So you can see that in the in the numbers. But we haven't made definitive decisions on exactly how we're planning to go source that at this point, but we have some placeholders in to reflect different opportunities.
James Thalacker:
Okay. And so you're still looking also, I guess, at the preferred option, too, is one of the things you talked about that the shareholder ?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, yes. We do. We still have that on the table, and we will still be seeking shareholder approval of that in -- with our proxy in the spring.
James Thalacker:
Got it. And last question here. At slide 15, just looking at the Entergy Arkansas, there was a date here, I guess, today, where you were expecting potentially a stipulation or a settlement deadline. Do you think that we'll hear anything on that today?
Roderick West:
It's Rod. I can answer that. Today, with the deadline for settlement on the FRP filing, and so not the extension. And we're actually working with both the commission and the stakeholders to extend that deadline another day or so to give the parties an opportunity to continue to work through the issues. The nuance there is that there are a number of issues around the FRP that might implicate the actual extension, and we're trying to narrow that list down. So today, you might hear of an extension, but just know that that's an intentional effort on our part to provide some clarity to the commission on the issues that we've addressed between the actual FRP and the actual extension, which has a longer another month or so time line from a settlement perspective, but they're connected. So that's what's going on there.
James Thalacker:
Understood. So you're basically just trying to narrow the scope?
Roderick West:
That's exactly right.
James Thalacker:
Right. And I guess just into that last point, the Arkansas staff appeared to come out rather forcely, I guess, on the FRP extension. Should we now expect a time frame for the clarity on that getting extended beyond -- I believe it's a December 4 of settlement deadline, and this could pivot to a fully litigated process? Or are you still optimistic that you could get a settlement on that side of it all?
Roderick West:
No. So our point of view, our optimism around getting that business done has not changed. What you're seeing with the recent filings, both the staff and other stakeholders is the normal part of the process that essentially sets the conversations that we have when we're actually in negotiations as we are now. So between now and the actual extension of settlement time line, the beginning of December, I believe, we'll be going to work to close out the very issues that I alluded to before. So no, I don't expect there to be any difference because of what was filed, all of which have been expected.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Vertical Research.
Jonathan Arnold:
Yes. I suspect the answer to this may be sort of storm, et cetera. But I was just curious on the balance sheet, there was a really big move in accounts payable seemed to go up about $1.3 billion over the second quarter and just a lot bigger than usual. Anything you can provide there as a explainer?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. That's exactly what that is, Jonathan, and there is a corresponding regulatory asset in there that offsets that. And ironically, that is part of the challenge. A lot of that cash hasn't actually flowed out the door yet. But it's reflected in our FFO because we've taken out the working capital piece. So the payables are taken out, but the asset is still in there. So it looks like the cash has flowed in the FFO metric.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. And then could I just sort of ask for an update on arrears and bad debts? And you thought that on the balance sheet went up another $30 million versus June. And I guess on the rule of thumb you shared with us last quarter, you tend to book 30% of your arrears as bad debt. So does that imply an incremental $100 million over the sort of $100 million increase you had in the second quarter? Or is there another way of thinking about that?
Andrew Marsh:
That's about right, Jonathan. We have booked a little bit of over $50 million in terms of bad debt expense. And you're right, it's about 1/3 typically of our overall customer arrears. And so that math would lead to about $150 million overall in that ballpark.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then you had said that you felt like last quarter, there were just people who could pay that just weren't paying. And is that -- what's your current feeling?
Roderick West:
Yes. Since the beginning of the COVID. We had a point of view around what the experience would likely be like for customers who didn't pay and that align with our -- what we call the dunning process, where we were not disconnecting customers for nonpayment. And we're seeing our expectations materialize. And there were some conservatism built in. As you recall, we saw regulatory accounting orders from our commissions. As a backstop to the potential and likely outcomes on bad debt and customer arrearages. And so we're actually seeing it play out the way that we expected. And we expect to be, at some point, in the near term, we haven't defined the date yet when we return back to more business as usual, whenever that might be, we'll actually begin the filings to connect recovery from customers, including through the regulatory mechanisms on the bad debt and other expenses associated with COVID.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Do you guys think that -- just what's the trajectory from here, though, and as you talk about your expectations, do you see it rising further? Or are we sort of -- we reached a level here?
Roderick West:
It's too early to say, candidly, because there's the unknown as to what are going to be the continuing impacts of COVID as we round out the fourth quarter into the new year. What will likely be different is the stance of the regulators relative to the relief we provided to customers relative to that bad debt. And so that's going to be a to be continued. On our end, we're going to be prudent in the way that we continue to provide service to customers, but take advantage of the opportunities given to us by the regulators to at least present to them what, if any, trends we're seeing. On arrears beyond sort of the path that we're currently on.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Shahriar Pourreza Safran with Guggenheim Partners.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Just two quick questions here. I appreciate the transparency on issuing the '23 guidance. Can we just talk a little bit about the cadence of the earnings growth year-over-year? Because it seems that at the midpoint of those ranges, you're expecting more tailwind growth rather than sort of front years of the plan, i.e., 5% in the front year, 7% closer to the '23 time frame. So just wanted to maybe get a sense on what's driving that? Is it the equity in the front end of the plan? So just kind of curious how we should think about the guidance.
Roderick West:
Yes. I think, from our perspective, Shar, it's fairly ratable, pretty close to that 6%. When we have done a little bit better last year, and we're on track to do a little bit better this year, we're not necessarily projecting that out into the future years just yet. So we're -- so it looks like when we go from a little bit higher where we started for '20 to out in the future, it slows down a little bit, I think. But I think if you look at our original guidance midpoints, you'd see that fairly predictable 6% growth is what you'd see.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Got it. So don't look at the year-over-year midpoint growth and assume that it is going to be more back-end loaded?
Roderick West:
No, not from the revised spot. If you start from the original spot, I think you'll get to that same place.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Got it. Perfect. And just one quick follow-up, Juan, just on the equity question. So just there's a lot of moving pieces, right? You've got storm recoveries. And clearly, there's another pending one coming, a little bit lower volumes, the credit metrics somewhat were lower than, I guess, not expectations, but as we think about it from a comparable standpoint. How do we how do we maybe just -- can you frame the cadence on how we should think about equity? I mean, obviously, there's a little bit in plan now in '21. Should we just assume that equity should be more front-end loaded versus back-end loaded or something that's more annual, just given some of the moving pieces that was -- that you've highlighted and obviously, Leo highlighted in the prepared remarks.
Roderick West:
Yes. I don't -- we're not planning any change in our cadence to our equity at this point as a result of COVID or the storms. So we do still expect to, as we've been talking about, have some equity by next year to maintain our path, although we probably won't be hitting our FFO to debt target exactly the same as we were. But we've committed that to the rating agencies that we will have some equity out there, and we'll continue with that process on through the next five years, but no real changes as a result of the storm or COVID at this point.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Julian Dumoulin with Bank of America.
Julien Dumoulin:
Sorry about that. I apologize, I wasn't quite sure if it was open. Listen, I'll make it easy or quick d easier quick. I'm curious as to how you would characterize the totality of the storms and the bill impacts incurred this year. I appreciate it doesn't necessarily fit into the traditional framework, should we call it, of the FRP. But really, just curious how you think about that and to the extent to which it may shift timing of CapEx or otherwise, as you think about bill impacts in future years is securitization and otherwise filter their way into rates.
Roderick West:
It's Rod. I'll take a stab at it how we think about it. As you rightly stated, the storms operate outside of the traditional FRPs. and as a result, but nevertheless, still has an impact on the overall customer bill. And my answer to that is the way that we think about that is not any different, what are the ways in which we can mitigate the bill impact. All what are the tools we have available to us, yes, we are starting from an advantageous standpoint of having amongst the lowest customer rates in the in the U.S. but knowing these storms will ultimately impact our customers. Well, we're exploring with the Feds as we shared with you all at Analyst Day, opportunities to offset some aspects of the customer deals as they relate to the storms. There is the opportunity that we've had in prior storms and that we've already begun to take advantage of around securitization to lower the cost of the near-term cost of storm recovery for customers aside from the self-help opportunities we have to lower our overall cost of service to customers. So between the opportunities with the federal government, and DOE and others, the regulatory mechanisms we have, the financial structures we have used in the past and our own self-help, we're going to continue to do what we've done before and that is work to mitigate the impact on customers. And the storm is, from our vantage point, is no different than any other cost to provide those outcomes for customers. So that will be a work in progress, but our objective to keep our -- going back to Leo's point, our objective around the reliability part of -- I mean, the affordability part of reliability, sustainability and affordability that's our normal course of business. And so there's nothing that's going to be different about that.
Leo Denault:
Julien, I'll just add, this is Leo. We talked about at Analyst Day, given what our current rate level is and what the current trajectory is without the storm costs are manageable. And we still believe that they're manageable within the capital budget that we've got. And as Rod mentioned, that's totally consistent with the way that we've operated over the years, it's totally consistent with the way we've gotten recovery of storm costs over the years. And it is our objective to attempt to continue to try and do better for all of our stakeholders. So through continuous improvement and everything, we anticipate that we can even make that a little bit better for our customers. So we think it's all manageable in the context of the size of the balance sheet, the size of our asset base and everything to be able to make all this work.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KeyBanc.
Sophie Karp:
First. So first, maybe on the O&M. So you clearly have overachieved on the O&M costs so far this year. But when I look on the slide, the guidance slide, it seems that there are -- full year goal remains the same. Would that -- should we expect a reversal of O&M cuts in Q4 then? Or should we expect you to try and sustain the cost cut trajectory into the end of the year?
Andrew Marsh:
Sophie, this is Drew. We're going to get a little bit above that $100 million. So it might get to the $120 million range or so by the end of the year, that's baked into the new narrowed range that we talked about this morning.
Sophie Karp:
Got it. And then on equity and sort of balance sheet, again, there is a real possibility as we sit here today that we will see some form of better reversal of the tax cuts from 2016 right under the Biden administration, which is presumably would be balance sheet positive for utilities. Would that influence your thinking about equity needs? Would you wait to get more clarity on that type of development?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, this is Drew. So absolutely, we would be thinking about that. And since our equity plan goes out for five years, I expect that in the course of that, we would get some clarity around how the new tax rate would play out and how it would get ultimately into rates. And assuming those turn into deferred taxes, the extra cash flow that we would get that we could use to offset any potential equity. I don't know that it's going to set -- offset all of our equity. And as, of course, you know, there are other proposals out there like alternative minimum taxes that are less clear at this point about what those might actually be, but we'll have to monitor those closely as well. But yes, you're correct. It should -- if you assume, it went from 21% to 28% on the federal tax rate and those are deferred taxes that should improve our FFO, we should reduce our equity need.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd:
I wanted to check in on regulated nuclear operations. I know you've made a lot of investments in that regard. I was just curious have those investments been paying off? Are the metrics you point to just in terms of how the operations are going on that side?
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Stephen. They are paying off. We've seen the benefit of putting those investments into the plants, in the operations of the plants, improving. And so everything is on track for those. As we mentioned, we just came out of the last big outage as it relates to the program that we went under as we went from 2016 to this point throughout the regulated fleet as we were preparing most of those for their new extended lives. So we are seeing the benefit of those investments. We continue to have investments to make, although they're not the kind of the size of what we've been doing over the course of the last couple of years.
Stephen Byrd:
Got it. That's really helpful. And then just going back to storm damage and thinking through that, I appreciate you have a lot of tools at your disposal to think about the customer bill impact. One tool I was just curious about just is duration of recovery whether that over time might be adjusted. I guess one thing I've been thinking through is just if we if we annualize some of the damages we've been seeing of late. It does start to show a more material impact on the bill, but if you have the ability to kind of spread that out over a longer period of time, that could help alleviate the impact a bit. How do you think about that element of in the toolbox?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Steven, this is Drew. So all of our retail regulators are going to expect us to utilize securitization in order to minimize the cost of capital associated with that. And right now, 10-year securitization is probably around 1% cost of capital. If we were to stretch that out to 15 years, you might be able to get -- it would be a little bit higher, but you would stretch the overall bill impact a little bit. So somewhere in there is probably what we are thinking about, some place to optimize the impact on the customer bill or I should say, probably minimize the impact on the customer bill, not optimized. That's probably the wrong word. But that's plus, as you know, while we're always thinking about structural ideas, I'm sure you remember our affiliate preferred and things that we've done in the past to try and minimize the customer bill impact as well. So we're looking at structural alternatives that we may try to come up with to help mitigate that as well.
Stephen Byrd:
I got you. It's a good point that if you extend the duration a bit, the cost of that debt financing probably doesn't go up a whole lot. So that's a tool for sure. Okay.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rakesh Chopra with Evercore ISI.
Unidentified Analyst:
Just one quick one on FFO to debt going back to that. Just curious on -- so it looks like you moved the target 6 months from Q4 '21 to mid-2022. Just any color on sort of what gives you confidence that you can get there by mid-2022? Is it the regulatory approvals of storm cost recovery? Or is this something that you sort of put together in discussion with the credit agency? Just any color around the timing of those targets credit metrics would be helpful.
Andrew Marsh:
Sure. That's a good question because yes, we were pretty specific with mid-2022, but really we're tying it to the timing of our securitization more or less. Once we get the securitizations in place, that should help us move to FFO-to-debt ratios that are much closer to our targets. So the -- yes. when Moody's wrote about it, they said 2022. And if you think about our securitization -- typical securitization time line, it's 18 to 24 months. So we sort of said, okay, well, 24 months from basically, whenever Laura came along, of course, now we are looking at the data this afternoon. So 24 months from that might be a little bit longer. But we're going to be seeking expedited treatment for some of this, and hopefully, we'll be able to move that time line forward a bit.
Unidentified Analyst:
Got it. So essentially leverage securitization of those costs. And if you were able to get it early, it would probably be earlier than mid-2022?
Andrew Marsh:
That's what we would be thinking about. Yes. Appreciate the time.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Paul Fremont with Mizuho.
Paul Fremont:
Thank you. Couple of questions on EWC. One would be, can you help us understand what the objections are for New York and transferring the Indian Point license? And do you think that, that's going to hold up a potential transfer of license to Holtec. And can we also get maybe a little bit of an update on the cash flows that you're now expecting between now and when EWC winds down?
Andrew Marsh:
Okay. This is Drew. On the regulatory front, we are in discussions with various agencies in New York as well as the. And the NRC is getting closer to the end of its process. And of course, they are evaluating the operational capability and the financial capability of Holtec to do the decommissioning. And we have full confidence that they will pass the screens from the NRC. From the state's perspective, they're asking the same questions really. And so it's just a matter of working through the process in New York. It's not a defined process as well as it is at the NRC but we are working through. We're having conversations, and we still believe that at this point, we are on track to close sometime around the middle of next year. In terms of the cash flows, I believe they are still positive from kind of 2020 through 2022, cash back to parent. That's kind of the metric that we've used. If you just used EBITDA, of course, you might not be looking at that. We don't have much capital left in these plants before they are retired. But our overall cash back to parent is still slightly positive.
Paul Fremont:
Great. Any order of magnitude there?
Andrew Marsh:
Oh, less than $100 million.
Operator:
And our last question comes from Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank.
Andrew Weisel:
Sorry I was on mute there. Just a very quick follow-up on O&Ms. You say you're on track to exceed $100 million. I think I heard $120 million, but I see you're continuing to call for $2.7 billion for 2021. I guess my question is, as you go through the year, are you still thinking those savings won't be repeated or recurring? Or is your reiteration of $2.7 billion conservative?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. That's a good question. It's a question that LEO asked me every day about why we're still at $2.7 billion. We do have a lot of costs that came out of this year that did move into next year. And so a lot of these things, that I mentioned at the outset, we're a part of operational changes that we made during outages, maintenance decisions that we made and things like that, that we do have to make in order to maintain the safety and reliability of our assets. So that's probably the main thing. But as I said, we have learned some things, and we have some continuous improvement opportunities that are coming out of that. Some are pretty immediate like travel expenses. Others may take a little bit of time like trying to realize real estate savings from a smaller footprint or something of that nature. So there are going to be some opportunities that result from what we've done this year that become continuous improvement. And those will be baked into our expectations over time.
Leo Denault:
Yes. Andrew, this is Leo. Andrew is being a little bit funny about what I ask him every day. He's trying to be comedian today on the call, I guess. But the fact of the matter is we think we're in a pretty good position in terms of the business model, the investment opportunities we have, the ability to create value for our customers. I went through in my prepared remarks. Just consider the value of the new transmission infrastructure versus the old transmission infrastructure on a day in, day out basis, but certainly in times like what we've seen the anomaly that has been of 2020 all the way around. We've learned a lot about the way we operate the business, both from our flex levers, our continuous improvement and the things that Drew was talking about, what we're capable of when we put our mind to it. Obviously, when we talk about how we're teeing up sales growth and how we're teeing up O&M, certainly for next year and the years beyond, there's a lot of uncertainty out there that we just need to make sure that we're prepared for. And so we've set ourselves up to be prepared for that uncertainty. The biggest one being obviously the pandemic, how long does it go, when is our vaccine? We can control what we can control. We can't control the public health crisis. So we're going to control what we can control. For example, the posture that we're in today as it relates to our travel schedules and our remote work schedules, our meeting schedules and all that. We've announced to our employees that we're going to continue in that process until the middle of 2021 at a minimum. So obviously, there could potentially be some opportunities in there. There could be some opportunities, as Drew mentioned, in the sales forecast. But those are dependent in some respects on things that we don't control. So I guess the play being is we're going to control everything that is under our control. And then we're going to prepare ourselves to be able to handle the stuff that we can't control, whether it's continuation of pandemic and a sales forecast that shows up different than our sales experience has been. But also give ourselves some capability to manage on the cost side, too, if that happens. So we feel like we're in a pretty good place, teed up for 2021. Certainly, by the time we get to the end of 2021, we would anticipate that we get back to a much more normal trajectory. And we're prepared for a continuation of 2020, if we have to. We're really excited about how we can perform under normal circumstances. So I don't know if that directly answers your question or not, but.
Andrew Weisel:
Yes. No, that's very helpful. Certainly hoping for a return to normal sometime soon, but I think it's going to be imminent. And Leo, I think we all know that you give Drew a hard time day and day out in a very good way. So keep it up.
Operator:
And I'm showing no further questions in the queue at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Jimmy, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation on today's conference. This does conclude your program, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2020 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participant lines are in listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then, Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Today, we are reporting strong second quarter results of $1.37 adjusted earnings per share. Sales in the quarter were better than we expected. We are on track to achieve our $100 million O&M cost savings target for the year. And our capital plan is unchanged. With these results, we are affirming our full year guidance, our longer term outlooks and our dividend growth aspirations. As you all know, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a burden on our customers, employees and communities. We believe, it is part of our mission, empowering life, to do all that we can to support our stakeholders as we all work to recover from its effects. Despite these extraordinary times, 2020 is on pace to be another year of significant accomplishments for Entergy. This quarter, we’ve made progress on multiple fronts, all of which will benefit our stakeholders. We completed Phase 2 of the Western Region economic transmission project. The New Orleans Power Station came on line. The Public Utility Commission of Texas finalized its rulemaking for generation rider. The Mississippi Public Service Commission approved Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan filing. Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana each filed their annual formula rate plans and requested extensions of these mechanisms. And Entergy Louisiana issued a request for proposal for up to 300 megawatts of new renewable resources. And more importantly, we continue to successfully manage the effects of our investment on customer rates. According to an S&P Global Market Intelligence study published earlier this month, in 2019, Entergy provided power to retail customers at the second lowest average price of the major investor owned utilities in the United States, something we are very proud of. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect all of us across the country. As we discussed last quarter, we were well-prepared from the outset and we continued to effectively manage our response. We are taking precautions for our employees and our customers. Those who can are working from home. And we have procedures in place to keep our employees in the plants and in the field safe. We are also creating innovative solutions to help our customers and our communities. For example, our social responsibility and automation employees work together to develop a bot that proactively informs customers in need about the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. This project also won second place in the global contest for innovative ways to reduce COVID-19’s impact on the economy and communities. Students and faculty at Southern University are using 3D printers in their Entergy sponsored lab to make parts for reusable N95 masks for healthcare professionals. With our community partners, Entergy has helped to prepare more than 2 million meals, provided crisis grants for more than 5,000 households and delivered personal protection equipment to first responders, individuals and families indeed. Through the first half of the year, Entergy has donated almost $9 million in charitable contributions to support our communities, including almost $3 million in COVID relief efforts and Entergy’s The Power to Care program, which helps customers who need financial assistance to pay their bills. In parallel to our COVID-19 relief efforts, we continued to execute on our major projects across our service area to modernize our utility infrastructure and enhance its efficiency and reliability for the benefit of our customers. We placed New Orleans Power Station in service in May, in time for the summer peak period and hurricane season. Since entering service, this highly flexible and efficient peaking unit is being dispatched frequently. We completed Phase 2 of the Western Region economic transmission project. This $115 million investment supports economic growth in Southeast Texas and enhances reliability for existing and future customers. The Public Utility Commission of Texas also approved our certificate for convenience and necessity for the Timberland transmission line, $57 million project expected to be completed in 2022. We reached an important energy milestone with the 100th customer signing up for the ReNEWable Orleans Residential Rooftop Solar program. The program offers a cost effective way for low income customers to participate in the benefits of renewable energy without having to make an upfront capital investment. Entergy New Orleans installs, owns and maintains the rooftop solar systems and customers get a bill credit for their participation. ReNEWable Orleans is a good example of the innovative programs we are implementing to deliver renewable energy solutions to our customers. We will continue to engage with our regulators and stakeholders to expand the use of renewables under a framework that ensures we build the most economic system balancing reliability, cost and sustainability. In addition to providing meaningful customer benefits, our three-year capital plan has significant certainty. We’ve talked to you before about the 90-90 framework by which you should view the certainty of our capital plan that our capital plan is 90% ready for execution from a regulatory approval standpoint, and that more than 90% will be recovered through timely mechanisms. Today, we’re adding a third 90 to further emphasize the strength of the plan. That 90% of the capital plan is based on the need for system modernization and not dependent on customer growth. These three statistics mean that our customer-centric capital plan is necessary, the majority will not require a special regulatory view, and we expect timely recovery. We benefit from constructive and progressive regulatory mechanisms that provide clarity to our plan and give us confidence in meeting our financial commitments. Recently, the Public Utility Commission of Texas finalized the generation rider, which will provide for full and timely recovery of capital costs associated with a new generation facility. We’re grateful for the Commission’s leadership in developing this new rule, more timely recovery to help us create value for our stakeholders in Texas and ensure that the communities we serve remain economically competitive. We plan to make a filing later this year, using this mechanism to request recovery of Montgomery County Power Station when it comes on line in 2021. Entergy Mississippi received approval of its formula rate plan filing, rates were implemented in April. Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana each submitted their annual FRP filings. Summaries of the requests are included in the appendix of our webcast presentation. Both of these operating companies are in the last year of their FRP cycles, and both are requesting extensions. Entergy Louisiana’s request includes a midpoint reset, and a new distribution rider similar to the transmission rider that is currently in fact. In New Orleans, we continue to work with the City Council on the appropriate timing to begin the filing cycle for the recently approved three-year formula rate plan. At SERI, we filed our brief on exceptions to the ALJ’s initial decision issued in April. As you know, we disagree with most of the initial decision, because it incorrectly seeks to resolve important policy issues of first impressions that FERC ultimately must decide. The actions we’ve taken seek to create significant benefits for our customers who consistently experience some of the lowest rates in the country, year-after-year. Our customers have not been harmed by our actions, and in fact, stood to benefit greatly from them. Our tax planning practices have created more than $900 million in direct customer benefits, $550 million of which has already been credited to customer bills. The April initial decision, if it is affirmed by the FERC, we discourage utilities like ourselves from pursuing such prudent innovative strategies to lower customer bills. The sale leaseback arrangement also produced significant savings for our customers, and ALJ’s recommendations would similarly discourage utilities from entering into such transactions. We feel strongly that our positions on the law and the facts are correct. To be very clear, we believe that our actions have been prudent and for the benefit of customers, and that there should be no refunds or disallowances, except for the small depreciation correction that we agreed to. While we will vigorously defend our position at the FERC, the timeframe for pursuing SERI’s uncertain tax position any further is lengthy and the outcome is uncertain. This leaves us no choice but to mitigate risk for our owners. In the next few weeks, we will give up SERI’s uncertain tax position with the IRS. This will effectively cap the principle of any potential historical refunds, eliminate the basis for any reduction in SERI’s rate base going forward and eliminate the basis for the $147 million excess ADIT customer credit raised in the July ALJ initial decision. Drew will provide additional thoughts on this matter, and I encourage you to review our brief on exceptions. At Entergy, we play a vital role in every region where we operate, and our core values are reflected in our efforts on behalf of our stakeholders. Entergy is consistently recognized for its corporate citizenship, climate leadership and commitment as an employer of choice, which is a tremendous honor. For a fifth consecutive year, Entergy was named a 2020 honoree of the Civic 50 by Points of Light, the world’s largest organization dedicated to volunteer service. This award recognizes Entergy as one of the 50 most community minded companies in the United States. Additionally, 3BL Media has named Entergy to its annual 100 Best Corporate Citizens ranking, which recognizes outstanding environmental, social and governance transparency and performance among the 1,000 largest U.S. public companies. This is the eighth year Entergy has been included in this prestigious ranking. We were also named the winner of a Bronze Stevie award for our 2019 climate report where we outline steps that we are taking to deliver cleaner energy solutions and promote a lower carbon future for all of our stakeholders. Finally, like many of you have been saddened and upset by recent events that have laid bare yet again, the deep social inequalities and injustices, so many in our country continue to face. As our human rights statement outlines, Entergy respects the human rights of all individuals. With the workforce of close to 14,000, we leave no room in Entergy for racism, discrimination or intolerance, but rather seek to achieve our vision and mission through diversity and inclusion of all people and their unique ideas, backgrounds and perspectives. We will continue to move forward in our mission, and you as owners, including our employees who are a top 10 owner of the Company, have my and the entire Entergy leadership team’s commitment that we won’t retreat from our obligations personally or professionally. We know that our actions towards creating real and meaningful change speak much louder than words. As I said at the outset, we delivered yet another strong quarter. Even though COVID-19 has had an impact, 2020 has already been a year of significant accomplishments that keep us on track to meet our strategic, operational and financial objectives. We are committed to those objectives and our resolved to be the premier utility. The foundation of our business remains strong and sustainable. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country. Our capital plan remains on track and will modernize our system, benefit our customers and our local economies. We have constructive and progressive regulatory mechanisms. We are an industry leader in critical measures of sustainability. We have one of the cleanest large scale power generation fleets. And while we have seen some slowdown in industrial activity, our industrial base is among the most economically advantaged in the world. And we expect that they will lead the region’s recovery in their respective industries. We create innovative solutions to help our customers, and we’re prepared to overcome headwinds through a disciplined cost management program as evidenced in our response to both, last year’s unfavorable weather and this year’s COVID-19 impacts. It should not surprise you that we are affirming our longer term outlooks, given our commitment to create permanent cost savings through continuous improvement efforts. These efforts strengthen and when possible will improve our delivery of steady, predictable earnings growth, as we demonstrated on this call just last year. This is what makes Entergy a compelling long-term investment. This is the foundation on which we will grow, innovate and expand our investment profile to continue to deliver on our commitments tomorrow. Before I turn the call over to Drew, I want to confirm that our virtual Analyst Day will be held on September 24th. These are exciting times for Entergy. And we look forward to continuing the conversation with you then about what we’re doing to build the premier utility. Drew will now review our second quarter results and our outlooks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo noted, our second quarter results were strong. Sales were better than we expected on our last call. We are well on track to achieve our cost savings for the year, and our capital plan remains unchanged. We’re affirming our guidance on longer term outlooks as we stay focused on becoming the premier utility. Entergy adjusted earnings for the quarter were $1.37 and drivers were straightforward. Starting with utility on slide 6, we saw positive effects of regulatory actions associated with our customer-centric investments in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, including the Lake Charles Power Station, which came on line a few months early. We experienced lower sales volume due to impact from COVID-19 and unfavorable weather. Lower O&M reflected our cost reduction initiatives, as well as the timing and scope of non-nuclear generation outages and lower nuclear generation expenses. Depreciation and interest were higher as a result of our continued growth, and earnings on a per share basis also reflected a higher share count. At EWC, on slide 7, as-reported earnings were $0.55 higher than a year ago. The key driver was strong market performance for EWC’s nuclear decommissioning trust funds. The quarter’s results also reflected lower revenue and lower O&M, primarily due to the shutdown of Pilgrim and Indian Point 2. Slide 8 shows operating cash flow increased approximately $240 million. The main drivers were higher collections for fuel and purchase power costs and a $45 million reduction in the unprotected excess to ADIT returned to customers. The second quarter also benefited from lower nuclear refueling outage spending and lower severance and retention payments at EWC. Lower collections from utility customers partially offset the increase. Now, turning to slide 9, we are affirming our 2020 adjusted EPS guidance range of $5.45 to $5.75, and our 2021 and 2022 outlooks remain unchanged. As I mentioned in my introduction, our sales came in higher than we discussed last quarter, when we initially estimated the effects of COVID-19, and we’re well on track to achieve our cost savings for the year. Sales were better than expected in all classes and our overall 2020 expectation has improved slightly. For O&M, to-date, we’ve achieved nearly 40% of our $100 million spending reduction, and remain on track to achieve the remainder by year-end. And while our year-to-date variance is very positive, portion of that is due to planned projects that were shifted to the second half of the year in response to COVID-19. As a result, we expect the third and fourth quarters to reflect spending for these delayed projects, as well as the balance of our identified cost savings initiatives. Our credit metrics and liquidity position are outlined on slide 10. Our parent debt to total debt was 22% and our FFO to debt was 14.6%. The FFO metric includes the effects of returning $189 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers over the last 12 months. Excluding this giveback and certain items related to our exit of EWC, FFO to debt would have been 16%. As we noted last quarter, we remain committed to achieving FFO to debt at or above 15% by fourth quarter 2021. Our liquidity position remains strong. And you can see that as of June 30th, our net liquidity including storm reserves of $3.5 billion. Following up on Leo’s comments regarding SERI, we estimate that if the FERC were to agree with the conclusions in the ALJ’s initial decision without modification, the ongoing adjusted EPS impact could be $0.15 to $0.20. This includes approximately $0.06 for the sale leaseback issue and the remainder is from financing refunds to customers. This also reflects that we will give up SERI’s uncertain tax position with the IRS to mitigate risks to our owners and it does not reflect any actions we would take elsewhere in the Company to mitigate the impact. This estimate should not be interpreted as acknowledgement on our part of the merits of the initial decision, or our expectation of the potential outcome on this matter. As Leo mentioned, we disagreed with the initial decision, we clearly laid out in our filings in this case, and we don’t believe there should be any material impact to EPS. Before closing, our Analyst Day is scheduled for September 24th. We’ll share with you our longer term growth strategy, including our customer-centric investments and continuous improvement efforts. We will provide five-year views of our EPS outlooks and credit expectations, as well as details on the key drivers that support our path to achieve our objectives. We’re excited to share our plans with you. We had a strong second quarter, we achieved a number of significant accomplishments, and we remain on track to meet our strategic, operational and financial objectives. We’re committed to these objectives, as well as our goal to be the premier utility. And we look forward to continuing this conversation at Analysts Day. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of James Thalacker from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
James Thalacker:
Just two real quick questions. I think, your previous guidance had assumed a 2% decline for 2020 -- sorry, 2.5% decline for the full year; now, you’re at 2%. Can you kind of give us a breakdown of how you are thinking about that for the balance of the year? And do you think there’s some -- maybe some conservatism baked in there on the industrial side, as you’re kind of looking at the recovery through the end of 2020.
Drew Marsh:
Yes. James, this is Drew. Yes. So, we haven’t changed our outlook for sales actually for the third and fourth quarter from what we described in May, even though we did see a little bit better outcome in the second quarter than what we were anticipating. It is possible that we could do better. But, given the spike in cases, around the country and our service territory, we thought we should just keep it about where it is for right now. We do continue to see the phased reopening, even though it’s paused in certain municipalities right now. So, there is opportunity perhaps over the balance of the year. But, for the time, we’ve elected to keep our outlook for sales, where we had it for the second half.
James Thalacker:
So, basically, the improved sort of outlook really comes from just the second quarter and whether you’ve kind of -- and the sales you’ve seen sort of quarter-to-date…?
Drew Marsh:
That’s correct.
James Thalacker:
Okay. And then, the other question, I guess just comes back to sort of credit is, are you still comfortable with the equity guidance that you’ve given before where you’re looking, I think for the high end of the 5% to 10% of the planned CapEx? Is that still sort of how you’re looking at things, and do you still feel like you’re on target for the end of the year to get to 15% FFO to debt, which I think is where you guys were sort of targeting last time we spoke?
Drew Marsh:
That’s right. We are still targeting that, we still expect to make that by fourth quarter next year. And our equity outlook is in that same range that we’ve talked about previously. We have continued to think about timing. And we think it’s probably the latter half of next year when the need will actually arise. And we continue to think about the method in which we would deliver that. And in the past we’ve talked about block rate. That’s what we did a few years ago. So that’s still on the table. But, we’ve also added other options to the table, including an ATM possibility and even perhaps preferred equity. Right now, we don’t have authorization for preferred equity within our charts. So, we would need a proxy vote to ensure that that would be shareholder friendly, but we’re considering that as well.
James Thalacker:
And just a follow-up on the preferred equity, I’m assuming that’d be like a mandatory convert.
Drew Marsh:
Yes.
James Thalacker:
Is that from a rating agency standpoint? I know that you’ll get anywhere from 25% to 50% credit for something like that. Does that kind of limit I guess how much of the funding you can do through the convert, just considering it’s a little bit farther out and you don’t get as much equity credit as you would versus say a block sale or through an ATM?
Drew Marsh:
So, that’s why the preferred equity gets you actually I think up to 100%. There are options around preferred debt, other versions of convertibles that will give you various credit, depending on the rating agency. And we have authorization for all of those. What we don’t have authorization for is the preferred equity that would allow you to get 100% credit.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza from Guggenheim Partners.
Shahriar Pourreza:
So, good to see that the $100 million cost savings program is on target. Is there any plans to hold recurring savings into ‘21? Any sort of rough numbers to think about, I mean, what could be recurring with the 2020 savings, anything perpetual? And I have follow-up.
Drew Marsh:
So, obviously, at this point in the year, we are also thinking about 2021 and what that might mean. And we have started to think about opportunities for savings in 2021. So, that is actually well under way. Currently, we are monitoring everything that’s going on in the world and making sure that there isn’t any other risks that may be out there that we will need to apply those two. But that network that you’re referring to is well underway. But, we’re not prepared to talk about specific numbers at this point.
Shahriar Pourreza:
And obviously, you highlighted it’s been relatively a strong start to the year. Can you just maybe point us to kind of where you’re tracking within your 2020 earnings band? It seems to be just as rough modeling, you’re getting a little bit closer to the top end, especially if the 3Q weather transpires? Just maybe a little bit of -- from a trend perspective, where are you in that band?
Drew Marsh:
We’re still tracking towards the middle of the band. There are opportunities potentially out there for us. But, we continue to track towards the middle at this point.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Vertical Research.
Jonathan Arnold:
I was just -- could I just come back to sales and just ask you where they most sort of deviated, to the positive or otherwise from -- in the second quarter? Because the way you show that slide and on the Q1 deck, I believe that was sort of versus guidance, rather than a year-over-year camp. So, just curious whether that was sort of down. I think it was down 1% in industrial, for example in Q2. Was that where the favorability was, or was it more on the residential side?
Rod West:
This is Rod. Good morning. I think, the storyline remains consistent with what we expected back in May, where the growth was driven by residential, because so much of the shelter-in-place was showing up -- was showing up in our residential sector. And you had some volatility in the commercial sector, because you had so many different levels of uncertainty with schools and churches and restaurants and the like. And I think, the clarity we had in the industrial sector sort of played out, although it was a little bit better than expected. So, the fundamentals have not changed dramatically, when you think about sort of this cross sector contribution to growth. So, residential is really showing up for us and offsetting a large part, a lot of the volatility we’re seeing elsewhere.
Drew Marsh:
And I’ll just add to that it pretty much was across all three quadrants, where we were a little bit ahead of expectations. It wasn’t one or the other that completely dominated.
Jonathan Arnold:
And just my follow-up on the balance sheet, it looks like your uncollectibles went up from 7 odd million to 43 or so. Can you talk a little bit about what you’re seeing there, whether it’s sort of on -- has it kind of spiked and is it plateauing now, or is it sort of on accelerating trend, and then, just how to think about some of those variables going forward?
Drew Marsh:
Jonathan, that’s a good question. So, we are seeing more uncollectibles right now. We actually -- as you noted, we booked about $30 million of bad debt expense this quarter. That was offset by regulatory assets, given regulatory orders that we have in our retail jurisdictions. So, there’s not really any bottom line impact associated with that, because we would expect to be able to recover those costs. Historically, we’ve experienced about -- bad debt expenses, about a third of our typical arrears. So, typically, we have arrears in any given point of about $75 million, and we experienced about $25 million of bad debt expense. We are about $100 million higher on our arrears right now. And that’s why we booked the $30 million. So, it’s consistent with that ratio. We expect that there are some people that are able to pay that are just taking advantage of the current situation. But -- and we do expect that to grow a little bit more. We haven’t turned on our dunning programs. And we would expect that that balance would continue to grow through the summer, although we expect it to continue to be manageable. And it is -- that growth is reflected in our liquidity expectations, which continue to be strong. So, that is something that we’re closely monitoring. And it’s important for us to continue to work with our customers in order to help them through this.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
If I can, and I first off want to say that I appreciate [Technical Difficulty]
Leo Denault:
Julien, we’re having trouble hearing you.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
I apologize. Hey, guys, apologies. On the merits of your argument with SERI and just understanding just the financial implication, Drew, you specifically said that there were some mitigating factors, but didn’t quantify or specify what they were. Can you help walk through what they might be, be it from a reduction in financing needs or otherwise? Just help us understand what reserves you might have already taken and/or other mitigating circumstances?
Leo Denault:
Julien, I’ll start with the quote unquote mitigating circumstances. And then, I’ll let Drew kind of finish up. But, first and foremost, my expectation would be that we would -- that whatever impact ultimately happened that we would overcome that and still meet our expectations. So, that’s our going-in position from just an organizationally that whatever the impact is that we would continue to meet the objectives that we’ve laid out for you. There are also some -- within the SERI case, I think, there are some things that we talked about in the past that could be used to mitigate, such as the interest costs that we have in the IRS and some other things like that. And obviously there’d be some financing or whatever that would fit into, whatever financing plan Drew has. But, I guess, the overall -- the overarching mitigation is that whatever it is, that will be our expectation to overcome it.
Drew Marsh:
Right. And I would say that the opportunity within our business is embedded within our continuous improvement program. And so, as you know, we’ve been working hard to continue to develop that. And we feel like it’s continued to grow and mature. And that is where that opportunity would come from. So, not all of it clearly has been identified at this point. But, as we clearly just articulated, there is an expectation about how we would be expected to operate within the Company. And just like we have in the past, I have 100% confidence that the Company is going to figure out how to make that work.
Leo Denault:
And of course, Julien, our perspective is that there won’t be an impact, because of our position in the case. So, I just want to make that clear too?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Absolutely, I appreciate the merits of the arguments there as well. They sound, sound. But, if I can ask you to down on this, as you obviously have a $100 million in cost that you are well on track, at least for this year. When you say you’ll find ways to offset that, does that include leveraging or offsetting it with continuation of this $100 million in cost cuts? And maybe even more broadly, actually, I know the last quarter and at the outset of COVID, we’ve been talking about the sustainability of these cost reductions. How do you think about that now, given the plans for the back half of the year and how that might impact ‘21, and also considering potential timing in ‘21 of resolution to the sales basis when you say...
Leo Denault:
So, I’ll unpack a little bit of that, Julien, and I’ll ask my colleagues to tell me if I forget some of the points that you can get that in there. I appreciate the question because really there is a couple of things at play here. The $100 million is by and large our flex program with what we’re doing within the year to manage the impacts of COVID and weather. Obviously, we’ve had that negative weather so far this year, plus the impacts of COVID. Last year, we had negative weather and those intra-year dollars are primarily what we talked about at the beginning of the year when we started to flex associated with weather and then continued to ramp up the flex because of the impact on sales of COVID. In parallel to that, we do have a continuous improvement program, which is more akin to what we did last year on this call, where we found permanent cost reductions that as you recall, allowed us to invest more capital into the system, to improve the reliability of the system and the impact on the experience in our customer base, plus grow the business, allowed us to actually add money to our charitable foundation and to our employee benefits through those -- the headroom that was provided through those and continuous improvement. So, when we start to talk about next year, there’ll be a combination of the two as well. I will say that -- I’m sure this is not unique to us that we are finding there are some areas of impact on our cost, associated with our reaction to COVID that will likely fall into that bucket of continuous improvement and could be permanent. We have -- we’re in the process of trying to merry what goes from an annual thing to a permanent thing. But, I’m sure even within all of your firms you’ve found things that you used to do one way that you do in a different way today, that’s much more efficient that you’ll probably continue to do so. So, I hope that helps. There is really two parallel things that they will work -- that we work on. One is just a normal flex within the annual budget that every department has, the other is the permanent continuous improvement that everybody is also focused on. And you saw that second quarter last year when we changed our outlooks, because of the continuous improvement. This year, we’re holding onto our outlooks because of flex. Does that make sense?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right. And that’s the offset, potentially the impact next year too?
Leo Denault:
Yes, yes. But, I would say, impact next year, depending on what it is, whether it is weather, whatever, it would be a flex sort of thing, we were just talking about SERI. That’d be more of a continuous improvement sort of thing.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. All right. Excellent. Thanks for the clarity.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from JP Morgan. Your line is now open.
Jeremy Tonet:
I was just wondering if you could speak a little bit more on the 90% of CapEx not dependent on customer growth. And is this kind of like a shift in planning and strategy or is it kind of just more reflective of current system investment levels that are needed?
Leo Denault:
That’s a great question, Jeremy. It’s consistent with the capital plan that we’ve had for the last 10 years. And I felt like it was necessary to add a metric that keeps that top of mind with everybody, because I believe that’s important about our plan. If you think about what we’re doing in the generation space and what we’ve been doing for over a decade, we are replacing 50-year old generation with brand new generation. The heat rate is lower that it creates a significant production cost improvement at pace for the plant, emissions are 40% lower than the -- they use less water. All those things are good about new plants. And so, what we’ve been doing over the years is adding new generation and then subsequently retiring old generation. So, it’s meeting the needs of the system with new stuff rather than old stuff. Same things goes with the investments that we’ve had in the distribution system. So, if you think about AMI, we’re replacing old meters with new meters. It’s not new customers. Although there are new customers that get a new meter, the majority of that program is driven by the technological improvement. Our distribution, automation strategy, our asset management strategy, all of those are really based on improving the level of service that our customers achieve by deploying capital that lowers costs or provides a service that was not available in the past. So, 90% of it has been and continues to be based on the fact that we need to modernize the system. Where the fact that we have customer growth has assisted us is that it has provided a lower rate path for everybody, as we expand the sales that we have on those assets that we’re using to modernize the system, which contributes to the fact that we have historically had either the lowest or second lowest rates in United States. So, I just felt like it was necessary, given the impact that COVID has had on the economy and sales that we point out that the capital plan is still there to modernize the system, and COVID hasn’t changed the need for us to modernize the system. If anything, it’s actually enhanced the need for us to modernize the system, particularly at the distribution level. And so, while 90% of what’s in there today is based on technological improvement, if there is a lot in the wings for more technological improvement that we can do to the extent we find the headroom to do it. I hope that helps answer your question.
Jeremy Tonet:
That was very helpful. Thank you for that. One more if I could. Just wondering if you could talk a bit on how your position in MISO impacts Entergy’s renewable planning. And do you see opportunities here changing over the next five years from MISO level planning and changes?
Leo Denault:
Well, we do our resource planning obviously in conjunction with the resource adequacy that we need for MISO but our resource planning is done at state level. So, the resource plans that we have in the type generation we need incorporates our participation in MISO. But, it’s not -- MISO is not driving what resources we pick.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.
Steve Fleishman:
One very brief clarification on the SERI, because of this change you’re going to make to the uncertain tax position. Does that cause the earnings impact to occur kind of temporarily until you get the final decision?
Drew Marsh:
No, there shouldn’t be any real earnings impact associated with that, other than the fact that we did have an expectation that we would be successful, which would have reduced future rate base and subsequent earnings. But, I don’t -- that’s not what we’re referring to when we’re talking about maintaining our expectations. It would have to come through other means.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. Just the FRPs, the extensions, I think Louisiana, you filed and then, are you doing Arkansas?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, both jurisdiction...
Steve Fleishman:
Yes. Just how much do we need to kind of worry about these as more like normal rate cases as opposed to these like annual reviews, like can you just explain the issues in the multi-year extensions versus the annual?
Drew Marsh:
I think, the primary question on the renewals is, has the FRP accomplished the objectives that we set out five years ago in Arkansas and three years ago in Louisiana. And, when you think about how we’ve shaped the capital plan and we’ve disclosed to our regulators what our plans were, then the question becomes, can we achieve the objectives, and you’ve heard it before, Steve, around reliability, sustainability, affordable, low-cost competitive rates, can we achieve that given the capital plan for customers? And, if the answer to that question is yes and as we laid out in our and our a renewal filings, the answer is yes, in our view. Then they’ll -- we expect that they as well as the other stakeholders will agree that it makes sense to keep it going. It’s not a -- it hasn’t been viewed, as we’ve discussed with the stakeholders as a full blown rate case where we are reviewing what we spend a year going through the traditional backwards looking base rate case. So, that’s not the expectation. But, of course the regulator has the ability to weigh in on whatever component that they wish. But, we believe the interests are aligned. We think the way that the FRPs have worked historically have been consistent with what we represented five years ago in Arkansas. And, as you know, this is a series of three-year renewals in Louisiana. And again, given the shape of the capital plan, we’re going beyond just a renewal of FRP in Louisiana. For instance, recognizing as Leo laid out, we have -- we’re shaping the capital plan with more distribution investment. For instance, as part of that asset renewal, that’s going to show up in what we are asking the jurisdiction in Louisiana to consider with a distribution rider. And so, it’s those type of policy considerations that we’re going through with our stakeholders and not as much a rate case review, if that’s helpful.
Leo Denault:
Yes. Steve, Rod mentioned that we -- to look at how it works in Louisiana, you just look back to the last renewal and the renewal before that and renewal before that and the renewal before that. This is obviously the first time that we’ve done it in Arkansas, but it’s been pretty clear that Arkansas formula rate plan has worked exactly the way it was intended to work with the combination -- all you have to do is look at something like a year like 2018, where we ended up with a year that worked out differently because of tax reform than we thought it was going to, and then we ended up earning our allowed rate of return and we refunded dollars to customers in the next formula rate plan filing that went through. So, that’s worked really, really well for customers as well. So, Louisiana, obviously, we have a long history of renewals. This will be the first one in Arkansas. But, it appears to be working exactly the way it was intended by all the parties.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Seaport Global.
Angie Storozynski:
So, I wanted to go back to SERI. So, I appreciate your classification of the downside case here, respecting to $0.20 and your ability to offset that potential earnings drag. But, it seems like that’s just potentially half of the impact. Right? Because there is a separate proceeding regarding the ROE and probably equity ratio for the asset, and I see that the ALJ recommendation is expected only in February of next year. But, if you could just explain how -- I’m assuming that there is some negotiations on that front. We have the MISO ROE decision from FERC. We had some adjustments, at least proposed adjustment to the calculation mechanism for the ROE and how that could impact the earnings power of Grand Gulf?
Drew Marsh:
So, this is Drew. And we’ve had, Angie, an expectation for ROE and capital structure baked in for three years or so, at this point. And our expectations -- and those are in our outlooks, based on the outcome of this proceeding. And at this point we don’t see any reason to change those, based on how the proceedings have moved to-date. And even if those outlooks weren’t met, from an ROE and capital structure perspective, we don’t think that the -- whatever that delta would be, is something that we couldn’t manage within our current expectations.
Angie Storozynski:
Okay. Even if there were those overlapping impacts, right, with the reduction of the rate base and reduction of the ROE and the reduction in the equity layer?
Drew Marsh:
That’s correct. Yes.
Leo Denault:
He was saying that we already reserved on the...
Drew Marsh:
We’ve already -- we have an expectation for that based in our outlooks. We don’t want -- we don’t usually talk about that, because we’re still in the preceding. But, we’re comfortable with where that is in our outlooks right now.
Angie Storozynski:
Great. And just one follow-up. So, what should we expect then going into your Analyst Day? I mean, do you plan on making any announcements, for instance regarding more renewable power spending or is this just an additional cost cutting initiative? Again, I mean, just big picture expectations going into the Analyst Day?
Leo Denault:
Yes. I think, big picture, Angie, what we’ll be talking about is being able to give a little bit more color on how we operate and what we’re doing and what’s in the capital plan, and how we’re thinking about it. The capital plan is pretty certain where it is. As you know, there is a large mix of renewables in our future as it is, as we’ve stated before, between ‘22 and ‘30. We anticipate a lot of renewables. We got the RFPs that we’ve been involved in, the construction -- the projects that are up and running, the ones that are under construction. So, I think the capital plan is in pretty good shape. We may get more details about that and talk about what’s in our future, particularly as we spend time on the customer solution side of things. But, really a little more depth on things like what’s in the capital plan? What’s in our path to lower emissions, what’s in our customer solution space, what’s in the distribution space, how are we operationalizing continuous improvement? Things like that.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sophie Karp from KeyBanc.
Sophie Karp:
So, I wanted to go back to maybe a little bit to the volumes picture. And just looking at the breakdown by the class, it seems like the industrial is doing pretty well here. It’s barely down year-over-year in the weather-adjusted basis. And commercial understandably is suffering a little more and the residential is up, and I think we’ll get that. My question is, I guess, could you help us a little more in the sense what’s going on in the ground right now? Is this a trend we should just expect to continue the same way? And if the -- given this shift in the mix, if the sensitivities to this changes that we had pre-COVID to hold in this new environment?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So, Sophie, the industrial piece in particular that you noted, we were expecting pretty solid growth this year, at the outset, in the 5% to 6% range for industrial. So, the fact that it’s 1% down is a pretty big drop relative -- even though year-over-year it’s 1% down, we were expecting it to be 5%-6% up. And on the balance of the year, I would say that we expect the residential to trend -- start to trend down as people return to work in different places than their home. And we’d expect the commercial and governmental to slowly begin to trend up and industrial to hopefully begin to improve. And that’s all I think consistent with where we lined out our expectations in May. And so, I think that we are continuing to expect to the phase reopening to support slow but steady improvement in these numbers.
Sophie Karp:
And then, lastly, maybe if you could give us a little bit of a sneak-peak into your Analyst Day. Things seem to go on track for the most part for your company. What topics or what areas do you plan to give us an update on?
Leo Denault:
As far as topics for the Analyst Day, probably just a little more depth and color around what’s in the capital plan, our trend to lower emissions and as well as continuous improvement, structure and things like that will be subjects that we’ll talk about. We don’t want to talk too much about it today. We want you to tune in.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Levine from Citi. Your line is now open.
Ryan Levine:
What projects are in your capital plan that are most sensitive to load outlook that was incorporated within that 10% that was that highlighted in the prepared remarks?
Leo Denault:
There are probably a smattering -- obviously there is new customer hookups are the big piece of it in the distribution of the transmission space. So, for example, if you had a major industrial customer that was located in your service territory, the substations for them can be pretty significant. So, you’d have to build them a substation. And then, we just have general line extension to our distribution business every day, when a new house is built or something like that. So, some of the transmission infrastructure could be put in that bucket as well, to the extent that we need to put -- build transmission infrastructure into an area because of either prior load growth or new load growth. But, it’s really more in the -- getting to that last mile.
Ryan Levine:
Thanks. And then, in terms of the industrial load assumption in your guidance, what are your conversations with customers suggesting for that outlook and are there any big lumpy customers that you have color as to their plans or timing upon some of that industrial load can return throughout the remaining portion of the year?
Rod West:
Hey Ryan, it’s Rod. I know, we’ll talk more in detail about the nuances of our industrial engagement perhaps at the Analyst Day. But, part of our confidence comes from -- in our growth observations comes from the fact that we’re actually talking to real customers and we can quantify and identify the existing projects. And so, what we’re paying attention to at the moment are not just sort of the macroeconomic commodity spreads and other indicators, we’re talking to those companies who’ve made final investment decisions. And whether they have delayed projects or ramping back up, we can point to specific companies and tie them to specific projects that are in our outlook. And as we’ve shared before, we probability weight, not just the projects in the plan, but there are other projects that make up our economic development type of pipeline and that are -- that we’re also monitoring to determine whether or not we need to include those or exclude those as the case may be in the plan. We’ve not seen much movement in our existing plan with regard to projects that we’ve identified that for instance that were canceled. There might have been one or two here and there, but they were on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of impact. But, our confidence comes from the fact that we’re tying them to actual project that is still in play.
Operator:
Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Durgesh Chopra from Evercore ISI.
Durgesh Chopra:
I just want to quickly clarify, Drew, the $0.15 to $0.20. I’m trying to reconcile that to the slide 26 where you show the rate base exposure. Am I right in thinking about the $0.15 to $0.20 is essentially you sort of in a worst case scenario, losing the return on that 400 -- north of $400 million rate base? It is that the right way to think about it or am I comparing apples and oranges?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So, the $400 million plus the $100 million of interest that is part of the refund, because they are saying that we owe the money. And it’s not actually really rate base. It’s refund. So, the rate base doesn’t really change in that regard. It would only change if we were successful in our outcome with the IRS, because that would be a deferred tax and the rate base would go down, the net rate base would go down. So, really what we’re talking about is the $510 million that you see there. That total amount is the requested refund. And so, we’ve had to finance that. And then, the lease payments that are about the $17 million a year on an ongoing basis.
Operator:
Thank you. At this time, I’m showing no further questions. I would like to turn the call back over to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Gigi, and thank you to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 10th and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy’s Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant Company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2020 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in listen only mode. After the speakers presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's program, David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
David Borde:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person to ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our Web site. I would also point out that our initial earnings release this morning contained a clerical error relating to the March 31, 2020 balance sheet and we have since posted a corrected version of the release on our Web site. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you all joining our call today and I hope that you and your families are well. The past few months have presented extraordinary circumstances that have been difficult for everyone around the world, so many have stepped up to the plate to help people, communities and our country in this time of need and we truly appreciate all of their efforts. Providing safe and reliable power is essential, especially during times like these. That's why at Entergy, we plan and prepare for extraordinary events. Our robust, comprehensive, tried and tested incident response plan contemplates many, including storms, cyber attacks, emergency leadership succession and pandemics. To ensure preparedness, we run drills routinely so that everyone knows their roles and responsibilities and when activated the plan runs smoothly. In 2007, we developed our pandemic response plan, specifically to address events like the one we are facing today. For COVID-19, we mobilized our teams on January 16th very early on. Our focus has been on four primary objectives, ensuring the safety and wellness of our employees, maintaining safe reliable service for our customers, mitigating financial impacts and ensuring our ability to continue to plan for the future. Informed by lessons learned from the events, not only challenges to normal operations but also improvements that can be made. Our response is working as designed. We are meeting the needs and expectations of our customers and communities. Our major projects remain on track and our capital plan is unchanged. The actions of our employees in the midst of this pandemic have been exemplary. They have shown once again their dedication and resilience to work through hurdles to safely keep the power and gas flowing for our customers. I cannot express how proud I am of our Entergy family. Entergy has a critical role to play and this is the time that we must step forward not back. Our customers and communities are depending on us more than ever to power their homes as many work remotely, or have responsibilities to care for children and loved ones at home. Businesses like grocery stores and pharmacies require reliable power to continue to operate and address essential needs, and our healthcare workers are relying on us to keep hospitals, clinics and care facilities powered. In short, the services we provide are vital to helping our customers, our communities, our families and our neighbors, successfully manage this crisis. It's a great responsibility that we do not take lightly. Our capital investment plan is also a critical component for our economy and our communities. Our plan is designed to benefit our customers, while also creating jobs and stimulating the economies in the states where we operate. We have taken specific actions for each of our stakeholders. For employees still working at plants and in the field, we've implemented preventative measures, so they can focus on safety on and off the job. We're suspending disconnects for customers, which is important in times where many may not have a steady income. We are talking with regulators about the importance of keeping our capital plan on track to preserve the reliability and the economic benefits for our customers and our communities. And we're talking to our largest customers to understand the issues they face and to determine how we can support them. Our supply chain team is working diligently with suppliers to ensure, we have what we need to keep our operations and major projects on track. We're working with regulators to support timely resolution of both special and routine matters. We have received accounting orders to defer costs associated with COVID-19 in four of our jurisdictions, and we expect to receive a similar order for Entergy New Orleans in the near future. We're grateful for the leadership and partnership that our commissions have demonstrated. We are also supporting our communities through a COVID-19 Response Fund. Our charitable foundation, employees and executive team, have already committed more than $1.3 million to help community nonprofits and qualifying customers, who are struggling with the financial impact of the pandemic. Looking ahead, uncertainty remains as to the depth and length of this pandemic. But today, we are affirming our guidance and outlooks as we see a path to achieve those results. The foundation that supports the strength and sustainability of our business remains in place. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country. Our capital plan benefits our customers and our local economies. We have constructive and progressive regulatory mechanisms. We are a leader in critical measures of sustainability. We have one of the cleanest, large scale generation fleets. And while we have seen some recent slow down in industrial activity, our industrial base is among the most economically advantaged in the world, and we expect they will lead the recovery in their respective industries. The foundation that we've established over time remains firm and we are committed to our objectives and our resolve to be the premier utility. This is what makes Entergy a compelling long term investment. In April, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend as planned. As part of that decision, the board considered our response to the current situation, scenario analysis regarding future uncertainty and the strength of our business going forward. We are committed to creating sustainable value for all of our stakeholders, including our owners, and the dividend declaration is consistent with that objective. Now I'll turn to our strategic execution. Today, we're reporting solid first quarter adjusted earnings per share of $1.14. And while the pandemic has affected the way we do business, it hasn't stopped us from making progress against our key deliverables. We place Lake Charles Power Station in service in March, well ahead of schedule and on budget. This new resource is another milestone in our portfolio transformation strategy to replace older generation with cleaner, more efficient assets and it will provide important benefits to our customers. We've also made good progress at New Orleans Power Station. Commissioning of the plant is in progress and we recently synchronized the units to the grid for the first time. We expect that project to come online in June. Our other major generation projects remain on track. We are not experiencing any significant equipment or staffing issues. This is a testament to the experience of our capital projects management team and the strength of our relationships with our suppliers and contractors. We continue to deploy automated meters as planned. We’re more than one third of the way through our AMI project with 1.3 million meters installed. We are leveraging the data from these meters to understand changes in usage among our various customer segments. In April, we received approval for Sunflower Solar in Mississippi, and Searcy Solar in Arkansas. These 100 megawatt resources will be the largest utility on solar projects in their states. Large scale solar facilities provide the most cost effective solar power for all customers, keeping rates low while delivering the best value for renewables. Both facilities are expected to be in service in 2021. As part of our firm commitment to provide our customers with greater renewable power options, we expect to meet even more of our supply planning needs with renewables as technology and economics continue to improve. Since our last earnings call, we announced two new requests for proposals for generation assets. Entergy Texas is seeking proposals for 1,000 to 1,200 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine in mid-2025 to mid-2026. Entergy Texas will include a self build option and submissions are due in August. Entergy Louisiana is seeking 250 megawatts of new build solar resources. The RFP will accept proposals for owned and contracted projects with targeting service dates of no later than the end of 2023. We continue to implement rate changes through our formula rate plans and riders. New rates recently were implemented in Mississippi and these included a new vegetation management rider. In Texas, we filed a new distribution rider. Entergy Louisiana plans to request renewal or extension of its formula rate plan and we will make our annual FRP filing in Arkansas this coming July. In April, we received an initial decision from the administrative law judge in one of system energies open dockets at FERC. I won't go through all the details. Feel free to call David if you need additional explanations. The bottom-line is that, we disagree with much of the initial decision, and we believe that it incorrectly seeks to resolve important policy issues that FERC ultimately must opine on. The actions we've taken create significant benefits for our retail customers, and we feel strongly that our positions on the law and the facts are correct. We will file our brief on exceptions in June asking FERC to reject the adverse rulings in the initial decision, and we look forward to the FERC’s review. There is no mandated deadline for the commission's decision. At EWC, Indian Point Unit 2 was shut down on April 30th. This milestone brings us one step closer to fully exiting the merchant business. We remain committed to our employees and all qualified employees who are willing to relocate have been offered positions. We look forward to them starting the next phase of their careers with us. As you can see, it's already been a very active and productive start to the year. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that is affecting lives around the world. At Entergy, we activated our response plan early, which positions us well to face the challenges head on. We were prepared and we will remain diligent, focused and flexible to ensure we make the right decisions at the right times to mitigate the impacts as best we can. While uncertainty remains for all of us, we've made progress against our key strategic deliverables, while meeting the needs and expectations of our customers and communities in this critical time. Our major projects remain on track. Our capital plan is unchanged. And the foundation that supports the long-term strength of our business and makes Entergy a compelling investment remains in place. We are stepping forward, not back to be leaders in our communities at a time when they need us the most. Recent events have not changed our objectives to create sustainable value for our stakeholders or weakened our resolve to be the premier utility that can deliver on its commitments through economic cycles. Before I turn it over to Drew, I encourage you to read our recently released 2019 integrated report, Building The Premier Utility. The report outlines what we believe it takes to be the premier utility, and why we're well on our way. I'm also happy to confirm that we still plan to host an Analyst Day this year. Because the situation of COVID-19 continues to be fluid, the event will be virtual. We also plan to delay the event until later in the year, most likely in late October. We look forward to continuing our conversation with you about our strategy to continue to grow our business for the long-term. Stay tuned for more details. I'll now turn the call over to Drew, who will review our first quarter results as well as our outlook.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Similar to Leo's sentiment, I'd like to express my appreciation for all those helping the people and communities affected by COVID-19. The extraordinary efforts of so many are inspiring, that includes our employees who have quickly adapted to changing working conditions. They have once again risen to teh challenge as they have so many times in the past. I'll review the quarter results and then move to guidance and the longer-term outlook. But before I get to that, I want to highlight the bottom-line for Entergy. After solid first quarter, we are affirming our adjusted EPS guidance and outlook. We expect revenue to be $120 million to $140 million lower as a result of COVID-19. We are implementing $100 million of identified spending reductions for 2020. We received constructive regulatory accounting orders to defer COVID-19 costs. Our capital plan remains the same. Our liquidity remains strong. And we still do not see a need for equity until 2021. Those are the key takeaways. Our first quarter results were solid as stay at home orders did not begin till very late in the quarter. As you can see on Slide 8 on a per share basis, Entergy adjusted earnings were $1.14, $0.32 higher than first quarter 2019 due to increased earnings at the utility. On Slide 19, you'll see the primary drivers for the utility positive quarter were straightforward. We saw the positive effects of rate actions in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. O&M was lower as we took action to reduce spending in response to mild weather, which was apparent early in the quarter. And had favorable tax benefits, a portion of which was shared with our customers. You'll also see a higher effective tax rate in other, which partially offset this. Higher depreciation and interest expenses resulting from our continued growth also partially offset the increase as did the higher share count. On Slide 11, EWC’s as reported loss was $0.55 compared to positive earnings of $0.50 a year ago. Losses on decommissioning trust investments and lower revenue, primarily due to the shutdown of Pilgrim were the main drivers. Partially offsetting the decline was lower O&M, lower impairment charges and a tax item recorded in first quarter 2019. Slide 12 shows nearly $160 million increase in operating cash flow. The main drivers were higher collections for fuel and purchase power costs, and a roughly $65 million reduction in the unprotected excess ADIT return to customers. The first quarter also benefited from higher nuclear insurance refunds and lower nuclear refueling outage spending at EWC. Unfavorable weather and higher pension contributions partially offset the increase. Now I'd like to talk about our 2020 guidance and our longer term outlook. On Slide 13, we are affirming our 2020 adjusted EPS guidance range of $5.45 to $5.75, and our 2021 and 2022 outlook remains unchanged. We've laid out the path to achieve our results on Slide 14 so that you can better understand our current expectations. I'd like to give you some context. In 2020, we expect sales to be lower due to the unfavorable weather we experienced in the first quarter and the impact of COVID-19. On Slide 15, we develop a point of view on sales for the remainder of 2020 based on extensive discussions with our industrial and commercial customers and analysis of data available from our advanced meters. On a weather adjusted basis, we expect commercial and industrial sales to be lower than the original guidance assumption. Commercial sales are expected to have the largest decline at 9.5% for the full year. The most impacted are schools, restaurants, movie theaters and churches as stay at home orders have shuttered many of these institutions temporarily. Industrial sales are expected to be 7% lower and our refinery and fuel customers have been the most impacted. Although, refiners in our region have been less affected than in other parts of the country. This is partially offset by residential sales about 2% higher as usage per customer increases due to stay-at-home orders. As you can see, we expect second quarter to be the most impacted, assuming stay-at-home orders start to phase out in mid may to early June. We then expect slow improvements through the year as the economy recovers. We'll work to mitigate the impact of lost sales. This includes $100 million reduction in O&M spending for 2020 on Slide 16, that will not affect safety or reliability. We've already identified where we will achieve these savings. We are reducing employee expenses, reducing contractor and consulting work, prioritizing when vacancies are filled and adjusting the timing and scope of power generation outages. These are extraordinary times for our customers and communities, and extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. While we are taking these one-time measures to compensate for the lower sales, we anticipate this year to continue to look for efficiencies in our business to drive long-term value for all of our stakeholders. Our work over the last few years to improve our regulatory frameworks also helps to further mitigate impacts, and we are utilizing efficient regulatory mechanisms available to us. We have formula rate plans in four of our five jurisdictions, and three have forward-looking features. These plants reset rates annually. In addition, two jurisdictions, Arkansas and Mississippi, have look back provisions to take into account under or over earnings from the previous year. And as Leo mentioned, we've received the county orders in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, for the deferral of costs resulting from COVID-19. We're aware that these are very difficult times for our customers and their families. Therefore, we are implementing new customer payment plans to help make bills more manageable. In addition, we are developing new tools, such as accelerating regulatory liabilities to reduce customer bills now versus in the future. We are also cognizant of the economic impact COVID-19 is having on our communities, and we're working to keep our capital plan on track, while using local workforces so that our customers and our communities can reap the benefits from those investments, such as economic stimulus and improved reliability. Looking ahead to 2021 and 2022, we expect some of the economic effects of COVID-19 to linger, and sales are projected to be slightly below what we previously planned. Our current regulatory mechanism will help and we will be ready to manage O&M as necessary. For industrial sales, our long-term expectations for growth remain largely intact. None of our plans, new or expansion projects have been canceled, although, a few have announced delays. Long-term forward commodity spreads remain supportive of key industries in our region. And while there is uncertainty around the COVID-19 recovery and future oil prices, our industrial base remains among the most economically advantaged in the world due to low cost feed stock, highly flexible, modern facilities, economies of scale, world-class infrastructure, a highly productive workforce, supportive communities and easy-to-access domestic and global markets. We expect they will lead recovery in their respective industries. This is our plan today. But obviously uncertainty remains for all of us as to the depth and length of the COVID-19 impact going forward. In the event things turn out differently, there would be a number of factors to consider. Near term, there is timing as the seasonality of sales could result in different outcomes, and we would look to O&M to help the extent possible without affecting safety and reliability. Longer term, regulatory processes would address revenue deficiencies overtime and we would look to continuous improvement to help offset customer impacts. Our liquidity position remains strong, as you can see on Slide 17, as of March 31st, our net liquidity, including storm reserves, was over $3.2 billion. We've had success accessing capital markets despite market volatility, and we've issued nearly $1.1 billion in new long term debt so far this year, all at the operating companies. This covers the operating company maturities and helps fund our capital plan. In addition, we have renewed the lines of credit at two of the operating companies, which also provides liquidity in times of need. We still plan to access the debt markets upon $450 million of parent bonds that mature later this year. Our credit metrics are outlined on Slide 18. Our parent debt to total debt is 22.2% and our FFO to debt is 14.3%. The FFO metric includes the effects of returning $236 million of unprotected excess ADITs to customers over the last 12 months. Excluding this give back and certain items related to our exit of EWC, the reported debt would have been 16%. While we remain committed to achieving FFO to debt at or above 15%, our customer support to offset COVID-19 impacts will push our timings to fourth quarter 2021. We've had conversations with the rating agencies on this, and they have publicly expressed their intent to take a long term view regarding COVID-19 impacts. Finally, we still do not see a need for equity until 2021. Another topic that may be on your mind is pension. As of March 31st, our pension asset balance was $5.4 billion and through April, this had improved to $5.7 billion. The March 31st pension asset balance is incorporated into our outlook. As we have stated, these are extraordinary times for everyone and we have a vital role to play to help our customers and our community successfully manage this crisis. We are well positioned to manage these challenges head on. At this time, although economic uncertainty remains, we have a path to achieve our financial objectives. And as Leo said, we will continue to monitor the economy and remain diligent, focused and flexible to mitigate impacts as best we can. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza from Guggenheim Partners. Your question, please.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Just a couple of questions here. So first thinking about the headwinds, you're calling out at this point the $100 million to $120 million. You mentioned some reliefs for COVID costs. Can you just speak specific what those costs are, how we should think about alternate recovery, how you can kind of defer them? And then thinking about the cost reductions you pulled today to offset the COVID impacts. Are these one time in nature or could we sort of think about them as being somewhat perpetual ongoing benefits? And I have a follow-up.
Drew Marsh:
So I'll address the cost so far. So, I think there's kind of two buckets of costs that we're looking at, some of them are incident response costs and those include things like more PP&E, hand sanitizer, masks and things like that. There's also cleaning costs associated with that and then costs associated with moving people around and things like that. Those types of dollars at this point are fairly limited. We expect them for the year to be somewhere in the $15 million range and we've incurred less than half of that so far. We're anticipating as we get back to work, there will be more cleaning costs, for example and more PP&E that we have to provide over the course of the year. The other bucket of costs is related to potential bad debt expense. And that is, we haven't incurred anything of that nature to-date and we probably won't for awhile, but those costs we would expect to incur as well. In terms of the magnitude of that, historically, we've seen about $25 million of bad debt expense. And we have in past experiences like 2008, 2009 financial crisis or Katrina, Rita, that kind of environment, we've seen anywhere from $10 million to $20 million of incremental bad debt expense in a year. Of course this could be a little bit worse than that, and we're working hard to make sure that we mitigate that. Leo mentioned new payments plans, working to make sure that our customers have access to funds and information on how to access the paycheck protection program. And as I also mentioned in my remarks, we're trying to accelerate some future regulatory liability payments due today to try and mitigate some of those impacts on customer bills. So, all of that plays into trying to make sure that customer bills are as low as possible to mitigate what the bad debt expense might ultimately be as well.
Shahriar Pourreza:
And then just last question, you guys always have some really good insight into your customer trends. How much growth do you see being deferred from '20? The new assumptions call it '21 and beyond this potential economic impact of the headwind. Are you quantifying '21 versus just being slightly lower? And assuming this backdrop is more protracted versus kind of your own internal planning assumptions. Do you have these incremental levers like today's cost cuts to mitigate or could that start to pressure your growth guide maybe through CapEx deferrals and they become secondary in nature? I mean it sounded like from Leo's comments you guys are very confident around the plan. So, I just want to under the assumption this is more protracted. Do you see any kind of concerns around growth CapEx 5% to 7%, or you have enough leverage at your disposal I guess?
Drew Marsh:
There was a lot in that. I will start with the customer trends seen and then talk about O&M, and then finish with CapEx. So on the customer trends piece, the expectation in our outlook right now is that our sales will be about 1% below what we were planning in '21 and '22. Obviously, there's a lot of uncertainty associated with that. So, we are also running scenarios to think about what it might be if it's something lower than that. Once we get out a couple of years, we should have gone through regulatory processes and each jurisdiction and that should help us. But at the same time, we are also working on, okay, so what other O&M management tools might we have at our disposal to work our way through that. The further we get out, the more sustainable we really need these cost changes to be unlike this year. This year as we mentioned there's a lot of onetime items and we're trying to look for additional continuous improvement and O&M category that is more sustainable. But we'll really need to rely on our skills to develop that, those opportunities as we go forward to manage that a little bit more. There will always be one time levers within a given years that we have, but we will, on a long term basis, we’ll want to rely on continuous improvement. And then finally, in regards to growth CapEx, we currently don't have any plans to change our growth capital or our capital at all for that matter. We think it's important for our communities and our customers for us to continue to make those investments. We think we have the capacity and liquidity to do that, there's no concerns there. If for some reason it was lower for longer from a sales perspective, it might start to shift around the nature of that capital. So for example, if we no longer needed some transmission capital to meet NERC reliability standards, there maybe other capital that we think would be very important for our customers in the distribution space. So, there's a lot of levers still to manage things going forward but hopefully that answers all the nuances of your one question.
Leo Denault:
Yes, this is Leo . I just want to add from the standpoint of pulling the levers. The process that we're utilizing right now, while it's kind of accelerate a little bit is same process we were using last year, for example, to flex up and down. So, the process had actually, as you noticed in the first quarter, the process had already begun, because we knew we were going to be challenged by a traditional headwind, which was weather in the first quarter. So those processes year-on-year are going to be the same ones that we have kind of developed as part of the culture and the DNA of the company and just the planning process. And the continuous improvement that we mentioned is something that we were working through as well and obviously, we'll even find some continuous improvement I think out of response to the event that will help us going forward. And then I just wanted to really jump in on the capital plan. And obviously, the capital plan is a major reliability improvement to our customers is what it's been about. And with 90% of this, greater than 90% of the capital plan, all being about a technological improvement and reliability in the service level that we provide our customers, whether it's through AMI or even replacing old generation with new gas fired generation of renewables that we're adding to the footprint. So all of it is customer enhancing. And as Drew mentioned and as we've talked about before, we have a significant amount of opportunity within the distribution and customer solutions space that could step up and take place in any, for example, transmission investment that that might get shifted around. But an important aspect of where we sit today and this has been the extent of the dialog that we've had with the states, whether it’d be at the administration level or at the regulatory level. The biggest problem that the United States has at the moment is unemployment in addition outside of obviously the virus. And we are in a position to step forward with the capital plan and to make sure that we keep people working. And I'm just going to give you a couple of statistics that might be useful for you to think about. During the storms that we had over Easter weekend in Arkansas, we obviously had to restore power and that was a pretty significant event. But as we restored power, we had about 2,000 people in Arkansas staying in hotel rooms that otherwise they wouldn't have stayed and eating meals otherwise wouldn't have been eating. So there was an effective 13,000 nights in hotel rooms that occurred only because Entergy was there. There was an effective 40,000 meals that were served only because Entergy was there. That is the kind of economic impact that we have, not just on the people we hire whether it’d be our employees or our contractors. But as we go into the community and there's those multiplier effects that we talk about quite often that are significant that usually are put up thereby an economist at LSU or something like that. But these are real people serving real meals to our employees that were probably working that week, but not the week before or the week after. So, the capital plan is important for more than just improving the reliability of the system and the service level that we provide our customers. It's important to those communities as well.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Your question please.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Just wanted to follow-up on the last set of questions really, and I'll throw in a quick follow-up but starting with last one. How do you think about your FRPs across the various states in those rate caps against the need to ensure earning as you return and at the same time recognizing the consistency commitment to invest capital. I imagine, obviously Twin Goals, it seems like you’ve had a little bit more latitude than you had historically in those annual filing, first off. And then the second one is just, if you can quantify the potential impact of that SERI decision from the ALJ, that's the first one.
Roderick West:
I'll start on the FRPs and perhaps Drew will follow up. In Louisiana and Arkansas, Mississippi and New Orleans, we've just mentioned that four of our five jurisdictions had FRPs in effect, where those FRPs are working as designed. And to the extent that the COVID costs might operate beyond the FRPs, we have the accounting orders that we just referenced. We're seeking to renew the FRPs in Louisiana and Arkansas, and Mississippi. We don't have a sunset provision. But those FRPs are working as designed to address many of the changes in sales as we are forecasting. So from an FRP perspective, the efficient recovery mechanisms we have in each of the states is giving us the relative confidence we have around what we're forecasting. And it's incorporating the various puts and takes with O&M and projected sales. So, its working as design. It’s certainly part of the case we’re making to renew them in Arkansas and Louisiana. So from that vantage point, we think the FRPs are working as well.
Drew Marsh:
And I'll just add, you asked about the rate path. Our expectation for the rate path is that we would still be at or below inflation. Now, you have to take into account the excess ADIT that we have been given back last year, if you lead off of 2019 but it's still a very low growth rate for our rates and our bill path. And then you asked about ROEs. As Leo was talking about, we have an important role to play in the community right now in terms of putting capital to work to not only benefit our customers, but also to drive economic activity. And in order to do that, we have to make sure that we maintain adequate credit and liquidity, and our retail regulars know that we've been in conversations with him about that. And so they were also committed to make sure that we have the credit and liquidity we need to do the things that are required to support our customers and our communities. So I think that will help address some of the ROE question as well.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from JP Morgan. Your question please.
Jeremy Tonet:
Just want to start off, I guess what you guys are seeing across your footprint right now in your different jurisdictions, you start to see certain areas start to open up. And just wondering, kind of maybe more real time like what type of trends are you seeing from your larger customers ramping up, and what kind of line of sight have you gleaned from that that kind of informs your guidance here?
Roderick West:
I think in the -- across the customer segments, we alluded to it earlier. Certainly, in the residential segment. The stay at home orders have certainly driven the expected experience of high usage per customer in that segment. A lot of variability across the commercial customer segments, as Drew alluded to, where we saw in schools and restaurants, movie theaters and churches, experiencing the brunt of the near-term demand erosion. In the industrial sector, we've been in constant communication aside from the AMI data that we're tracking on a day-to-day basis. We've been in constant communication with those larger industrial customers around their respective outlooks, and we’re paying as much attention to the various components of their value chain as perhaps they might. And they've given us relative comfort that the data we're receiving from AMI is supportive of our point of view that approximately 10% demand erosion that we're experiencing in the last several weeks is likely to be stable until such time as the economy recovers. Certainly, in the refining and primary metals segment, we expected those segments to be harder hit and driving some of the downturn, and that's played out in a way that we expected. And I say that with all of the uncertainly that still remains around the timing of the economic recovery relative to our ability to get testing and tracing and things of that nature. And so, the engagement in addition to the AMI data, the engagement with customers has really reinforced what we're seeing. And certainly, it plays out differently from state-to-state. But the significant presence of our industrial base in Louisiana and Texas, and that's where we've seen the lion share of volatility within that 10% range.
Jeremy Tonet:
And then maybe just picking up on that last point, for the longer-term for the industrial petchem load. It seems like the Brent and Henry Hub spread been a proxy for NAPTA ethane spread has been a key determinant of the U.S. Gulf Coast competitive advantage across global cost curve given the favorable feedstock there. Do you worry that the dynamic of a tighter crude oil to nat gas spread narrows as competitive advantage and kind of adversely impacts future load growth versus prior expectations?
Drew Marsh:
So we are closely monitoring that spread, that's one of the ones that we pay close attention to as well for the very reason that you mentioned. And obviously near-term that spread is not as healthy as it has been historically, but we do expect it to return to where it was and continue to provide economic advantage for our Gulf Coast industrial customers going forward. And we do see those spreads and others like them being healthy if you look out on a long-term basis. But we recognize the near-term they're a little bit more challenged. It does not change some of the other advantages that we do have that I listed off in my remarks, but that is one that we are paying close attention to.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line Stephen Byrd from Morgan Stanley. Your question please.
Steven Byrd:
Most of my questions have been addressed. I just wanted to go into tax in a little more detail. I think the change in guidance in terms of the tax is about a net improvement of around $0.18 a share. And I wonder if you could just give a little color around what the changes were? I guess I see IRS settlement and stock-based comp. Could you sort of explain what the changes were in a little more detail?
Drew Marsh:
The main one is the IRS settlement, which we completed in the quarter. That settlement had to do with securitization costs for several years ago. And while there is a tax benefit on the tax line, much of that is offset in the revenue through customer give backs, and that is net about $0.05 only. The other stuff is like the stock-based compensation that's just annual true ups that occur each year, whenever stock vests and we true up from a tax perspective. There is no true up from a GAAP perspective, that's why there's a difference there.
Steven Byrd:
And I understand the expectation is now for an 18% effective income tax rate this year. Longer-term, approximately where do you see your effective income tax rate being? Just so we're trying to think through your longer term earnings power properly.
Drew Marsh:
It's similar to where we had it previously around the 22% range.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line Jonathan Arnold from Vertical Research Partners. Your question, please.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just a quick question, previously you said you thought that equity from 2021 would be on the order of 5% to 10% of utility investments. But with some of this if you're going to accelerate some of these regulatory liabilities and maybe have a cash impact. Is that still a good number or should we be thinking about re-calibrating that that scale once we get off the 2020?
Drew Marsh:
I think that's still a good number. We're very careful about the way that we are moving liabilities forward. They are either increasing rate base, because they are coming out or we are discounting them to make sure that we are economically neutral, such that we have more cash flow in the future. So, that's the -- either way we should have the financing headroom to move some of those liabilities forward. It's going to -- those kinds of choices will impact the current year's FFO to debt ratio, but there should be a little bit better headroom in that ratio going forward as a result.
Jonathan Arnold:
And then you mentioned, Drew, wanting to keep the rate path below inflation. Have your views of inflation as you make in the plan changed. And can you share a bit of what your number is that you're using for longer term inflation?
Drew Marsh:
That's an excellent question, Jonathan. I wish I knew what inflation was going to be. We use 2% as a rule of thumb for that kind of the benchmark that we look at adding $3 trillion of fiscal stimulus. We don't really know what that will do for inflation.
Jonathan Arnold:
And then I think that was -- and just one thing, I was trying to reconcile the Slide 15 on retail sales, which I think that shows what you're expecting industrial to be down 7% for the year and then Slide 41 has 1.5% number on industrial. Is that just a typo or is a different basis of what are you telling us that?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, there’re two different bases. The one on Slide 15 is versus our original guidance. And as you will recall, we were planning to be up about 6%, or 5.5% to 6%, 6.5, I can't remember the exact number. And you subtract that with 7% you get into the...
Jonathan Arnold:
I got it. So the guidance had the optic and that's it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe. Your question please.
Steve Fleishman:
Just wanted to re-ask the question that was asked earlier about the CRE decision on ALJ. And if that were finalized even though you don't think it will be, what the impact would be?
Drew Marsh:
This is Drew. And thanks Steve for picking that up. We didn't quite get to it on Julien's question. So we appreciate you re-asking it. The impact is laid out in the queue, as Leo mentioned, there are a lot of details. There's two components to the ruling that came through associated with lease payments and uncertain tax positions and the amounts are in there. The lease payments is a little bit unclear, because the calculation from the ALJ wasn't provided specifically. So we don't -- the bottom line is, we don't think there will be a very large impact there. The larger one is the uncertain tax positions. And as the ALJ laid it out, if you include the refund and the interest, it looks like it's close to about $600 million. As Leo mentioned, we believe that, we have the right policy perspectives and that the ALJ's ruling is interim and the FERC is the one that would drive policy decisions. And we would also note that in that calculation even though the ALJ wrote about it, the ALJ did not include offsets that are included, that you might include in there like interest that we've been paying to the IRS for the position overtime. And that would reduce that $600 million down to a little less than, or probably a little bit more than half of what the ALJ put out. And of course the overall impact of that would basically be the financing costs of whatever that number would ultimately be.
Steve Fleishman:
So that would be obviously a onetime refund, just is there any, aside from financing that as a risk. Would there be any other ongoing earnings impact or just the one time…
Drew Marsh:
Well, the lease payments, they indicated that the lease payment would not be able to continue, that's what the ALJ wrote, which is about $17 million a year. And then of course the onetime would be a change in our rate base on an ongoing basis for deferred tax positions. So, we'd have that as well.
Steve Fleishman:
One other question. Just you probably said this but maybe I'm still just not clear on it. Just in terms of the base assumptions you're using for your kind of sales forecast now. How would we track progress or reopening soon and then slow recovery, and that's kind of how to think about kind of the base economic you are using…
Roderick West:
The base assumption is that sometime in the early summer, that is later in this month into June, we'll begin to see a change in the stay-at-home orders and that dynamic will begin the upswing in the economy. The outlook through 2020, particularly from an industrial growth perspective is essentially that that 10% reduction in industrial demand that's driving the overall growth for the utility would then begin to see a slower uptick. And then as Drew laid out in '21 and '22, we expect the drivers of our growth to still be driven by industrials as the commercial and residential sort of normalizes to our pre-COVID point of view.
Leo Denault:
And Steve, I'll just add that the timing of all that matters a lot. So if the current economic environment lingers through the summer and there people are more at home than what we're planning, because they're not working that could be a sales improvement for us, because of the higher residential load that we typically experience in the summer time. So, if it were to linger all the way through the end of the year of course the summer would end then it would fall back into what we kind of expecting on the second quarter, which would not be as positive but the timing of it does matter.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your question please.
Michael Lapides:
Real quickly the O&M savings the $100 million. Do you expect that to be kind of a permanent savings level, or do you expect to all of that to come back and we should embed in ‘21 or ‘22 forecasts?
Drew Marsh:
We're currently considering that to be one time savings.
Michael Lapides:
So if O&M that will go away, but effectively it would come back in future years maybe not all in 2021 but overtime. So not leading to a permanent kind of O&M reduction?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, it's not permanent. The timing of it, some of it depends. We're already working to offset, because some of it is deferrals to 2021. So, we're working to even offset those in 2021 in our forecast. But I would say that they're just one time and they don't really relate to future periods at this point.
Michael Lapides:
And can you remind us your multiyear EPS forecast. What is assumed for kind of an O&M growth rate off of 2019?
Drew Marsh:
We were saying that we were going to come in at about $2.65 billion for utility in parent O&M and that we're going to keep that flat.
Michael Lapides :
And then last thing on EWC. Can you remind me do you expect the EWC to send cash up to the parent or need cash infusions from the parent over the next couple of years?
Drew Marsh:
We have said that we expected to be net cash positive to the parent not by a lot but by a little. And as we get closer to the end, it's trending to zero because we're very much close to the end of EWC. But right now, it's still net cash positive to the parent.
Michael Lapides:
And then I'll sneak one last one, the RFP for new gas generation in Texas. Just curious does the change in the outlook for demand change the need for the size and scale of that unit?
Leo Denault:
At this point in time no. As you recall, Michael, the new generation is typically replacing older generation with a much more efficient lower cost, more environmentally sound unit. So, this is all part of that portfolio transformation strategy that we've had where the net adds to our capacity are relatively small compared to the amount of generation that we're at. I think actually within the next year, we may tear down three old plants and we're deactivating units as well. And up till this past year when we put couple of new units in service, we were pretty well as many megawatts that we added that's what we were deactivating. So it's not -- as I mentioned earlier, when you look at the capital plan, over 90% of the capital plan is driven by this improvement in the level of service through a technological overhaul across all four functions that we invest in, whether it's generation, transmission, distribution or customer solutions and that is going to continue. And as Drew mentioned, to the extent some of our reliability investment in transmission is kind of like Lake Charles project was a couple of years ago, after the fact beefing up the system to serve load that had already been there to the extent that that might change where we've got a whole host of distribution and customer solutions opportunities that could take its place, a lot of which actually drive down the cost while they improve the level of service for customers. So, they're a good a good option for us to make. So, I know it's a bit of a long answer to your question, Michael. But keep in mind, 90 plus percent of the capital plan is driven by that reliability improvement, technological improvement across the system and benefiting customers. And then obviously in the near-term, we're overlaying on that fact that there's lot of jobs created by the work we do. And if there's one thing everybody can agree on, more people need to be working today rather than fewer.
Operator:
Thank you. Our final question for today comes from the line of Sophie Karp from KeyBanc. Your question please.
Sophie Karp:
Most of my questions have been answered, but maybe I could just quickly follow-up on Indian Point, just checking if there are any disruptions in the process that you're going through from the wide shutdowns in New York State? Thank you.
Roderick West:
For Indian Point, no change. Indian Point 2 shutdown, as Leo mentioned on April 30th and it's currently being refueled. As far as the processes around the sale of Indian Point those were initially slightly delayed but we still have plenty of time which we don't expect to close on that transaction until about this time next year. So, we have plenty of time to continue to work through the processes in New York and at the NRC. And we still believe that the interest in New York are aligned with ours, looking for a way to expeditiously decommission Indian Point is the goal and working with Holtec to make that happen. We believe this continues to be the best option. So, no real changes at Indian Point at this point.
Operator:
Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to David Borde for any further remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Jonathan, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on form 10-Q is due to the SEC today and provide more details and disclosures about our statements. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy's investor relations Web site, called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates and regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information maybe considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2019 Earnings Release and Teleconference. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker, Mr. David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions]. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for another very successful year. Our adjusted earnings per share is $5.40, in the top half of the guidance range that we raised last quarter. Our financial results, combined with our operational achievements, once again show that we deliver on what we set out to do. Everything we accomplished in 2019 also reinforces our confidence in our continued success into the future. This past year, we saw solid achievements in all aspects of our Utility business. In power generation, we placed into service 2 clean, efficient and modern CCGTs totaling 1,800 megawatts. In Louisiana, the St. Charles Power Station came online in May, affirming our track record of completing major generation projects on time and on budget and sometimes better. And a few months later, Entergy Mississippi purchased the Choctaw Generating Station. These resources are part of our portfolio transformation strategy to replace older generation with cleaner, more efficient assets. They improve system reliability, reduce costs for our customers and produce significantly fewer emissions, further advancing our sustainability goals. Renewable energy is another key component of our portfolio transformation. We currently have close to 400 megawatts of renewable capacity that are in operation and nearly 2,000 megawatts of additional renewable projects in various stages of development. About half of those are specific projects that we've already discussed with you. The other half are potential new projects we are currently evaluating, and we will share more details with you at the right time. We are committed to providing our customers with renewable power options. And as technology and economics continue to improve, we expect to meet even more of our supply planning needs with renewables. Also in generation, we recently commissioned a 7.4-megawatt battery at our Perryville Station in Louisiana. This is an innovative application of battery technology that will allow Entergy Louisiana to start a 150-megawatt combustion turbine without grid power, and it will support grid reliability and resiliency. In 2019, we invested $1 billion in our transmission infrastructure. During the year, we completed several projects, including Phase 1 of the Western Region economic transmission project in Texas, the Southwest Louisiana improvement project and autotransformer projects in Little Rock and Central Mississippi. Our transmission investments benefit our system and our customers as they reduce congestion, enhance system reliability, efficiency and resiliency and support the economic development of our jurisdictions by enabling service to new customers. In distribution, we are now 1/3 of the way through the installation of 3 million advanced meters across our service area. To complement this effort, we are investing in an improved digital platform to create a multichannel experience for our customers, a new outage and distribution management system, an enterprise asset and work management system and increased automation on our grid. This technology platform not only provides customer usage insights today, but also lays the foundation for advanced capabilities over time. And with billions of real-time data points available, we'll be able to glean new insights that will drive fundamental change in the way we serve our customers while they consume the least amount of energy resources. Our customers' expectations are evolving, and we're preparing to meet them. Instead of simply providing an input, electricity or gas, we're thinking about the outcomes our customers need and desire from their power consumption. With new technologies and capabilities deployed, we'll be able to anticipate their needs and offer tailored solutions. In 2019, we formed KeyString Labs, our innovation center, to engage with stakeholders and develop new solutions that address our customers' desired outcomes and make their lives better. For example, we've developed a backup generator offering for commercial and industrial customers called Power Through. We installed our first 1 megawatt generator at a grocery store in Texas, the resources available to the store in the event of a power outage and it's available to the utility at other times. Both parties share the cost, which makes it economic for everyone and mutually beneficial. Entergy Texas has already utilized this resource, providing cost-effective and efficient power back to the grid. We also have line of sight on additional projects. In December, we received approval from the Mississippi Public Service Commission to deploy 20 generators in the state, and we are actively working with our regulatory teams to introduce Power Through across all our jurisdictions. KeyString Labs is also working on solutions to expand beneficial electrification of sectors that currently use fossil fuels. This is an important pillar of our broader strategy to reduce societal carbon emissions beyond our own footprint. This is a practical and environmentally responsible way to help customers in other industries meet their sustainability goals by relying on Entergy's grid power instead of higher-emitting fossil fuels. We've recently launched a utility scale shore-power project that extends our distribution system to marine vessels in ports. Our first shore power project went into service just last month, which we estimate will achieve up to 42% net reduction in carbon emissions, a 48% net reduction in sulfur oxides and 98% reduction in nitrogen oxides. We believe we have significant opportunities to deploy shore power projects as we have 37 ports in our service area, 7 of which are among the 20 largest ports in the United States. These are just some of the innovative projects we're working on across the organization, and we are excited about the opportunities that lie ahead. Customer solutions will be an important part of our business, and we will continue to explore opportunities to improve our customers' everyday lives through new technology, data analytics, innovation and creative solutions. Over the last several years, we have built constructive relationships with our regulators that have enabled the development of progressive regulatory mechanisms across our jurisdictions. We have formula rate plans in 4 of our 5 jurisdictions
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo stated, we are reporting strong results for another very successful year. 2019 adjusted earnings per share were $5.40, in the top half of our guidance range that we raised last quarter. These results keep us firmly on track to achieve our longer-term growth aspirations. I'll begin with a review of results for the fourth quarter and then move to the full year. I'll provide an overview of our guidance -- I'll also provide an overview of our guidance for 2020. Starting with the quarter on Slide 5. On a per share basis, Entergy adjusted earnings were $0.68, slightly below fourth quarter of 2018. Turning to Utility on Slide 6. Rate actions in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas contributed positively to the quarter's results. Regulatory charges and provisions recorded last year also contributed to the quarter-over-quarter variance. Lower retail sales volumes and higher operating expenses, primarily depreciation and O&M, partially offset the increase. The higher share count also affected this quarter's results on a per share basis. Moving to EWC on Slide 7. As-reported earnings were $1.08, approximately $3 higher than a year ago. This is largely the result of higher returns on decommissioning trust investments during the quarter, favorable tax items and lower asset write-offs and impairment charges. On Slide 8, you can see that operating cash flow in the quarter was $699 million, $173 million higher than a year ago. The biggest driver was the lower amount of unprotected excess ADIT returned to customers. Another offsetting key driver was an incremental $200 million contribution to our pension trust, made possible by the strong cash flows in 2019. Now turning to the full year on Slide 9. Entergy adjusted EPS for 2019 was $5.40, $0.11 higher than for 2018. These results exceeded the midpoint of both our original and our revised guidance ranges. Utility-adjusted EPS on Slide 10 was $6.95 in 2019, $0.07 higher than 2018. While the magnitudes are different, the drivers for the annual increase were the same as for the quarter I just reviewed. Slide 11 summarizes EWC as-reported earnings, which were $0.74 for full year 2019. Gains on the decommissioning trust fund investments, lower asset write-offs and impairment charges and lower operating expenses were the main drivers. Partially offsetting this increase was lower revenue, primarily due to the shutdown and sale of Pilgrim. Full year operating cash flow, shown on Slide 12, was approximately $2.8 billion, $432 million higher than last year. The most significant driver was an approximately $300 million reduction in the unprotected excess ADIT returned to customers. 2019 results also benefited from increased collections for fuel and purchase power cost recovery at Utility, and lower revenues at EWC partially offset the increase. Moving to Slide 13. Our 2020 adjusted EPS guidance range is $5.45 to $5.75 with a midpoint of $5.60. This and our 2021 and 2022 outlook ranges remain the same as our outlook at EEI. We continue to target a 5% to 7% annual growth rate for adjusted earnings per share. A few of the key drivers for 2020 earnings growth are summarized on Slide 14. Starting on the top line, a full year of 2019 rate activity at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi will contribute to 2020's growth as well as Entergy Arkansas' new rates that were effective in January of this year. We will also make FRP filings in Mississippi, New Orleans and Louisiana, and we expect the Lake Charles Power Station to go into service during the second quarter, with rate recovery in the month following its in-service date. Additionally, our project sales volume in 2020 is expected to increase year-over-year -- our projected sales volume in 2020 is expected to increase year-over-year, driven by strong industrial sales growth of approximately 5.5%. This is partly offset by slightly negative residential and commercial sales volume. We continue to expect volatility in industrial sales from quarter-to-quarter as new and expansion customers ramp up operations. Overall, we see about 2% positive sales growth for 2020. We project Utility O&M to be approximately $2.6 billion, in line with our previous disclosures and about $30 million higher than 2019. This is driven by pension expense and items offset in revenue, such as energy efficiency and storm reserves. Smaller amount is due to a full year of St. Charles and Choctaw as well as the Lake Charles Power Station coming online. Depreciation and interest expense are also expected to increase as we expect -- as we continue to grow our business through productive investments to benefit our customers and our communities. On a per share basis, we expect our average share count to be 201 million shares as a result of settling the remainder of our equity forward mid-year 2019. Finally, our cash and credit metrics as of the end of the year, as shown on Slide 15. Our parent debt to total debt is 21.6%, and our FFO to debt is 14.6%. This includes the effect of returning $300 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers over the last 12 months. Excluding this give-back and certain items related to our exit of EWC, FFO to debt would have been 16.8%. While we still have some unprotected excess ADIT remaining, we have returned over $1 billion to our customers, and the bulk of the credit impact is now behind us. We remain committed to our credit targets, including at or above 15% for FFO to debt by 2020, and below 25% for parent debt to total debt as well as maintaining our investment-grade profile. I'd also like to note that our finalized capital plan is in the appendix of our materials. Our capital plan through 2022 continues to grow and now totals nearly $12 billion, led by incremental transmission investment in Louisiana and Texas. The financing framework for our capital plan has not changed since 2018, and we don't see a need for equity until 2021. Now that we are in 2020, we are actively considering the timing and method to fill that need in a manner that best supports our financial goals. As Leo mentioned, 2019 was a very successful year for our company. The fundamentals that support the steady predictable growth of our business are strong. And as we continue to optimize our efficiencies through continuous improvement, technology and innovation, we see an opportunity to take our business to the next level. We are excited about the growth ahead. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Shar Pourezza with Guggenheim Partners.
Constantine Lednev:
It's actually Constantine here for Shar. Congratulations on a great quarter.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Constantine Lednev:
You talked about some of these innovative capital deployment programs that kind of you're putting in place. And I just wanted to kind of get a little bit of an idea for how big do you see the opportunities for all of the electrification and kind of customer solutions. And how does that fit within the plan that was presented at EEI?
Leo Denault:
As far as the plan, there's very little in there. We have added some dollars when we went through the process at the end of the second quarter where we had some continuous improvement opportunities, and then we put money back into the business for all of our stakeholders. There was some level of that from the KeyString Labs sort of initiatives, but there's very little in the plan really at this point for those opportunities. It's a little early for us to start to size it up. As the year goes on and we start to develop more, we will. But our view is that at the end of the day, the distribution side of the business and these customer solutions will be the fastest-growing part of our business. Customer solutions could include all kinds of electrification. If you look at, for example, Louisiana, the industry is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind transportation with utilities, third, which is a little bit different than it is in the rest of the country given the nature and the size of the industrial complex in Louisiana. So across all of our footprint, we see a significant amount of opportunity in the electrification space, once we work beyond shore power and into manufacturing processes and even transportation sector. So that could get significant over time as we go forward. And there's a lot of other things that they're going to be able to do in addition to what we've already done in solar, in addition to what we're already doing in backup generators. As I mentioned, while we put the footprint of AMI, EAM, customer digital and all of those other technological improvements that we do on the system, we get significant amounts of data that will allow KeyString Labs and the rest of the company to actually create products and services based on that. So it's too early to size what -- to size it up and give you any numbers. But if you go 5, 10 years down the road, we think that it's going to be pretty significant.
Constantine Lednev:
Wonderful. Just one quick follow-up is on the numbers for kind of sales volume in 2019, seemed a little bit weaker and a little bit weak on the industrial sales and just the customer count. Can you comment on what you're seeing in terms of just economic activity? And kind of how does that play into '20 -- going into 2020?
Andrew Marsh:
Sure. This is Drew. The fundamental strength that we have that are sort of built into our service area are still in place in terms of the low costs down here from an energy perspective, our low rates, the welcoming communities for industrial growth, the access to the river and the infrastructure and labor and everything else. So all those things are still in place. And so we continue to see an opportunity going forward that would allow us to continue to grow on the industrial base. Talking about 2019 versus 2020. We've talked about over the course of 2019, how some of our key customers that we were expecting to ramp up were not able to ramp up as fast as we anticipated. But we still expect them to be there. And so that's contributing to kind of the year-over-year expectations for 2020 as well as on the smaller industrial customer size base. There was quite a bit of rain in Arkansas, so a number of our customers in -- that normally do pumping for agricultural use on an industrial scale weren't there. But we expect them to be back in 2020, barring -- assuming a normal weather condition up in Arkansas. So that's really what's driving kind of the change year-over-year and kind of the softness in 2019. And I'll let Rod talk a little bit about sort of the -- where we actually see customers going forward.
Roderick West:
I think we commented during the last quarter that our confidence in the outlook comes from the fact that our growth expectations stem from our ability to actually identify specific projects, and we know exactly who those customers are. Over the last several years, we've improved our capacity to engage those customers, giving us greater visibility and insight through various aspects of their project development cycle, from concept to financial investment decision. And so when we give you our outlook, it's a probability-weighted assessment of the timing of those projects coming online and the associated load and financial implications. So our outlooks are still strong, and we can tie our expectations in the near term to specific firms within different industrial segments. So we still have clarity. Admittedly, they sometimes come in lumpy over the course of quarter-over-quarter. But our confidence is still high in the industrial outlooks driving our growth.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So perhaps to pick up on some of the commentary, Leo. Can you elaborate a little bit more on some of the customer-centric angles? And specifically, what I'm getting at is, I think some of your commissioners in Louisiana specifically have talked about some more direct access. And I don't mean direct access in the competitive sense, but more in terms of procurement choices. I'm just curious, should we expect something along the lines of green tariffs or something like that to sort of enable another angle here? I don't want to lead the witness too much, but I'm just curious on that angle. And then separately, Leo, you also talked about the resource portfolio at large. From what I understand, I think there's a retirement study ongoing. And I just wanted to understand a little bit as to how that might play out more specifically in terms of dockets, and how we see sort of the planning process play more specifically out in the near -- medium term, rather.
Leo Denault:
Okay. Well, let me try and keep up with that question or that series of questions. As far as the customer solutions area goes, it's wide-ranging across all of our customer segments. So we've done low-income rooftop solar in -- out of KeyString Labs. We've done backup generation for small industrial and commercial. At the utility level, we're engaging with our larger industrial customers across a variety of different ways to interact with them to help them do business better. We have been investigating green tariffs. We have been investigating community solar. We are looking at a whole host of other types of products and services that provide us the opportunity to give our customers the outcomes they desire. If you think about a customer utility function, it goes beyond just -- and I don't mean electric utility, but from an economic standpoint, it goes beyond just the low-cost provision of highly reliable power. It goes beyond that in terms of what their objectives are in terms of what they want to do with that consumption. So if they have a sustainability objective, in addition to just selling them electricity, we want to help our customers with that sustainability objective. So hence, that's where you get into a position where you electrify a sector. In the shore power arena, as I mentioned, just there, we help those customers meet their sustainability objectives and, quite honestly, a way that meets their needs at a lower cost. And so that's a very, very important way for us to serve the customer while we serve the communities, while we enhance our sustainability footprint in theirs and make them more competitive in their businesses. So in terms of specifics, Julien, across that, products and services will be developed out of innovation by working with our customers in a different way than we have before, because technology, data, information, analytics allow us that capability in ways that weren't available. And the more technologies we put on the system, the more availability we'll have on that data and that information and our ability to actually make that happen. So the reason we're so excited about it is, it's pretty wide-ranging in terms of what we're going to do for different segments of the residential class versus different segments of the commercial class versus different -- in specific customers in the industrial space. So that's about as specific as I really want to get at the moment on that. As far as the resource plan goes, we're obviously constantly in the mode of evaluating what the resource plan looks like going forward in all of our jurisdictions. And as we see technologies change, our view of what those resources could be broadens. And so from the standpoint of, say, what type of technology choices we make, whether they be on the energy efficiency side, on the side of renewables, gas or what-have-you, we have the opportunity to expand that footprint. And as technology improves, and renewables and battery and other storage technologies become more economic and more operable, we'll see more of those show up in the system. And it's our anticipation that we will continue to provide 3 things for our customers through the resource plan. One is operability. When they turn on the lights, they come on. That's obviously a ticket to play. We continue to want to be one of the lowest-cost providers in the United States that helps our competitive position and it helps the economic development of the service territory, which obviously creates a good business cycle for us. And then we want to help ourselves, our communities and our customers meet their sustainability objectives. We're going to do all 3 of those, and we're going to optimize those to the extent practical. So that means taking advantage of all of the technologies out there in the most efficient way we can. I don't know if Rod wants to add anything to that, I hope.
Roderick West:
Yes. I mean I would only add that in Louisiana, we'll be making filings with the commission relative to green tariff options that we want the commission to consider in response to some of the sustainability objectives of our industrial customers. But that's an ongoing conversation that falls right in line with the comments you just made, Leo.
Andrew Marsh:
And we have a retirement study to do after the St. Charles project goes in service that will address some of the things that Leo was talking about.
Leo Denault:
Forgot about that one.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Praful Mehta with Citigroup.
Praful Mehta:
So Leo, on the generation side, you had mentioned that you have opportunities for more generation projects going forward. Just wanted to understand, is that from load growth driven, or the 5%, 6% goal that you have currently that you plan to retire? What's kind of driving the new generation opportunities? And what kind of fuel mix are you looking for as you go forward in the new generation?
Leo Denault:
The generation opportunities are similar to what we've discussed in the past. We still see a need to transform our fleet from the older, less efficient generation to new, cleaner, more efficient way to provide power. And our perspective on the mix hasn't changed from where we were at EEI that if we look 22 million to 30 million in that 7,000- to 8,000-megawatt range, and we think that based on where technology is going and what we could foresee that roughly half of that could be renewables. The way we're going to fill that out is going to be specific to those 3 points that I made a minute ago, has to be the right operational characteristics at the right cost with the right sustainability footprint. Our objective is to optimize that as much as possible. And so as we've discussed before, as we get closer to each one of those resource choices, to the extent renewables, storage, technologies and other factors have made those more operable and cost-effective, they become a bigger part of the resource mix. That doesn't change how much capacity we need because we need to provide the service we need to provide and the age of the fleet is what it is. And as I mentioned, we have plans for retirement of the majority of the coal resources that are out there, and we're looking at what to do with the others. So that, plus old gas fleet that still needs to be refreshed, all go into the mix.
Praful Mehta:
Got it. Second question or a follow-up on the equity needs point. Drew, I think you mentioned or at least at EEI, you had a range of 5% to 10%. Now you're saying you're at the upper end of that, so closer to the 10%. Just wanted to understand what's driving that equity need going up a little bit. And is that a little bit of managing the credit as well? Just wanted to understand that driver.
Andrew Marsh:
Sure, Praful. So I think that's probably in part, part of what it is. Nothing has changed relative to where we said in 2018 from our plan. And I think there is -- there's some credit considerations, there's our earnings considerations. All those are part of what we are working through. And also, the capital plan itself has grown over the -- has grown since EEI's, grew last summer, so it's been growing as well. And as Leo has been talking about, there is the potential for considerably more equity needs -- or capital needs out in the future. So I think all of those things are factoring into how we're thinking about where the equity might land when we go to fill that need in 2021.
Praful Mehta:
Got it. And finally, any performance, the outperformance that you had in your decommissioning trust especially on Indian Point? I'm assuming that doesn't accrue to Entergy because that was part of like the deal that was struck in terms of the sale of Indian Point, correct?
Andrew Marsh:
That's correct. So the trust fund at Indian Point is whole tax responsibility in terms of the level that it's at. And that will help be part of the NRC proceeding that is underway right now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Sophie Karp:
Congrats on the quarter.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Sophie.
Sophie Karp:
I just wanted to talk a little bit more about cash flows and balance sheet. Obviously, the OCF metric and the leverage metrics are improving, and that's very encouraging. Where might we see maybe a positive surprise there? Or where is the room for a change versus your -- what you're anticipating right now? Maybe it's a pension as it relates to performance of the pension assets. Or nearly maybe a surprise to load growth. Can you just walk us a little bit more sort of the puts and takes and what might affect the trajectory of the improvement here either way?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. So there's a couple of drivers out there that have been helpful in 2019. One was at EWC. Our cash flows came in a little bit better than we anticipated. The team there has done a great job managing costs and identifying ways to reduce capital needs as we transition towards shutting down those plants. So that's been very positive. We had some very positive working capital developments in Utility, and we may see some more of that this year because of lower fuel prices. So that's been helpful. Of course, the performance of the pension trust has been good. But at the same time, interest rates have been coming down and raising the liability. And so we actually -- our liability went up about $1 billion from $7.4 billion to $8.4 billion last year, solely because of interest rates dropping over 100 basis points. Our delta between our assets and -- our assets went up as well. Our delta stayed about the same, around $2 billion year-over-year. So we weren't able to make up as much ground as we were hoping given the positive performance. But we did -- we were able because of some of the positive cash flows, as I mentioned in my remarks, able to put some incremental cash into the pension trust, about $200 million more than we planned at the beginning of the year. We did that at the end of the year. So that will help continue to derisk that pension liability. So those are kind of some of the drivers. And some of those is what I would expect to continue to be opportunities going forward in terms of the potential for lower fuel prices, helping our working capital and potentially some incremental room at EWC as well. And none of that takes into consideration some of the things that Leo was talking about around continuous improvement. If we can find incremental headroom through continuous improvement on our cash flows, then we can put that to work, either with incremental investments to benefit our customers or other investments to create value for all our stakeholders.
Sophie Karp:
Got it. And the follow-up I have is on Indian Point. So we've seen the objection filings by the New York Attorney General. Can you just walk us through how these proceedings typically are going to go? And how much way would be afforded to a party like that, I guess, in this proceeding? Like should we be worried about this?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. So the questions that the New York Attorney General are asking are the same ones that we have addressed in the proceedings at the NRC for both Vermont Yankee and for Pilgrim, and namely there around the financial and technical capabilities of Holtec to, in this case, to do the work of decommissioning. And that's really -- that is what the NRC is addressing. That is there, what they're accountable for figuring out in the proceeding. And so I think that will be a good forum to address those questions. And we are confident -- I'll add, we're confident that Holtec will be able to answer those. They've already answered them successfully into other proceedings, one with us around Pilgrim, and then, of course, Oyster Creek.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore.
Gregory Gordon:
I feel like you may have indirectly answered most of this. But when I look at the slide deck from EEI and just compared to the slide deck now as you refined your guidance, the -- in particular, O&M costs, I think we're only expected to be up $0.10, more or less at EEI. Now they're up $0.25. And I think that's in part due to a lower pension discount rate. You used 4% as a placeholder. And the last deck you're using just under 3.4% now. And I also -- you've pointed out that a lot of those increased costs are probably offset by increased revenues. So can you -- am I capturing all that? Or am I missing something?
Andrew Marsh:
I think you're on the right track, Greg. It's true. The pension discount rate did come down lower than what we were anticipating when we were talking at EEI. And so that was -- of the incremental O&M, that was probably 40% of the delta. Also, there's another 40% is associated with things that are offset in the top line. Energy efficiency, storm reserve changes that at the bottom line will be a net 0. And then, of course, there are little -- there are a few odds and ends, but those dollars add up to something really small. So I think all in all, and actually, I would say, we're overall, we're in line with what we were expecting, $2.6 billion in Utility. And we've talked about trying to keep it flat at around $2.65 billion going forward is what we discussed last summer. So we've managed to work against all of those things that move the O&M up a little bit, but it's still within the expectations that we had overall.
Gregory Gordon:
Yes, that's a good answer. And then as I compare the expected rate actions from the fall till now, it looks like on the margin, your -- maybe I missed it, but the DCRF and TCRF filing and the AMI riders filing, those weren't explicitly included in retail price actions in the fall deck and they're included now. So those are modest increase in regulatory activity versus the fall plan? Or were those always anticipated, but just maybe not called out explicitly?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. I think we were anticipating that we were going to do those things, but we hadn't explicitly called them out.
Gregory Gordon:
Okay, great. And then in terms of the CapEx plan, obviously, it's up modestly through '22, but 2 gigawatts of potential incremental opportunities. I mean look, I'm just going to spitball at $1,000 a kilowatt. I mean is it right to think about that as long as you can -- most importantly, as long as you can sort of pencil out that those incremental capital expenditures drive customer benefits? Is that -- am I right that, that could be up to a $2 billion increase in CapEx? And over what time frame might that be?
Andrew Marsh:
Absolutely. It's a big opportunity for us. We've talked about the capital plan is inching towards a $4 billion average. At this point, if we look beyond our capital horizon 2022, I would expect that it would be up above $4 billion. And all the things that you're talking about are going to be a piece of that opportunity. That's on the generation side. I mean Leo was saying that the biggest opportunity is on the other end of the value chain, at the distribution end and the customer services, that's where the biggest growth opportunity, we think, will ultimately be. So there is significant capital opportunity out there for us. But the thing that you said is really what we are working through, which is how do we make sure that we can create value for our customers and really all of our stakeholders while we put this capital to work and do it in a way that allows our customers to manage this through their bills. And that's kind of the key to this whole thing and all the continuous improvement and the innovation, the new products and services, the leveraging of technology, creating headroom in those bills. That's what we're after. And we see opportunities for that in a significant way down the road.
Gregory Gordon:
Hey, Leo, I've got a question for you that you're probably not going to want to answer, but I'll ask it anyway. There is -- with the opportunities you have in hand, just organically, it would seem to me that you guys control your own destiny. But you've always said that you've been open to better ideas about the strategic direction of the company. Is that just brain damage at this point because you've got so much opportunity organically? Or with the right -- what would the set of circumstances have to be for you to want to be distracted enough by a strategic offer to consider it?
Leo Denault:
I think the criteria are the same. Certainly, we, as a management team and the board, are open to -- and I think you characterized it correctly, better ideas. So if there is a way to advance the ball beyond what we think we can do, the way we're configured today, we will investigate it. In addition to it having to be something that does advance the ball, it has to be transactable both with the counterparty and through the regulatory process. Because there's no point going forward if you can't get along well enough to go through the process. And if you can't get the process completed, there's -- obviously, that's -- it doesn't matter how good the idea is, if it can't get done, it doesn't matter. And then you did also bring up the third thing that we always discuss, and that's distraction is, in our industry, because of the way the process works, it takes 18 to 24 months to get something done. Are you distracted during that time frame from doing the things that got you to the point where we are today in such a way that if you don't get across the goal line or even if you do, you've lost so much ground that it doesn't make it worth it? If you can solve that puzzle, then our stance would continue to be that it is worthwhile. We do have, in my opinion, the most attractive stand-alone plan that we've ever had for all 4 of our stakeholders. We have significant amount of opportunity to improve the level of service and the way we serve our customers. We have a significant opportunity to continue sustainability objectives and our community building across the environmental, the education, workforce training, eradication of poverty, space or anything to provide value for our communities. We continue to have an opportunity to expand our culture in a way that engages our employees the way they've never been before. And certainly, all of that results in the investment profile that grows the business for certainly, our shareholders. So it's a pretty high bar in that first part about can you actually have a better idea that advances the ball enough to make it worth doing. That doesn't mean we don't look at it. It doesn't mean we wouldn't be open to it. It just means that I think now the bar is as high as it's been in that front.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.
Michael Lapides:
Real quickly, can you remind us what the stated retirement dates are for some of your coal units? I'm thinking larger ones like White Bluffs and then some of the smaller ones, independents, Nelson, et cetera.
Leo Denault:
Yes. The Arkansas units, Michael, are part of that settlement that gets us to the -- by the end of 2030. Yes.
Michael Lapides:
Okay. Is there a scenario where -- especially given the economics of coal versus gas versus solar, where you would fast forward or move up the retirement dates, which might create a little bit of a capacity need, but also may potentially create customer savings?
Leo Denault:
I mentioned in my script that in addition to what we're doing, we were looking at what to do with the rest of the fleet. There is that kind of analysis going on, on a regular basis. We look at all of the resources we have and what's the right balance between spending the money required to keep them operating versus replacement. And so that's on the table. At this point in time, we haven't made that call.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. My other question is on the nuclear side. And can you talk a little bit about the dispatch economics, all-in economics for your nuclear fleet in the southeast? And just how you're thinking about those plants and kind of where they sit economically on the dispatch. Or as we've seen in other parts of the country, both regulated and nonregulated, we've seen some nuclear retirements. And trying to just think about the -- is it even the nuclear units that we should be thinking about as fleet transformation over time?
Andrew Marsh:
Michael, this is Drew. And so in regards of where it sits in the dispatch stack, is it's low, right? They have run days, run all the time. They have low variable costs. And so they are going to run all the time. We do know about the economics, and we've talked about that in the Northeast, obviously, with the shutdown of our EWC fleet. But there are many reasons why you might want to continue to operate your nuclear fleet that are very, very important from a quality perspective. And you can evaluate those more effectively in a utility setting than you can in a merchant power market where all that matters is that marginal electrons price. So when you talk about -- and you see folks supporting nuclear plants in those unregulated power markets for these same reasons, right? You're talking about clean generation that supports the grid. It's always available. It diversifies the portfolio. It provides good tax base, so there's a lot of jobs and communities and a lot of active volunteering coming out of these plants that have a lot of employees. So there's a lot of policy reasons why you want to keep a nuclear plant around. But it's hard to evaluate those in a merchant setting. And you see people doing that already in Illinois and parts of New York and other places. You can do that more easily in a rate-regulated framework to evaluate those characteristics.
Michael Lapides:
Understood. And then last question, where do you think you stand when you benchmark yourself on P&D costs, either on a per line mile or per customer or whatever you all think the most appropriate metric is? Kind of where do you think you stand versus the peer group? And how do you think about the path to kind of getting the top decile?
Leo Denault:
Well, it's a tricky metric to be making broad generalizations about the peer group, because the peer group would have to be somebody whose service territory characteristics mirror ours. So there's a big difference between people who are in urban dense versus rural versus mountainous versus swampy versus all of any other things that make that up. It doesn't mean we don't do it. It doesn't mean we don't compare favorably in a lot of respects, but we need to go beyond just those benchmarks, Michael, and get into what can we do to continuously improve ourselves once we get outside of the plant level, because there's too many variables to just make broad generalizations. I wouldn't think, even if we are top decile, that we wouldn't be able to find ways to improve.
Operator:
And our final question will come from Jonathan Arnold with Vertical Research.
Jonathan Arnold:
Can you give us a little preview of what kinds of things we might expect you to do at the Analyst Day? I mean obviously, you've talked about a lot of evolving opportunities at the margin. But more specifically, do you think you'll roll forward your outlook to '23? Are you going to continue giving these multiyear outlooks? Is that the plan? But just a sense of what we should be practical opportunity.
Leo Denault:
Yes. I think, Jonathan, as I mentioned in my remarks, we'll go out. Typically, the way the process has worked for us, we've historically done an Analyst Day every other year. And when we do it, we roll out kind of a 5-year look versus the every-odd-year roll-out, 3-year look, I guess. So I would anticipate that we would do that, obviously, give a little bit more ability to dive into what we're doing in terms of all the things that we've been talking about here, maybe turn, work hard on what those opportunities look like and what they might be and gives us a little more time to get into a little bit more detail that way. But I think kind of just more discussion around the opportunity set in front of us. Again, I mentioned it in my prepared remarks, we have a pretty good base here with some of the lowest rates in the country, one of the cleanest fleets in the country, some of the only industrial growth in the country, some of the best regulatory mechanisms in the country. And no shortage of opportunities to invest on behalf of our customers to increase the level of service that they get, while we manage the bill path to be at or below the level of inflation. And so just looking at the outlooks that we provided you here, that's a -- and again, in my estimation, one of the best positions we've been in as a company. But that doesn't mean we are not looking for ways to do better because our team keeps coming up with more investment opportunities for us to make on behalf of our customers that could improve that level of service more, whether it's in the traditional things about sustainability and reliability or whether it's in some of these newer areas where we start to talk about customer solutions, where we're getting closer and closer and closer to providing them outcomes rather than just inputs. So the idea of continuous improvement to provide the headroom that allows us to get there and improve things, I think, is a great challenge for us. And continuous improvement takes many forms, whether it's continuous improvement through RPA and utilization of our supply chain, shared service and IT functions to actually drive costs out of the business, while we upscale, actually, the level of performance or whether it's in economic development and new load growth that isn't in the plan today, that helps drive costs down for the rest of the customers. Or just the fact that gas prices continue to be lower than what we typically project them to be. If you look at the forward curve, you're out 4, 5 years, you're still at sub $2.50 gas and that's a great opportunity for us to benefit our customers.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. Well, keep up the great execution and look forward to hearing more about it in June.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Jonathan.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to management for any further remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Sherry, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on March 2, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accounted -- accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of our -- of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participant lines are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today’s conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone, who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than question and one follow-up. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. We are pleased to report third quarter adjusted earnings per share of $2.52. Drew will go over the details, but the bottom line is that these are strong results that allow us to raise our 2019 guidance midpoint by $0.05 and narrow the range. We also remain firmly on track to achieve our longer-term outlooks. With three quarters behind us, we’ve completed many of our key deliverables for the year to keep us on track to achieve our goal to be the premier utility, including a few important milestones this quarter. Furthering our orderly exit from EWC in late August, the NRC approved our license transfer application for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. And shortly after that we completed the sale to subsidiary of Holtec International. This is the second sale that we have successfully completed of a non-operating nuclear plant and the third in the industry. This is also the second time the NRC has determined that Holtec has the financial and technical capabilities to decommission nuclear plants. As a reminder, we have agreements to sell our last two remaining merchant nuclear plants to Holtec. We’ve also had significant accomplishments at the utility. Providing added clarity to our investment plan, the Mississippi Public Service Commission approved our proposal to purchase the Choctaw generation station. We expect to close the transaction soon. The commission’s order also included a stipulation supporting timely and full cost recovery of the asset. We expect the plan to be included in rates with minimal lag similar to how we have recovered costs of past acquisitions in Mississippi. Purchasing this clean and modern 810 megawatt combined cycle natural gas turbine is a good outcome for our stakeholders and is expected to result in approximately $100 million in net benefits for Entergy Mississippi’s customers. We also have a solid track record of completing major generation projects on time and on budget or better, supported by a solid capital projects management team. We are on track with Lake Charles Power Station and New Orleans Power Station, which are expected to come online next year. Montgomery County Power Station in Texas is also on schedule and expected to come online in mid-2021. On the renewables front, construction has begun on one of the largest solar facilities currently planned for Louisiana. Capital Region Solar is a 50-megawatt solar project being built in West Baton Rouge Parish. Once completed, the facility will offset the equivalent of nearly 19,000 passenger vehicles emissions each year. We will purchase the output under a 20-year agreement. We are working with our regulators to expand and customize our portfolio of renewable energy solutions to meet our customers’ expectations and to achieve our sustainability goals. Turning to regulatory proceedings. Entergy Louisiana’s new rates became effective in September. The company’s annual FRP evaluation provides a simpler process, the lines, rates and costs, better than traditional rate cases. In Arkansas, we have reached an unopposed settlement on the company’s annual FRP, which we are filing today. The settlement is in line with our initial expectations. We anticipated final decision from the Arkansas Commission by the end of the year. In New Orleans, the City – the Council Utility Committee issued a resolution that if adopted, would set a revenue requirement that is below what we believe to be just in reasonable for Entergy New Orleans and our customers. We continue to work with council members to reach a fair outcome when the council takes up the matter in early November. This continued progress on regulatory proceedings is an important component of our success as it improves clarity on the recoverability of our investments and solidifies our financial commitments. Another growing part of our company that we are excited about is our innovation center. This group is developing product and service concepts to meet the evolving expectations of our utility customers and the communities we serve. The team employees are rigorous work process focused on exploring customer frictions and feedback, product design, market opportunities and more. For example, last quarter, I highlighted Entergy New Orleans new program that puts solar panels on low income customers’ homes. Under this program, Entergy will install the rooftop solar system at no cost to the customers and give them a credit on their monthly bills. That idea came out of our innovation team. Another concept developed that is now being implemented is a customer sited backup generation solution for commercial and small industrial customers. The generators will be owned by Entergy and would allow those businesses to operate as usual during widespread outages. For example, retail businesses would be able to provide services to the general public during significant weather events. In other times, when needed, the resource can be deployed by the utility, which benefits all customers. Entergy owned customers cited generation is an innovative win-win solution. It provides an economic alternative to businesses to remain open when our communities need them most and it provides us the utility and had a resource when the system needs it. Entergy Texas recently announced a pilot of this concept in its service area and Entergy Mississippi has a filing pending before the public service commission. Our plan is to eventually implement this idea that all operating companies. Innovation and new technologies will be an important part of our business as we continue to explore solutions to improve our customers’ everyday lives. As many of you know, there have been three significant storms in the last few months. Hurricane Dorian made landfall on the East Coast in early September. Entergy sent nearly 500 workers to the Carolina coast to help with the restoration efforts. Then a few weeks later, Tropical Storm Imelda made landfall in Texas, bringing 20 inches to 40 inches of rain over the impacted service area. We deployed more than 1000 workers, both from Entergy and from other utilities. At the peak, we had approximately 38,000 customers without power. Service was restored to 95% of our customers within four days. Just this past weekend, Tropical Storm Olga moved through Louisiana. The storm brought heavy rain and winds in excess of 50 miles per hour. At its peak, Olga have disrupted electric service to more than 92,000 customers. The storm team of more than 1,000 workers restored the vast majority of outages within two days. Entergy employees have a long history of working together after natural disasters. They work to restore power for our customers and to assist our communities after an event. They also help co-workers, who are impacted. In addition to volunteer support, the company has established employee assistance funds to provide financial assistance for affected employees. Providing support in times of need, whether manpower or financial contributions, is important. Ongoing efforts that support our communities are also vital to our success. In September for the twelfth consecutive year, site selection magazine named Entergy as one of the nation’s top utilities in the economic development. Entergy plays a vital role in the economic development efforts across our service area, which brings business, jobs and community support to our States. Sustainability is a key focus here at Entergy. Once again, we were named to the Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index. We are very proud of this achievement. DJSI is one of the most respected independent sustainability measures in the world. We are the only electric utility to receive this honor 18 years in a row and for the past five years, we have made a perfect score in the climate strategy category. To be named to this respected list year-after-year is a clear acknowledgement of Entergy’s commitment to implementing sustainability practices that serve our customers, employees, communities, and our owners. Last Friday, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.93 per share. This is the fifth straight year of steady, predictable growth in our dividend and with this declaration; we will pay a total of $3.66 per share in common dividends this year, just under 70% payout at our guidance midpoint. As we mentioned last quarter, we expect to grow our dividend each year and plan to increase the growth to be more in line with our earnings starting in 2021. This has been another successful quarter for our company and our stakeholders as we continue to execute on our path to be the premier utility in every aspect of our business. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country, the States we serve benefit from strong industrial growth. We are an industry leader in sustainability. We invest in our communities and we invest in our employees and our culture. The fundamentals that underlie our steady, predictable growth are strong. First, we have a robust capital plan, which benefits our customers and supports the growth of the business and economic development in our communities. We have no shortage of investment opportunities beyond our current forecast period. As the utility with some of the lowest rates in the country, we always remain diligent in managing the cost impact to our customers and we’ll continue to do so. Second, we have constructive regulatory mechanisms, which give us the opportunity for fair and timely recovery of our capital plan. As we’ve noted in the past, we have a unique line of sight with approximately 90% of our capital plan ready for execution from a regulatory perspective and approximately, 90% expected to be recovered through annual FRPs and riders. And third, we have a proven track record and ability to execute on major capital projects with cost and schedule certainty. This clear line of sight on our ability to execute our capital plan on time and on budget, combined with the progressive regulatory mechanisms that ensured timely recovery of our investments, supports our outlooks today. And as we continue to identify sources of customers’ savings including O&M and production cost efficiencies, energy efficiency, and industrial growth, we aspire to do even better. And we’ll now turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo mentioned, we had another successful quarter and with our strong results, we are raising the midpoint of our 2019 guidance by $0.05 and narrowing the range. Also, we remain firmly on track to meet our longer-term outlooks. As you can see on Slide 4, on a per share basis, Entergy adjusted earnings were $2.52, $0.17 higher than the third quarter of 2018, including the effective dilution. Turning to Slide 5, rate actions in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas contributed positively to the quarter’s results at the higher sales volume in the unbilled period. Overall, revenue was a little higher than we anticipated due to weather. Billed sales volume declined versus last year, which was in part due to fewer days billed, volume in the unbilled period was positive as they captured the offset, the fewer days billed as well as warmer weather at the end of September. Other drivers for the quarter’s results included regulatory charges last year, included regulatory charges last year to return the benefits and the lower federal tax rate to customers, higher other O&M due largely to higher spending on information technology and customer initiatives including distribution operations, partially offset by lower nuclear cost. Drivers related to our growth such as higher depreciation expense including the St. Charles Power Station, which came online at the end of may. Lower decommissioning trust fund returns. And lastly, the higher share count affected this quarter’s results on a per share basis. Looking at EWC on Slide 6 as reported earnings were $1.27 per share lower than the prior year. Drivers for the quarter included the absence of tax items recorded in the third quarter of 2018, lower revenue due to the shutdown of Pilgrim as well as lower capacity pricing, lower decommissioning trust fund returns and higher asset write-offs and impairment charges related to the sale of Pilgrim. Partially offsetting the decrease was lower other O&M due to lower spending on nuclear operations and looking ahead, we still expect EWC to provide slightly positive net cash to parent from 2019 through 2022. Going to Slide 7, operating cash flow for the quarter was $1.065 billion, a $286 million increase from a year ago. The change was driven by a lower amount of unprotected excess ADIT returned to customers, lower pension contributions, and lower ARO spending at EWC, partially offsetting were higher severances and retention payments at EWC. Turning to our guidance and outlooks on Slide 8. For 2019, we raised midpoint to $5.35 as a result of whether returning back to normal for the year and mitigating strategies we put in place earlier in the year. We expect our results to come in around the midpoint of our updated range. Our targeted adjusted EPS growth remains at 5% to 7% off of our original 2019 guidance midpoint. Our outlooks include a new year, 2022, which is in line with this growth rate. More information will be available in our EEI materials. Moving to our credit metrics on Slide 9, our parent debt to total debt is 20.5% and our FFO to debt is 14.2%. this includes the effects of returning $469 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers over the last 12 months. Excluding this give back and certain items related to our exit of EWC, FFO to debt would be 17.6% or we still have to return some unprotected excess ADIT to customers. I’m happy to report that the bulk of the credit impact is now behind us. We remain committed to our targets of at/or above 15% for FFO – for FFO to debt by 2020 and below 25% for parent debt to total debt as well as maintaining our investment grade profile. This was another successful quarter with strong results. We were able to raise our 2019 guidance midpoint and we are firmly on track to achieve longer-term outlooks. We continued to execute on our plan to deliver steady, projectable growth in earnings and dividends through customer centric investments. and as Leo mentioned, we aspire to do even better as we continue to develop our culture of continuous improvement. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question is from Praful Mehta from Citi. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Thanks so much. Hi guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Praful.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Praful.
Praful Mehta:
Good morning. Congrats on a good quarter. So, I just wanted to first understand in terms of nuclear operations, I know we haven’t touched it – touched on it in awhile, just wanted to see where it stands today a lot of operations and are there any other NRC items to be watched right now?
Leo Denault:
Hey, Praful. this is Leo. Effectively, everything is on track with what we’ve laid out a couple of years ago in terms of spending, staffing, capital investments in the plants. And so the performance is as we would expect. I think the last remaining thing you’ll see from a NRC standpoint is the return of Grand Gulf to Column 1, using Column 2 at the moment, but we would anticipate that that would happen this year. Other than that, it’s just a continuation of the plan we should start to see a leveling off of the cost structure there I mean as we’ve mentioned before, given the fact that we’ve done the ramp out in staffing and put the processes and procedures in place that we need to keep things on track. So that’s kind of – that’s been the next thing that you’ll see publicly as I mentioned. Before I think on the last call, the – we have one more outage at Grand Gulf that would be considered part of the ketchup in terms of investment profile. So, it’ll be a long outage. Our next outage in 2020 in Grand Gulf will be the final one in terms of getting things back to where they need to be and then it’s just a continued decline to excellence.
Praful Mehta:
Got it. That’s super helpful, Leo. And then maybe, on the operating cash flow, it’s great to see this significant increase versus 2018, but I guess a part of that is the ADIT. Could you just talk about what portion of that increase was ADIT and what was just overall improvement in cash flow?
Drew Marsh:
Hey, Praful. this is Drew. Yes. So, on ADIT, it’s a little bit around $200 million, I think is the ADIT year-over-year element. And then a little bit of that is pension expense. The rest is continued improvement in our operating cash flow. And you could see that in our – well, you’ll be able to see that in our three-year outlook on operating cash flow for EEI. It's actually the ADIT piece rolls off. So in, in our three-year outlook, we should be back up over $10 billion when we get to EEI.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. And just a quick follow-up on that, which is, it’s great that the ADIT is rolling off, because I look at the effort for the debt and you’re still below your 15% target. So, I just wanted to see how that 15% target flows through over the next year or so once ADIT rolls off.
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So, by the end of next year, we should be at that – around that 50% level. And as you looked at the number this year without the – this quarter without the excess ADIT, and it is up actually over 17%. So, we are on track to move towards that target.
Praful Mehta:
Okay. Well, thanks so much guys and congrats again.
Leo Denault:
thanks, Praful.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, good morning team.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Julien.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So, perhaps just pick up off of Praful’s last questions here. Can you talk about through the forecast period, given the success that you see in this year in Arkansas, specifically in moderating the pace of just overall bill inflation in O&M, what you’re seeing to the forecast period as best you look at your plan today? I just want to understand how sustainable some of the more moderate trajectory overall rate inflation is against your current capital budget. Just want to revisit that in light of the success. And then perhaps, I’ll ask the second question at the same time, can you talk a little bit more about CapEx reflected in your outlook around both renewables in light of what AEP in Wind Catcher is doing in Arkansas and prospects to mirror that to any extent and also on – given your peers and MISO, if there’s been any change in transmission? I suspect not, but I’d figure I’d ask. So, a lot to throw at you, but I figured I’d get it out all at once.
Drew Marsh:
That was a very, very robust question, Julien. I’ll go ahead and start, and I’ll let others fill in our objective and we believe we’ll continue to meet it has been to keep our bill inflation level consistent with inflation. And as you recall, even last quarter when we – when we were able to come up with some continuous improvement ideas and change our capital plan, the bill path actually went down from where it would have otherwise been. So, we think we’re going to continue to be able to manage that with the current capital plan that we have going forward. On the – I’m not sure, I’m going to remember all of these, but I think on the renewables from a CapEx standpoint, we mentioned on the last – on the last call that we still see the need to replace the significant amount of our aging generation and that a portion of that will be gas, a portion of that could be renewables. We outlined a 7,000 to 8,000 megawatt need in a roughly 50/50 gas to renewables standpoint there. We’re not really doing anything outside of meeting our own customer’s needs with the generation that we’ve got. So – and that’s that 2022 to 2030 timeframe. So, that’s still, obviously, we’re adding some scale on the renewable front, but – and their scale economy is obviously first doing it. So, we continue to see that as a part of our resource plan, but it’s really just part of the resource plan like everything else given the fully integrated nature that we have. as far as transmission and expenditures, nothing’s really changed in that from the last quarter. I mean I’ll open it up to my team to correct me or – and I think I answered all the questions.
Leo Denault:
I don’t have anything to add.
Drew Marsh:
Okay.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Just to clarify quickly, I mean I suppose if I were to summarize what AEP's efforts in Arkansas seem to be with respect to Wind Catcher, it’s something of an acceleration given the tax credit regime and obviously, they’re focused on wind, depending on the receptivity from the commission and staff around those efforts on the second go around, could we see any pivot and how you guys are approaching the state and some of that resource need in the 2022 through 2030 period in light of the credit situation?
Drew Marsh:
Julien, this is drew. So, we are still looking – Leo mentioned that we have 4,000 megawatts that we have in various stages of development and that we are looking at scale and what does that mean to us. and as renewables become a bigger portion of our portfolio, we think that there might be opportunities for us to take scale into consideration and have – and use that as part of a program. I don’t know if that’s going to take the same path as perhaps AEP is taking. there isn’t – Leo mentioned, we want to have renewables near our customers. there isn’t a whole lot of wind. there may be – there may be more solar oriented. But we are thinking about that scale opportunity and what that might look like for us as well.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Fair enough. I’ll leave it there. Thank you all very much.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Greg Gordon from Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
Thanks. congratulations, you guys having a great year.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Greg Gordon:
A couple of questions. The call earlier today, I know it’s not your region, but – and you have different industrial drivers that they do, but Southern company was talking about how, they too are seeing a little bit of a slowdown and demand expectations versus their initial forecast. Can you sort of point to anything in particular that you’re seeing as it relates to perhaps, global economic conditions, trade war or other things that might be driving things on power demand to the – below your prior guidance range. You give pretty good sensitivities in your – in the appendix of how we should think about those impacts, should they deviate from the forecast. But then again, we also see that you’re under earning in Arkansas and there could be improvements there. So, as we think about how you sort of stay inside the skid sort of the high end or the low end of your guidance range through time. how are you adjusting to those conditions?
Drew Marsh:
Hi Greg. this is drew. And I’ll start and then rod can add in. The first thing I think from our perspective is that the macro fundamentals that we see that have been driving our industrial growth are still very much in place below inputs from an energy perspective, low gas prices, for example, our low power prices, the spreads of natural gas to oil or the spread geographically to Europe or Asia. those still remain very fundamentally sound along with, of course, some of our natural advantages here on the Gulf Coast, the access to the Gulf Coast; access to the river, the ready, willing and able workforce; the strong and supportive communities. All those things continue to be very supportive. And so – and then you take our industrial base it is some of the most modern and competitive in the world, and so we expect it to continue to run back, that’s what we have seen for our large industrials this year. We’ve seen our refiners, our core alkali facilities, our petrochem facilities continue to perform very well, where we’ve had challenges, our people that are coming up online. So, we have new construction that is in place or taking place and it’s just not ramping up as fast as we anticipated. We’ve been talking about that for a couple of quarters. In the small industrial space – our small industrial space has been surprisingly strong despite all of the economic headlines except for one area in Arkansas, we’ve had some agricultural customers, which are seasonally oriented and typically, are pumping a lot of water, we have a lot of floods in the spring and that carried over into the summer and to our three – until this quarter. So, our small industrial sales were down, but that was two thirds of the driver right there. And so we continue to see opportunities in the industrial space and with all the fundamentals still in place. So, I’ll turn it over to rod to talk about what we have been seeing.
Rod West:
And this is Rod West. Good morning. because of the fundamentals that drew just mentioned and the fact that over the last five years, we have been upskilling and upscaling our commercial and economic capabilities. We’re actually engaged with, not only our large existing customers, but we have direct line of sight with the pipeline that were probability waiting to determine how we think about our outlooks from a growth perspective. So today, we have approximately 1000 megawatts of projects that we probability weighted such that we’re comfortable putting those in the plan. What we don’t and we have not yet disclosed, because of where those potential pipeline projects are in the industrial development cycle. We have about four times that 1000 megawatts that’s in the potential pipeline, but we’re tracking that in real time with those – with those prospective companies, who have expressed an interest in locating our service territory, the significant ones being Louisiana and Texas, taking advantage of those macroeconomic advantages that drew just made reference to. But our line of sight gets clearer and clearer as we further refine our outlooks, because we’ve been successful in upskilling our internal capabilities.
Greg Gordon:
That’s fantastic. And then in terms of, you also gave a very good detailed list of all the rate activity and what your earned ROEs look like today, and it does look like, sort of deserve the opportunity to get better outcomes in Arkansas, do you expect the rate activity there should drive better earned returns in the next 12 months to 24 months?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, Greg. this is Drew. So, when you look at our sort of trailing 12 months view in Arkansas, and you actually see this in Mississippi as well. last year, we overearned and in the fourth quarter, because of that, we took a charge to get us back down to the allowed return levels in both of those jurisdictions. We haven’t overearned this year, but we still have the charge. So, you see our ROE than you would normally anticipate in both those jurisdictions. but I guess the short answer to your question is yes, we would anticipate the ability to earn our allowed return in both Arkansas and Mississippi.
Greg Gordon:
Thank you, guys.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Greg.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Sophie Karp from KeyBanc. Your line is now open.
Sophie Karp:
Hey guys, congrats on the quarter. Most of my questions have been answered, so a very detailed discussion on volumes. So, I’ll just jump back into the queue. thank you.
Leo Denault:
All right. Thanks, Sophie.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Shar Pourezza from Guggenheim partners. Your line is now open.
Shar Pourezza:
Hey, good morning guys.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Shar.
Shar Pourezza:
Let me just shift to Texas for a second and maybe, just around Montgomery County and obviously, it’s progressing really well. Can we just get a sense on how we should think about the recovery i.e., GRC process or using the current rider that was approved? And more or less post Montgomery County, how we should – how we should think about the rider mechanism, because it was obviously approved after you guys came out with the original plan. So, as you guys think about adding additional generation in the rider, is that sort of incremental to your growth prospects?
Rod West:
Yes, Shar. It’s rod. as we stated in prior conversations, that rider was not going to create an immediate material difference in our outlook. What we talked about was, particularly given the schedule with Montgomery County that we would shape the rate case to the extent that we needed to ensure that the recovery of Montgomery County that’s reflected in our existing plan. It was shaped with the timing of that rate case. that said, the rider that was passed, gave us an opportunity as we look beyond Montgomery County to have more contemporaneous rate recovery. from a regulatory process perspective, we still have to have the – remember the legislation only enabled the commission to provide that relief. We still have to go through the process of rulemaking through the PUCT to put that rider in effect and from our vantage point, as we think about the capital plan in Texas. It’s we have not yet determine how we wish to time the availability of the rate case as a mechanism and the contemporaneous rulemaking around that rider. We still have to go to the PUCT and candidly, that conversation is ongoing, because there are other parties, who would be a part of that regulatory process. But think about it this way, we would go to the commission to ask for rulemaking that would take advantage of the legislation to put the actual rider in effect for ongoing recovery. So, from a timing standpoint, we don’t want to set an expectation that there’s just immediate upside. So, we’ll be shaping the rate case and the regulatory process around that rider as we make the capital plan for Texas in the generation space a little more clear. So, there’ll be more on that, but it’s not something immediate and I don’t want to set that expectation.
Leo Denault:
In terms of Shar, driving future capital, I mean the resource plan will be with the resource plan will be, I mean, that’s the dynamic of our business across all the generation types is that we’ve got that aging fleet that needs to be refurbished and we’ve been doing that for over 10 years. And if you look them back in time, since we started our portfolio transformation, we’ve added and deactivated roughly equal amounts of capacity and we’ll continue to do that going forward. Obviously, with the regulatory mechanisms do is provide them an opportunity for there, be more certainty for our customers and for our investors in terms of us having the financial flexibility to make sure that we continue to make those investments. Same goes with the – on the renewable front, they will be part of the resource plan to meet the needs our customers have. We’re not doing them outside of that customer base to meet any other needs. So, the regulatory process isn’t going to drive a need for a new power plant, for example, that it will provide a lot of certainty around the financial flexibility we have to invest in those power plants.
Shar Pourezza:
Got it. And minimum, I guess, improved some of the regulatory lag. Okay. Just – and I’m sure Drew is going to be excited to talk about this at EEI. but just maybe, just a little preclude as far as you know, equity needs. And do you – I guess, do you envision seeing a change from what you prior disclosure around equity being somewhere between 5% to 10% of your CapEx needs post 2020. Do you see that at all changing?
Drew Marsh:
Hey, Shar. This is Drew. We don’t anticipate any changes to that outlook from an equity needs perspective and it still remains the same as it was at our Analyst Day a little over a year ago, and those needs wouldn’t kick in until 2021 and beyond.
Shar Pourezza:
Terrific guys and congrats today. congrats.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Shar.
Operator:
Thank you. At this time, I’m showing no further questions. I would like to turn the call back over to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Gigi, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 11 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statement in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy’s Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates on regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2019 Earnings Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference maybe recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.
David Borde:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions] In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. We had a productive quarter and today we are reporting adjusted earnings of a $1.35 per share. Drew will go over the details, but the bottom line is that these are strong results that keep us firmly on track to achieve our 2019 guidance. With our success over the past three years and our confidence in our strategy going forward, I'm pleased to announce that we are increasing our three-year investment plan for the benefit of our customers. As a result, we are also raising our earnings outlook midpoints in 2020 and 2021, narrowing our guidance and outlook ranges and providing clarity on our dividend with an expectation to align the dividend growth rate with our earnings growth rate by the end of 2021. This is possible because we were finding ways to optimize our operating costs through automation and other continuous improvement efforts. With this new plan, we are investing to enhance our level of service and the lower O&M creates head room to help us manage the effects on our customer's bills. Today, we're a world class utility with a proven track record of successful execution, a solid investment plan, and an outlook that will deliver their earnings and dividend growth that investors expect of a premier utility. Beyond our three-year horizon, we see no shortage of investment opportunities to benefit our customers and maintain our growth aspirations well into the future. For example, we currently plan to add 7,000 to 8,000 megawatts of new generation from 2022 through 2030. This is necessary to continue to modernize our infrastructure, serve load growth, and achieve our environmental commitments. We anticipate that up to half of this new generation would be renewables, primarily solar with the balance being highly efficient gas generation. While the specifics could change as technology and economics evolve, of course we'll work with our regulators and other stakeholders to determine the best strategy to meet customer needs for reliability and affordable bills while achieving our sustainability goals. We will also continue to invest in transmission infrastructure to integrate new generation technology, connect new customers, enable future economic development and enhanced system reliability, efficiency, and resiliency. We believe that our largest opportunity for long-term growth is in distribution. We are already making major investments in AMI, enterprise asset management systems, workforce management systems, customer relationship management systems, a new and improved customer engagement portal, distribution automation, distribution and outage management systems and geospatial information systems. Beyond these initiatives, we expect to invest in technologies to harden our grid and enable the optimization of distributed resources like residential and utility scale solar, battery storage, backup generators, micro grids, and electric vehicle infrastructure. This is our expectation today, but ultimately our final resource decisions will be informed by many factors, including our customer's evolving preferences and expectations. As a vertically integrated utility, we are agnostic to the specific solution, whether generation, transmission or distribution, as long as it's the best solution. As a result, we see sufficient customer centric investment opportunities to enable us to continue to achieve our current rate base growth beyond 2021. Physical assets aren't the only things that matter. We're also investing in our employees. We've created an innovation hub to help us lead and a rapidly evolving industry and help us develop solutions to address customer needs. We're also enhancing our leadership training to give our employees the tools to lead their organizations through the changes ahead. Organizational health in diversity and belonging efforts are also integral to our success. These programs will ensure that our employees will grow as the Company grows. With our increased earnings outlooks, clarity on our dividend growth and excellent prospects for continued growth. We are as excited about our future as we have ever been. We achieve our success one step at a time and this quarter is a continuation of our journey. In May, we completed the St. Charles Power Station. This modern CCGT went into service ahead of schedule and on budget. It will supply reliable, clean energy to Louisiana's customers to help support the growth the state is experiencing. In Mississippi, we are wrapping up due diligence for the Choctaw acquisition. We're on a path to resolve the mechanical issue identified earlier this year and we plan to close the transaction by year-end or early next year. On the renewables front, we've had several developments. In New Orleans, we received approval from the city council to proceed with the 90 megawatt solar portfolio previously proposed. Entergy New Orleans is also piloting a new program that puts solar panels on low income customer's homes. Through partnerships with local vendors, we will install a rooftop solar system at no cost to the customers and give them a credit on monthly bills In Arkansas, we're partnering with commercial and industrial customers to meet their energy and sustainability goals. We are offering a community solar tariff to allow them to subscribe to blocks of solar resources. For our customers, this is a cost effective way to meet their renewable energy goals without them having to make an upfront capital investment. These are just some of the innovative programs we are implementing to deliver renewable energy solutions. We will continue to engage with our regulators and stakeholders to expand the use of renewables under a framework, which ensures that we build the most economic system, balancing reliability, price and sustainability. In Texas, two large transmission projects including Phase I of the western region economic transmission line were placed into service. These assets will help Entergy Texas and support growth in that area. We're also making significant distribution investments over the next three years with the emergence of new technologies. We continue to install the advanced meters with plans for one million new meters in 2019. We also deployed the first release of salesforce capabilities to our call centers. This is part of a larger effort to build a new website with mobile functionality, a customer relationship management system and interactive voice response to transform our customer experience. We benefited from constructive collaborative relationships with our regulators and progressive regulatory constructs. They give us the opportunity to align cost recovery with when our customers receive the benefits. Our regulatory frameworks provide clarity to our plan and give us confidence in our financial commitments. We continue to make strides in this area. In May, Texas and acted legislation empowering the public utility commission to allow for faster recovery of generation investments. This legislation is a step in the right direction and will help us earn closer to our allowed return. More timely recovery will help us create value for our stakeholders in Texas and ensure that the communities we serve remain economically competitive. Also in the quarter, Entergy Mississippi received approval of its annual formula rate plan filing and we submitted annual FRP filings in Louisiana and Arkansas. Our request in Arkansas was for a rate change of $15 million, less than 1% of total revenue well below the 4% cap. This includes placing approximately $700 million of new assets into service in 2020 for the benefit of our customers. As many of you know, Hurricane Barry made landfall in our service area earlier this month. The storm created significant flooding and accessibility issues, but thankfully we did not see extensive and widespread damage to our system. We activated our emergency response plans and we were fully prepared for the event and as always our employees stepped up. We'd also like to thank our neighboring utilities that provided mutual assistance to help us get our customers back online as quickly and safely as possible. Mutual assistance is a hallmark of our industry. We are proud that once again, the Edison Electric Institute has awarded Entergy with its emergency assistance award for the Company's outstanding power restoration efforts. At EWC, all of the pieces are now in place to fully exit the merchant business and we continue to systematically reduce risks. We have commercial agreements to sell the last three nuclear assets to a counterparty that the NRC has already approved in a similar transaction. We are proud to have led the industry in the unprecedented strategy to sell non-operating nuclear assets. The strategy that fully transfers the plants decommissioning liability to the new owners, while accelerating the decommissioning timeline. As we predicted, this market has grown in a short period of time. As three operators have announced plans with three different buyers. We're becoming a better, stronger company and a premier regulated utility creating sustainable value for all of our stakeholders. The fundamentals of our business are strong as reflected by the increase in our earnings outlooks supported by a robust capital plan. We're expecting 5% to 7% adjusted EPS growth off of our 2019 guidance. And by the end of 2021 we expect to increase our dividend growth rate to align with our earnings growth. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country; we operate in a region that benefits from strong industrial growth. We are an industry leader in critical of sustainability. We are making significant investments in our system and our culture to benefit customers and our aspirations for our customers are aligned with their evolving expectations as well as the goals of our regulators. These are just some of the reasons why Entergy is a compelling long-term investment today. This is the foundation on which we will grow innovate and expand our investment profile to continue to deliver on our commitments tomorrow. We are excited about our future. I will now turn the call over to Drew to provide more detail on our results, our expectations for 2019 and our updated outlooks.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As you heard from Leo, we had another productive quarter with good results and we are firmly on track to meet our full-year guidance. With our updated capital investment profile and cost expectations, we are raising our earnings outlook midpoints in 2020 and 2021. In addition, we are narrowing our guidance in outlook ranges. I'll provide details on these changes and more. But first, let's turn to the quarter. You can see on Slide 4, on a per share basis, Entergy adjusted earnings were $1.35, $0.07 lower than second quarter 2018, including the effects of dilution. Turning into the utility on Slide 5, rate actions in Arkansas, the Louisiana and Texas contributed positively to the quarter’s results. Also, last year's results included regulatory charges to return the benefits of the lower federal tax rate to customers. Partially offsetting these increases were lower sales volume and the unbilled period and the effects of weather which was less favorable this quarter compared to one year-ago. Regarding industrial sales, we experienced higher customer unplanned outages, fewer cogent customer outages and then usually wet weather in Arkansas leading to low sales to agriculture customers. The fundamentals that support the industrial customers and our region remains strong and our long-term industrial sales outlook remains intact. Other drivers for the quarters results included higher non-fuel O&M due largely to higher plans spending on nuclear operations, information technology and initiatives to explore new customer products and services. Drivers related to our growth such as hired appreciating depreciation expense including the St. Charles Power Station, which came online at the end of May. And lastly, the higher share count affected this quarter's results on a per year basis. Looking at EWC second quarter results on Slide 6. As reported earnings were $0.18 higher than the prior year. The key drivers were lower impairment charges at the merchant nuclear plants and strong market performance in the quarter for EWC nuclear decommissioning trust funds. Partially offsetting the increase was lower revenue due to the shutdown of Pilgrim as well as tax benefit in second quarter of 2018. Looking forward, we still expect EWC to provide slightly positive net cash to parent from 2019 through 2022. Leo mentioned that we continue to systematically reduce risk as we complete our exit from EWC. Entergy sales are 94% hedged. At any point our sale agreement does not require minimum level of funding and the nuclear decommissioning trust as a condition to close. Trust now only has 25% equity investment and had a 5% return we should not expect to have to make any contributions to close the transaction. Pilgrim shutdown at the end of May and it's trust is essentially in cash. And finally, as a reminder, our strategy to sell non-operating nuclear assets fully transfers the plant's decommissioning liability to the new owners. As a result, they significantly reduced our risk associated with revenue operating capital market and decommissioning activities for EWC as we finalize our exit from that business. Moving to operating cash flow on Slide 7, for the quarter was $552 million, a $29 million increase from a year-ago. The change was driven by a lower amount of unprotected excess ADIT returned to customers. Lower fueling outage costs and lower ARO spending at EWC. Partially offsetting were higher severance and retention payments at EWC. Turning to our guidance and outlook on Slide 8. Today, we continue to see results coming in around the midpoint for 2019. In addition, we are raising the financial outlook midpoints for 2020 and 2021. The updated outlook is driven by $750 million of incremental investments through 2021 that improve reliability and customer engagement. These investments are centered on themes that we have discussed, namely updating distribution, transmission and generation infrastructure to drive improved reliability as well as new products and services for our customers. However important goal as far our rates remain among the lowest in the nation for investor owned utilities. To that end, we're working to optimize our operating costs and part by leveraging innovation, automation, grid modernization, and other new technologies to drive efficiency and productivity in our business processes. We expect O&M to be about $2.65 billion in 2020, 2021, the goal to offset inflation in our business on an ongoing basis. The combination of the incremental investments and cost discipline will improve our level of service to our customers while continuing to manage build growth at or below inflation. The benefits of these efforts are not just limited to our customers. Our employees will have the opportunity to develop new skills, broaden their professional expertise and leverage technology to work more productively. Our communities we'll see economic development and we'll benefit from better service and improved reliability. And our investors will see improved earnings per share growth and improved confidence in our expectations. We previously communicated our targeted our adjusted EPS growth at 5% to 7% and that remains our expectation. The new midpoints reflect a 6% growth rate off of 2019 midpoint. Additionally, we have narrowed our guidance and outlook ranges by $0.10 and we could narrow them further in future years as we continue to execute on our strategy and deliver on our commitments. Providing steady predictable growth is fundamental to our strategy and this includes our dividends. Our goal is to align our dividend growth rate with our EPS growth rate of 5% to 7%. And the key variable to determine that is our capital plan. Given our updated capital plan, we expect to achieve our alignment objective in the fourth quarter of 2021. We’ve discussed this dividend plan with our board and they support our goal and timing. As you know, dividends are quarterly decisions made by the board and this one will be made at that time. These collective updates reflect the evolution of our business to our premier regulated utility. The success we've had in executing our strategy over the past three years gives us confidence in our ability to deliver on our ongoing plan. Turning to credit on Slide 9, our parents at the total debt has further improved in 19.4%. Largely due to the settlement of the remainder of the equity ford in May, our FFO to debt is 11.8%. This includes the effect of returning approximately $650 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers. Excluding this give back and certain items related to our exit of EWC FFO to debt would be 15.8%. While some things that on our plan have changed, several critical credit elements have not. We expect cash flows to continue to improve beginning next quarter and throughout the remainder of the year. And the amount of unprotected excess ADIT returns to customers as the amount of unprotected excess ADIT return to customers declined. Our equity financing framework remains the same as it was at our Analyst Day last year and we remain committed to our targets of add or above 15% per FFO to debt by 2020 and below 25% for parent debt to total debt as well as maintaining our investment grade profile. We had another productive quarter with good results and we continue to execute on our plan to deliver steady predictable growth and earnings and dividends through customer centric investment. The improvements we are making today are a natural continuation of the evolution underway for some time. They are reflected in the alignment toward customer outcomes, our focus on customer bill, development of new investment opportunities, and updated earnings outlook, tighter outlook ranges and dividend path clarity. As Leo mentioned, the fundamentals of our business are strong and we're well positioned for continued value creation. We are world-class utility working for the benefit of all four of our key stakeholders. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Praful Mehta of Citi. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Thanks so much. Hi guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Praful.
Praful Mehta:
Good morning. Great call and sounds like everything's going really well at the Entergy. So I guess my first question with the increased guidance, it sounds like you are still maintaining within the 5 to 7, but Leo, as you talked about this significant incremental investment opportunity that you see including the 7,000 megawatts you talked about. What are the other levers you see that could potentially increase, if not through 2021, but beyond in terms of the growth opportunities you see at the utility side?
Leo Denault:
Praful, from an investment standpoint if you can go back to our last Analysts Day even we were talking about the number of things that we can do not only to upgrade the technology associated with our generating fleet technology and signup new load, attach new generation the transmission pride, but also a significant amount of distribution energy resources, technological advancements that we can make. Those are the types of things that we're still looking at. Nothing that we're talking about today. Nothing that enters the plan are outside of the balance with the sorts of things that we've been talking about for some time with all of you, and certainly working on for even longer internally to the company. As we looked at it, as we've always said, what we're always balancing every day, every decision we make is because that three pronged outcomes that we need for our customers, one it has to improve the level of service that we provide them and two, we have to do it to manage their bills. That managing the bills is the governor in terms of how much we can spend on upgrading the reliability of the system. We've got to balance that. And then obviously the sustainability objectives that we end our customers and all of you as investors have. So it is more of the same in terms of what we have to do to be looking at to upgrade that system. The 7,000 to 8,000 megawatts of generation, that's a continuation of what we've been doing and that is modernizing the fleet to lower O&M lower fuel cost, improve emissions across the board as we look to deactivate 40 and 50 year old units and replaced them with new capacity. So if you look at our system, we used to put out that histogram of the age of our fleet. We still have some older units some of what we're spending the money on right now. Some of those new dollars are actually to go into some of those legacy gas units to make sure they continue to operate reliably while they get into queue to be replaced by the newer stuff. So it's nothing new. It's nothing that we haven't been talking about before. It's really just the focus on making sure that we balance those three objectives. We want to make sure that we improve the level of service, maintain some of the lowest rates in the country, work on the customer's bills, keep them below the level inflation while we continue to improve our sustainability footprint. But importantly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our customers that's very important to them as well.
Praful Mehta:
Well that's super helpful. Leo, thank you for that. And then maybe just quickly switching to the Nuclear Operations side, I wanted to understand any more color on the ANO outage. It seems to be delayed to just any color on what's going on there? And when that would be back online would be helpful?
Rod West:
Good morning, Praful. It's Rod. We're pleased to report for our customers that ANO is in fact back online and sync to the grid, I believe beginning on Monday. And so that that's moving forward, so that's progress for us.
Praful Mehta:
Gotcha. Anything specific Rod, that increased the delay?
Rod West:
The significance was the reactor cooling promoter that that failed and it's a highly specialized equipment that you can't buy off the shelf. And we have tested that equipment during the outage in 2018 and it passed all the tests and the fact that it failed was anomalous for us, but at the end of the day, it takes a long time to replace and repair on that that motor, and that was the cause of the delay and nothing more. And so we're happy that it's back online.
Praful Mehta:
All right. Thanks, Rod, and thank you, guys.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Praful.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Julien.
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey. So perhaps just to come back to this cost question. Can you elaborate a little bit on how you're thinking about the cost benefits flowing back to customers? Obviously, you just filed an FRP in Arkansas, which reflected less rate inflation in past years. Is some of the O&M that your reductions already in place or is this more prospective and should that kind of limit the inflation here for Arkansas for next years FRP as well? And then maybe just the nuance here, should we expect some transient benefits? Or is this largely given the annualized nature of all these filings going to flow pretty simultaneously back to customers?
Andrew Marsh:
Julien, this is Drew. So in terms of the flow back to customers, we would expect that pretty much all of it, we flow back to customers. In the course of time as you're noting, depending on the jurisdiction, some would float back to customers faster than others. And I think that's actually a critical piece of the overall strategy here because we are aiming to manage our customer's bills. And by doing that, we are creating space in the bill for incremental capital investment to improve reliability. And I think there's – we don't have it in the main slides, but there's an appendix slide, I think it's like a Slide 38 or so that talks about how our earnings are expected to change a while it's happens. You'll notice that net revenue line doesn't really move all that much. And O&M line is – that's creating that space for us. So we would expect that that would flow back to customers, because we're not, we're not anticipating their bills really moving at all as a result of this incremental capital. In terms of some of the O&M, and the progress that we've made, I think the answer is yes. We have made some progress this year. That's part of what gives us confidence that we can execute on this going forward. And I don't know if all of it is in rates today. But it will get into rates very quickly. This year as you know, we're using it to offset some of the negative weather that we had in the first quarter, plus I've mentioned in my remarks, industrial sales growth was a little bit below our expectations year-to-date. But it would be fine long-term, but in the meantime we need to make sure that we are managing to hit our expectations for this year. So some of that is happening now as part of what gives us confidence going forward and it should all flow back into rates.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent. Just on the CapEx budget, a little bit more further elaboration, some of it seems like with distribution as well. And then also just what does the Texas legislation mean for you guys from a CapEx perspective and is that reflected as well?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, I'll take the capital and then I'll let Rob answer the regulation piece of it. From a capital perspective, yes, a good chunk of it is in distribution, as you noted. And as Leo mentioned in his remarks and his answer to Praful's question, it's a lot of what we have been doing. Not all of it is – some of it is putting in new smart equipment and stuff like that that can communicate with our network. But a lot of it is just replacing poles and cross arms and transformers that are – that need frankly, just need to be updated, and so that's on the distribution front. On the transmission side, there is quite a bit of economic developments along the corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. That's prompting new reliability investment opportunities for us from a transmission perspective. That frankly we weren't planning at the beginning of the year, front mainly along the west side of the Mississippi River. And then we have a lot of customer products and services investment that we're making as Leo alluded to in his script. So those are some of the main kinds of investment opportunities that we're looking at in terms of this near-term incremental capital. And I'll turn that over to Rod for the regulatory question.
Rod West:
Yes. And the benefit of the generation rider legislation in Texas is really reducing lag for purposes of the CapEx that we have in the plan for Texas. So but it's remember it's an enabling legislation that gives the Texas Commission, the opportunity to provide a more efficient regulatory recovery, predominantly for those generation investments that Drew made reference to. So it's a risk reduction and the lag reduction opportunity for us as Drew, I believe stated and Leo in his statement to align the recovery mechanisms with the timing of our investments and benefits to customers.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Thank you very much.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Julien.
Andrew Marsh:
Thanks Julien.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Sophie Karp with KeyBanc. Your line is now open.
Sophie Karp:
Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Sophie Karp:
Just maybe the follow-up on Texas. So as the commission moves on and alliance sort of legislative intent with the actual recovery mechanisms? Is there any potential further upside to your CapEx plans in Texas?
Rod Wes:
I think the potential for upside has to do with our ability to manage the cost associated with service delivery. The capital plan we have for Texas is pretty straight forward and we think set. But pulling the levers that Leo and Andrew mentioned a little earlier provides us an opportunity to move closer to our aloud and as I just mentioned the Texas Commission having tools to help us reduce lag as well. You have the opportunity to do that as well.
Sophie Karp:
Right. Thank you. And then I know it's some time all the activity on the FERC docket. But I guess what is your range of expectations with what happens there? With respect to Siri?
Leo Denault:
That's true. And I'll tackle that one. So they're in material updates right now. It continues to be going through the process at FERC. And in terms of our expectations as we said for a while, we have a reserve on our ROE and then for whatever the outcome maybe there, based on our expectations, and then the other elements of the various complaints there are reflected in the outlook that we put out today. So there's no – all of the expectations that we have are reflected in fourth series outcomes are reflected in our outlook.
Sophie Karp:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question comes from Charles Fishman of MorningStar Research. Your line is now open.
Charles Fishman:
Thank you. Good morning. Leo, in your comments about the 7,000 megawatts to 2023, does that include the four plants under construction and the one in Choctaw?
Leo Denault:
It does not. The 7,000 to 8,000 megawatts that we're talking about is 2022 through 2030. And as I mentioned, probably be roughly half renewables and half gas. As we look at it today, obviously subject to what happens technologically and cost wise to the construction of those different facilities. But again, that 7,000 to 8,000 new megawatts.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. So I realize it's not a long time, but is that still being driven by the industrial load?
Leo Denault:
It's still being driven by the need to technologically improve the system. So if you remember, Charles, we've been going through this portfolio transformation with our generation fleet, given the age and the vintage of those facilities which served us really well, but when they started pushing 40-plus years of age, the new plants efficiency, the O&M levels, emission levels, and then obviously the fact that they're starting brand new life that overtakes what the maintenance of those older plants would be. So for example, the St. Charles plant, over the life of a plant that's going to benefit our customers by $1.3 billion given the lower production costs associated with that plant vis-a-vis what's on our system today and in the market. So that's really the continuation. The load growth obviously is important, but in large part what that does is keeps the price point down for our customers as well.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. And since I'm the last questioner, I going to take the liberty of asking one more. On dividend increase, I understood the 2021 review will be reviewed by the board later this year in the fourth quarter? I'm assuming it's going to stick to that fourth quarter schedule as well as 2020. Do you anticipate like similar 2% to 3% increases until then? Are you weren't saying it's going to be no increases until fourth quarter at 2021? Is my assumption correct?
Leo Denault:
We were not saying it would be no increase that you're correct. We will take the dividend up every year as it always does. We were just signaling, because we've had this objective that we've stated for a while that we want to have our dividend growth match our earnings growth. And as you point out for the last few years, it's been lagging earnings growth. We believe that we'll be at a point in time by the fourth quarter of 2021 to put those in line with our expectation of earnings growth.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks for the clarification. That's all I had.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Charles.
Operator:
Thank you. And we do have a question from Neil Kalton of Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is now open.
Neil Kalton:
Hi, guys. I'm sorry. I jumped in last minute, but quick question and I apologize if I've missed this. With the new CapEx flowing in, have you discussed sort of incremental equity needs or how we should think about that over the next few years?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Neil. This is Drew. So in my remarks, I mentioned that our equity expectations are exactly as they were at Analyst Day. So it's not until – we won't have any need for equity until after 2020, sometime 2021 or beyond. And that expectation is around 5% to 10% of our overall capital needs – that before.
Neil Kalton:
Yes. Okay, and should we think about that likely being that that rule of thumb holding true as well in 2022 and 2023 based on what you're seeing right now?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, I think kind of looking out on a long-term basis, yes.
Neil Kalton:
All right, perfect. Thank you
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Neil.
Operator:
Thank you. And Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude our question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Sonia, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our Annual Report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a webpage as part of Entergy's Investor Relations in website on regulatory and other information, which provides key updates, regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes today's program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Good day ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy First Quarter 2019 Earnings Release Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, today’s conference call is being recorded. I’d now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Mr. David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault. And then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. We had a productive start to the year and today, we are reporting first quarter adjusted earnings of $0.82 per share. While weather was a headwind, we remain firmly on track to achieve our full year guidance, and our longer term outlooks. We checked off every first quarter key deliverable and we added an important new milestone. We announced our agreement for a post shutdown sale of Indian Point to Holtec International. With this announcement, we now have definitive agreements to sell all of EWC's remaining nuclear assets. We will shut down program this month and we plan to close on the sale of that plant by the end of the year. We will then shut down Indian Point unit 2 next year and unit 3 in 2021. The sale of all Indian Point units is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021 and we expect to complete the Palisades transaction after it's shutdown in 2022. The sales of these plants are important, not only do they secure our orderly exit from the merchant business, but they do so in a way that benefits stakeholders by accelerating the decommissioning timeline, drawing on industry leading decommissioning and segregation expertise and experience and laying the foundation for future business development opportunities in the regions. We are grateful to our nuclear teams who remain focused on finishing strong with safe and secure operations. Our Pilgrim employees are a shining example of this hard work, commitment and dedication. In March, Pilgrim returned to normal baseline oversight by the NRC moving to Column 1 in agencies reactor oversight program. Over the last two years Pilgrim's 600 employees exhibited professionalism and pride resulting in this important milestone for our organization. At the utility business, we also executed on key deliverables in the quarter. We continue to pursue our commitment to renewable resources and two of our operating companies, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas have each issued requests for proposals for 200 megawatts of solar resources. Entergy Arkansas also announced plans for a 100 megawatt solar facility. This project pending approval by the Arkansas Public Service Commission will be the largest utility owned solar facility in the state and the first to feature battery storage. The facility is expected to be in service by 2021. We are pleased with the progress we continue to make on developing renewable projects as they are an important resource beyond their obvious environmental attributes. They can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity and advance the adoption of distributed energy solutions for our customers. We currently have just over 230 megawatts of renewable resources in service including hydro, solar and biomass technologies. We also have 185 megawatts of new solar projects that have been approved and are moving forward, just under 300 megawatts that are pending regulatory approval and the 400 megawatt that I mentioned from Arkansas and Texas RFPs. And as the economics and performance of renewable resources continue to improve, we will engage with our regulators and stakeholders to expand their use across our service area. In January, we began installment of the first automated meters. Over the next three years, we will install approximately three million automated meters across our jurisdictions, with plans to activate one million new meters in 2019. The new meters will benefit our customers with faster outage identification, enhanced customer service and cost savings. Additionally, these meters will provide us with the tools to help our customers manage their energy usage and lower their bills. And we will recycle the old meters after removal. It will be sustainably dismantled yielding copper and aluminum scrap that can be recycled. Our new build CCGT projects remain on budget and on schedule. After a little over two years of construction, St. Charles power station is in its final commissioning phase and that plant is expected to be placed in service this quarter. Construction activity at the New Orleans power station kicked into high gear after the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued its clean air permit. The plant will be a much needed local resource of modern natural gas generated power for residents and businesses. In Mississippi, we continue to work through the chalked out generating station acquisition to ensure that the plant is a good value for our customers. Our due diligence has identified a potential mechanical issue that may need to be addressed prior to closing. There is a possibility that closing may be delayed to allow time to resolve the issue. We will know more in the coming weeks and we'll provide an update on our next earnings call. At this point, we do not foresee a delay that will have a material financial impact. These are just a few examples of the investments we are making in our efficient and sustainable power system for the benefit of our customers. We kicked off 2019's base rate filings with Entergy Mississippi's annual FRP, which was submitted on March 15th. We are working through that process and expect new rates to be effective in June. We are also preparing to file our annual FRPs in Louisiana and Arkansas later this year. Our New Orleans rate case is ongoing and we remain on track to have new rates effective this summer and we've requested a formula rate plan to take effect next year. In addition, proposed legislation in Texas could help reduce regulatory lag on generation investment in that jurisdiction. The legislation passed the House, it was also passed by the Senate business and Commerce Committee and it will now be considered by the full Senate. If signed into law, the legislation would allow the commission to approve a rider to recover reasonable and necessary generation investment which would be more timely and less burdensome than a base rate case filing. This legislation is consistent with our desire to align regulatory structures with customer benefits. Three of our five jurisdictions, which generate approximately 80% of the utility's revenue have annual formula rate plan mechanisms. These, combined with other constructs, will allow for timely recovery of investments which benefit customers, provide clarity to our plans and solidify the financial commitments we've made to provide steady predictable growth in earnings and dividends. At Entergy, our people are critical to our success. Our employees make it possible to implement our strategy and achieve our objectives. Acquiring, retaining and developing the talent we need to meet today's business needs and to prepare for the workplace of tomorrow are important. As part of our employee focus, we are proud to promote supportive work environments for members of the National Guard and Reserve. In recognition of this, we won the 2019 Pro Patria Award from the Department of Defense and we were a semifinalist for the 2019 Freedom Award. Entergy is also committed to supporting businesses in the communities we serve. The Women's Business Enterprise National Council, recognized our efforts and once again presented the prestigious America's Top Corporations for Women's Business Enterprises award to Entergy. The national award recognizes companies with world-class diversity and inclusion programs that enable growth and innovation while breaking down barriers for women owned businesses. These awards are good validation of our mission to create value for all of our stakeholders, customers, employees, communities and owners. We recently released our annual integrated report titled, When Does One Equal More. It illustrates how our efforts to serve the needs of each stakeholder creates value for all. Our reported outlines how the emergence of new technologies enable us to build more individualized relationships with our customers and partner with them on solutions that make their lives better, and help providing opportunities for our employees to adopt new skill sets to effectively implement manage new technologies will drive transformative change. Entergy is also recognized as an industry leader for taking action to address climate issues. In 2001, we were the first U.S. electric utility to commit voluntarily to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, we upped that commitment to capping our carbon dioxide emissions at 20% below year 2000 levels through the year 2010. Then in 2011, we extended that commitment through 2020. Even though, Entergy's carbon dioxide emissions rate continues to be one of the lowest among our peers, the broad consensus of current scientific data on climate change indicates that as an industry we must do more to reduce our footprint and that of our customers and communities. Entergy sees this not as a choice, but as a responsibility and an opportunity. That is why, in addition to our integrated report, we also released our climate scenario analysis and evaluation of risks and opportunities. This report outlines our role in meeting the worldwide imperative to reduce risk that's posed by climate change and announces a new greenhouse gas emissions goal to reduce our CO2 emissions rate to 15% below year 2000 levels by 2030. That means that for every unit of electricity we generate in 2030, we will emit half the carbon dioxide we did in 2000. Entergy's leadership and sustainability and social responsibility makes us a successful Fortune 500 company with a conscience. Our actions and commitments to sustainability position us to effectively benefit our stakeholders today, while securing a bright tomorrow. For the first quarter of 2019 we continue on track of steady successful execution of our strategy. And 2019 will be another successful year for us. Our operating and financial positions are solid, and our strategic direction is clear. We are an industry leader in critical measures of sustainability. We have among the lowest retail rates in the country and we operate one of the cleanest large scale fleets in the United States. We also benefit from strong industrial growth within our service territory. We invest in our employees, in our communities and our strategy is aligned with the goals of our regulators. This is what makes Entergy a compelling long-term investment. And this is the foundation from which we will continue to grow and innovate for the benefit of all of our stakeholders. I will now turn the call over to Drew, who will provide more detail on our first quarter financial results.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo said, the first quarter was a productive start to the year and we are firmly on track to meet our full year guidance and longer-term outlook. Today, we are officially starting to report earnings using our simpler Entergy adjusted earnings measure, to better reflect the nature of our business going forward and our materials and disclosures are more streamlined as a result. Let's now turn to the numbers. As you can see on Slide four, on a per share basis. Entergy adjusted earnings were largely flat quarter-over-quarter. Turning to Slide five, results of the utility are straightforward. Net revenue increased primarily from the effective rate activity in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Although the enactment of tax reform, last year's results included regulatory charges, return the benefits, the lower federal tax rates to customers. And that lower tax rate is now reflected in customer bills. Partially offsetting was lower volume due to the effects of weather, which was unfavorable this quarter compared to one year ago. Finally, a higher share count affected this quarter's results on a per share basis. EWC's first quarter results are summarized on Slide six. And as a reminder, EWC is now excluded from our Entergy adjusted measure. As reported earnings were $0.60 higher than the prior year. The key driver was strong market performance on the quarter for EWC's nuclear decommissioning trust funds. A tax item, which resulted from the sale of Vermont Yankee partly offset the increase. Before leaving EWC, I'd like to affirm that after accounting for the transaction costs for Indian Point, we still expect EWC to provide slightly positive net cash to parent from 2019 through 2022. Slide seven shows operating cash flow for the quarter of $501 million, a $56 million decrease from a year ago. The change was driven by the return of approximately $100 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers as well as the effect of unfavorable weather. Lower pension contribution partially offset the decrease. We are affirming our 2019 earnings guidance and financial outlooks, which are summarized on Slide eight. As I mentioned, we experienced unfavorable weather in the quarter. Nevertheless, we remain on track to come in around the midpoint of our 2019 guidance. Our credit metrics are shown on Slide 10, apparent as the total debt has improved to 21.7%. This was largely due to the settlement of a portion of the equity forward in December. Our FFO to debt is 11.1%, this includes the effects of returning $692 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers. Excluding this give back, and certain items related to our exit of EWC, FFO to debt would be 13%. We expect cash flow to improve as soon as next quarter and throughout the remainder of the year assuming normal weather. We remain committed to our targeted ranges of at or above 15% for FFO to debt at 2020 and below 25% prepared at the total debt, as well as maintaining our investment grade profile. We had a productive first quarter and we see 2019 as another successful year. The foundations in place for us to meet our financial commitments to deliver steady predictable growth in earnings and dividends through customer centric investments. As Leo mentioned, our operating and financial positions are solid and our strategic direction is clear. We're continuing our mission to create sustainable value for all of our stakeholders and look forward to the opportunities ahead. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Thanks so much. Hi guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning Praful. How are you doing?
Praful Mehta:
Good morning. So, I guess, first question on the earnings guide for 2019, it looks like you reduced the O&M expectation for the full year from $0.30 to $0.20. Is that -- firstly is that helping maintain your earnings guide and what's helping keep that or bring that O&M down from the original $0.30 resumption to now the $0.20?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Praful, this is Drew. That is helping us to maintain and among a couple of other things, that includes some efficiencies we found early in the year, our good operations have led to some rebates for insurance premiums. A little bit of it is timing into other periods like 2020. But, it's not enough to change in the expectations out there and we've also seen some offsets in other areas like interest expense. We had a very active quarter, in $1.5 billion of refinancing and new money issuances and since interest rates were lower we were able to capture some of that versus our previous expectation. So the combination of all those things are what's helping us maintain our expectations for the year.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. That's helpful. Thanks, Drew. And then secondly on the operating cash flow drop which is significant, but it sounds like it's primarily driven by the ADIT which it seems like you front-loaded, even within the year, is that fair in terms of understanding how the ADIT will be paid out in 2019?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, that's correct. That's a 12-month kind of view. And so we would see, I am talking on top of the FFO kind of measures would be a 12-month kind of view. We do see it continue to trend down over the course of the year both on the 12 month rolling bit and in the quarters and you see our operating cash flow continue to improve over the course of the year. We are about 70% done with the return of the cash, so far, to our customers.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. That's super helpful. And then finally, congrats on Indian Point. Just wanted to clarify, is it fair to understand that the decommissioning trust risk or the performance of the decommissioning trust risk is now primarily in the hands of the buyer where if there is any underperformance it won't really impact the transaction economics?
Andrew Marsh:
That's correct.
Praful Mehta:
Okay, great, thanks so much guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Praful.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski with Macquarie. Your line is now open.
Angie Storozynski:
I wanted to ask a longer-term question. So you mentioned that you might increase renewal part spending if the economics of wind and solar assets improve. I mean given some set of tax subsidies so those wouldn't be -- wouldn't you consider actually accelerating some of the CapEx?
Leo Denault:
I'm sorry, the connection wasn't good enough for us to catch that.
Angie Storozynski:
Can you hear me now.
Leo Denault:
Yes, sounds a little better yes.
Angie Storozynski:
I'm sorry, I was just wondering about your regulated renewable power CapEx, you mentioned that some of your jurisdictions might consider more renewable spending going forward once the renewables become more economic, but given that there is some sort of some of the tax subsidies wouldn't do you consider actually potentially accelerating this CapEx?
Leo Denault:
I'm not sure really that we would see any acceleration in those, most of these projects will be showing up at the end of the plan in the 2021 and beyond timeframe and really wouldn't see us accelerating it much. We've got to work into this. So the resource plan where they make economic sense and serve the right purpose for the grid. So as the prices come down and as the technology continues to evolve, which we fully expected to do we should see it playing a bigger role in the resource plan as it competes well with other resources for the type of operational characteristics that they have.
Andrew Marsh:
And I’ll just add, NCR, our low cost rates, make it a little less economic for some of these projects and of course we still have to go through the regulatory process that associated with each of these transactions. And so I think we're going at a pretty good clip, given what we think the regulatory bandwidth is at this point. Of course, if the economics took a step change, certainly we would look at something different. So we are looking at it, but we're not anticipating an acceleration like Leo said.
Analyst:
Okay, thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.
Steve Fleishman:
Good morning. I know you kind of addressed this. Hey, Leo, could you maybe talk a little bit more about the impacts of the Texas legislation to your plan and what -- could it be impactful to your guidance or your capital plan?
Rod West:
Hey, Steve, it's Rod. Good morning. The Texas legislation, while certainly positive is not material enough for us to change our guidance and outlooks. Keep in mind that it's really providing both the commission, as well as the company additional tools as we think beyond Montgomery County. So the answer to your question is not material enough in terms of financial impact to change our outlooks
Steve Fleishman:
Okay.
Leo Denault:
I'll add to that, Steve. It's a good risk reduction opportunity right. It aligns up the benefit that customers get from the addition of new generation with the timing of regulatory recovery. That's a lot more efficient than the way we would anticipate going about it now, our rate case around every new generating asset which works fine for something large like Montgomery County, but if you start adding smaller generation or sharing the renewable space it comes a little bit more problematic to provide that benefit to the customers at the same time you get regulatory approval.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. And then just the chapter [ph] issue that you mentioned, could you remind what the investment there is and just, is there, -- is this a fixable issue or is it a risk that you just decide not to acquire the plan?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. Our planned investment there was about $400 million including some of the upgrades and some other things that we have planned. At this point, we don't know exactly what the issue is. We just know there are some vibrations and other things, but we believe it's probably fixable, and we'll be able to get to a transaction close before too terribly long.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. Okay, thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Steve.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
A larger question or you [Indiscernible].
Leo Denault:
Yes we can.
Greg Gordon:
Sorry, I have a larger question, bigger picture question for you since these specific questions I had were just answered. We are seeing here our macro view on the U.S. economy continues to accelerate. The data just keeps getting better with the -- just notably with an absence of underlying core inflation in the economy as you guys have a particularly economically sensitive jurisdiction that is your region of the country is sort of, has a concentrated exposure to certain types of industries related to petrochemicals, et cetera. I know that you guys try to do really good job of sort of constantly evolving your thought process on underlying demand growth. Like, what is the current economic climate look like in terms of the risk of being sort of either over or under your base case demand growth expectations?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, Greg, this is Drew. As we look at our industry load we continue to see positive signs, frankly. So our industrial customers are looking at a number of spreads, commodity spreads, crack spreads, gas versus oil, geographic spread between Henry Hub and yes, NBP for example or Brent and so all of those indicators continue to be green for us. Inventories are reasonable and exports are picking up as the economy -- a low nature of just energy prices here on the Gulf Coast is extremely competitive worldwide. And so, we're very confident in what we can see, our current forecast is based on what we can see from an industrial perspective. And that includes Petrochem, LNG, sub metals and not much core alkali, new at this point but core alkali has been a very strong performer for us and that market continues to get tighter. And as we look forward, we do see new opportunities in the core alkali space in the Petrochem space, there is potential for new LNG and other things. So all of that bodes well for our industrial sales expectations and while that's good for us, the really important thing for us is it gives us incremental headroom to create investments and whether it's for those industrial customers or support distribution, operations in new ways, there is significant investment opportunity within our business as we highlighted last July, so all of that industrial opportunity may create additional headroom for us to make those investments.
Greg Gordon:
Right. Thank you for the detailed answer. Have a great morning.
Andrew Marsh:
Thanks Greg.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hey good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Can I just inquire; can you give us some -- an update on just how things are going with the discussions around Pilgrim for the transfer? There has been quite a lot of noise locally but hoping you could sort of cut through what matters for us.
Chris Bakken:
This is Chris Bakken. As Leo said, we do expect the transaction to close before the end of the year. We are following very closely the license transfer application and the other issues that lead to closure and we're confident we can maintain that schedule.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And so these kind of push for an approval at the state level, do you see that as a concern or not at this point?
Chris Bakken:
I think we are quite confident we can work through that. Jonathan, there isn't any state approval required in Massachusetts it's just the NRC that we're seeking.
Jonathan Arnold:
Right I. I know, but I’ve heard some noise so people kind of pushing to have something. So it's good to hear that you don't think that's going to gain some momentum. And then just on the Indian Point similar, can you give us, is it sufficiently similar to what you've proposed elsewhere that you see this as being reasonably formulaic or any sort of special considerations to think about as you move into the approval process there and I think to comment regarding local policymakers views around New York and timing?
Leo Denault:
Well, I'll answer this particular one. From the NRC's perspective I think it should be pretty straightforward. Yes, of course, we'll be working with Holtec and the state to figure out what's the best thing to do there, but it's still early in the process and too early to tell exactly what will be required there.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Thank you. And thanks for the update.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks Jonathan.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, good morning. Can you hear me?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent, good morning. Thank you. A lot of questions been asked already, but I wanted to come back to the Texas legislative side obviously, making good progress there, but wanted to understand a little bit the puts and takes on earned ROEs at the Texas subsidiary itself, just as you think about it perhaps, leaving aside the legislation itself, how do you think about the ability to earn your ROE, both the puts and takes over the next few years? And what -- how you think about the cadence of the benefit of legislation just year-over-year here, given the potential impact?
Rod West:
Hey, it's Rod. I think it's important note that the reason why we suggesting that the proposed legislation, keep in mind, it still in the midst of negotiations at the legislature, does not change our outlook in terms of Texas’s performance in large part because of the timing of the existing rate case process or rate case filing in Texas. So, we made some headway over the last several years in Texas to reduce risk to improve the likelihood of us earning our allowed ROE through mechanisms such as the transmission cost recovery rider, the distribution cost recovery rider, with the objection -- objective rather of moving Texas closer to, as Leo mentioned the other jurisdictions that have more formulaic rate mechanism. So, we view the proposed rider as a step in the right direction of reducing the risk in Texas, and improving our ability to earn and sustain our allowed ROE. So, while it's accretive structurally, it's not material enough for us to change our outlook. So putting that rider in some context, I think is appropriate.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. And then turning elsewhere, just wanted a quick clarifications, if you can actually, back to Andrew's question. I think if I understand you're right, you're evaluating opportunities in the renewable side, but because it's principally solar type resources rather than wind, the timing element around PPC expiration just simply doesn't jive with respect to your own efforts, in contrast to perhaps AEP's efforts in Arkansas, for instance. Again I just want to make sure I understand some of the prepared remarks that you made.
Rod West:
Well, certainly, we already have quite a bit happening in Arkansas, in particular, we have the wind project up and running. We have another one that's proposed and then of course, we have all the other ones that we've listed out in more detail in the materials today. So we are very focused on that. I mean, it's 1000 megawatts of renewables, that's quite a bit for us to move through all of our various jurisdictions. Like I said earlier, we will continue to keep an eye on things. If renewable started to become much more economic and the window is still open on the production or the investment tax credits certainly, we would look to accelerate if we thought that was the right thing.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Excellent.
Andrew Marsh:
And just to be clear, they just fit – they’re fitting in just to the resource plan to meet needs that we have on the system including the environmental benefits and including obviously the fact that when we put these in, we get some experience with how they interact with the system, real life experience. So we're moving thoughtfully through it in a bid to benefit our customers as much as we can.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right, understood. Thank you for clarifying.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Julien.
Operator:
And our last question comes from the line of Charles Fishman with MorningStar Research. Your line is now open.
Charles Fishman:
Thank you. Leo, you mentioned in your opening remarks that annual dividend review will occur as it regularly does in the fourth quarter. Your payout ratio, based on your guidance should be in the bottom half of your range. You have the bulk of the risk with respect in the endpoint now behind you. And then finally, your CapEx has got a little bit of a downward trajectory with some of the generation being completed. Does this put the Board in a better position to increase the dividend closer to the EPS growth rate, and I realize you can't speak for the Board, but do I least have the right factors or is there something else I am forgetting?
Leo Denault:
Well, you're correct. I can't speak for the Board at this point, but I'll just tell you, kind of a process that we go forward through. Obviously, our objective is to get to the point where your earnings and dividend growth, more closely matched than they have over the last few years. That's why we started the dividend increases long before we got into that payout ratio target. Certainly, tax reforms had an impact on that. One thing that I would say in your discussion that is not necessarily true is the capital plan reduction. If you go back to the 2013 to 2015 timeframe, that three year period, our capital plan was about $6 billion over the three years. I think the one in the presentation today is $11.7 billion. So it's a doubling of CapEx in that timeframe, while we've been able to maintain some low straights [ph] in the United States. So, we would anticipate, if we can continue to manage the business with the rate levels as attractive as they are keep customers bills low that gives us the opportunity to continue to invest more on behalf of our customers to improve technology to higher level of service at a lower price, that's our objective. So, that piece of your discussion where CapEx should be trending downward is not necessarily correct, in fact, I would think it would be going the other direction. So all those things will come into consideration. You're right on our objective is to get to the point where our earnings growth and dividend growth look more closely match, it is something that will come up within the year normally where the Board refreshes it's point of view on that and we'll take it up with them. But, actually for them, the growing capital budget, where we are in the range, where we see earnings going the opportunities associated with that will be factors that play into it.
Andrew Marsh:
And this is Drew, just to clarify what Leo said around the capital, we know what we showed you in July at our Analyst Day, was a capital plan that declined though, so by time we get out there we're not anticipating that would be at that level and we expect it to continue to grow.
Charles Fishman:
Yes, what my mistake was I was only looking at the generation, your D is going up in that RT&D.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, distribution we expect to grow with all of the investment opportunities that we have, our peers already into but we have the distribution automation, the automated meters, million going in this year, up like that which we think will begin to provide a platform for us to continue to invest into over the next several years.
Charles Fishman:
Okay, thank you very much. That's all I have.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Charles.
Operator:
And that concludes today's question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the call back to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Liz and thanks everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occurred prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program and you may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2018 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Mr. David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault. And then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measure are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault :
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Today we are reporting strong results for another successful year of significant accomplishments. For our core Utility, Parent & Other business, adjusted EPS were in line with our guidance and growth expectations, and our consolidated operational earnings came in above our guidance range. A year ago, I told you that the foundation for our success in 2018 was largely in place and we laid out what we needed to do to stay on track to achieve our outlooks and aspirations. We've checked off every deliverable on that list as well as a few more and our success keeps us firmly on track to achieve our strategic and financial objectives in 2019 and beyond. As a result, we raised our dividend for a fourth consecutive year, a trend we expect to continue, subject as always to approval of our Board. At EWC, we made important progress toward exiting that business. At the start of the year, we have made shutdown decisions on all EWC nuclear plants and we had an agreement in place to sell Vermont Yankee, a first of its kind transaction. Since then, we completed the sale of Vermont Yankee and we announced agreements to sell Pilgrim and Palisades. The Vermont Yankee transaction is an important milestone, not only for our strategy to completely divest our merchant nuclear assets, but also for the nuclear decommissioning industry. It establishes a model for the sale of nuclear plants post shutdown, which benefits the industry and key stakeholders by accelerating the decommissioning timeline, drawing on industry leading decommissioning and site remediation expertise and experience, and laying the foundation for future business development opportunities in the regions. We're also making progress on the sale of Pilgrim to Holtec. Holtec submitted its post shutdown decommissioning activity report to the NRC and we submitted the license transfer application. We will shut down Pilgrim no later than May 31st, and we expect to close on the sale of that plant by the end of the year. Since announcing our intent to exit the merchant business, our progress has been deliberate and on the mark. We've sold five facilities, two wind ventures, the Rhode Island State Energy Center and two nuclear plants, leaving EWC with three nuclear plants. We have agreements in place to sell two of those and we are now actively working toward a post shutdown sale of the third, Indian Point. All of this work and success significantly advances our clear strategy to transition to a pure play utility. This past year, we also saw solid achievements at our core Utility business. At Analyst Day, we demonstrated our ability to successfully execute our plan to improve technology across our business. Our disciplined capital projects management organization and rigorous processes give us confidence that we can grow the business through investments that benefit not only our customers but all of our stakeholders. These investments are important because they help sustain and modernize our system, provide lower production cost and lower carbon emission rates, enhance reliability, support customer growth, bring jobs and economic development to our communities and provide opportunities for our employees. Our new build CCGT projects remain on budget and on schedule, with the St. Charles power station slated to be in service in mid 2019. We also received regulatory approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission for the acquisition of Washington Parish Energy Center and we expect to close on that plant in 2021. More recently, we entered into an agreement to acquire the Choctaw Generating Station in Mississippi. We've cleared review under Hart-Scott-Rodino and have requested approval from the Mississippi Public Service Commission. We will also be requesting approval from the FERC in the near future and we expect to complete the transaction by the end of 2019. We continue to make progress on adding renewable generation to our portfolio. We are committed to providing our customers with renewable power options which are playing an increasingly important role in our resource planning. We have approximately 1,000 megawatts of renewables in various stages of development and specific projects include
Andrew Marsh :
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. Leo stated we are reporting strong results for another successful year. We executed on all our planned deliverables and this progress is reflected in our financial performance. For Utility, Parent & Other, on an adjusted view, we ended the year in line with our expectations, and for Entergy consolidated we exceeded our expectations for the year. We are pleased with these results and we look forward to continuing this momentum into 2019. For the next few minutes, I'll review the results of the fourth quarter and then the full year. We're also issuing 2019 guidance and the three-year outlook under our new Entergy adjusted measure. Starting with the quarter on Slide 6, our adjusted Utility, Parent & Other earnings were $0.04 higher than fourth quarter 2017. The key driver was lower non-fuel O&M, driven by lower nuclear costs this quarter. Also contributing to the increase were favorable base rate actions. Partially offsetting these drivers were regulatory provisions for two items I highlighted for you on the last earnings call. First, the $25 million refund to Entergy Texas customers from the lower tax rate, retroactive to January 2018. And second, because Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi performed above expectations such that future true-ups would result in amounts due back to customers, we have accrued those in 2018. We also had lower income tax expense and higher depreciation expense. Before we move on, I'd like to point out that starting next quarter we will revert back to showing our variances on an EPS basis only since the statutory tax rate period-over-period will be the same again. This will simplify our variance views going forward. Moving to EWC on Slide 7, operational earnings decreased $1.22 from a year ago. This was largely the result of lower returns on decommissioning trust investments during the quarter, and to a lesser extent, lower net revenue from lower nuclear volumes. Lower non-fuel O&M and lower income taxes helped partially offset the decrease. On Slide 8, operating cash flow in the quarter was $526 million; $385 million lower than a year ago. The decrease is primarily due to the return of the unprotected excess ADIT to customers at the Utility as well as lower net revenue and higher severance and retention costs at EWC. Now turning to the full year on Slide 9, consolidated operational earnings for 2018 were $7.31 per share, higher than the $7.20 per share in 2017. These results exceeded our guidance range primarily due to favorable weather and favorable non-fuel O&M at EWC. We also had tax items and losses on the EWC decommissioning trust that mostly offset each other. Excluding these items, results would have been firmly within our guidance range. UP&O adjusted EPS, on Slide 10, was $4.71 in 2018, $0.14 higher than 2017. The increase in 2018 was due largely to base rate actions. This increase was partly offset by higher non-fuel O&M and other operating expenses as well as higher interest expense at Parent. We also had lower income tax expense as a result of the lower federal income tax rate which was offset in net revenue. Slide 7 summarizes EWC operational earnings, which decreased $2.22 year-over-year. Losses on the decommissioning trust fund investments and less favorable income tax items in 2018 as compared to a year ago were key drivers. Lower net revenue from lower prices and lower volume also contributed. Partially offsetting these decreases were favorable depreciation and decommissioning expenses. Full year 2018 operating cash flow, shown on Slide 12, was approximately $2.4 billion in 2018, $239 million lower than last year. A main driver was the return of the unprotected excess ADIT to customers, which reduced cash flow approximately $600 million. Lower net revenue at EWC was also a driver. Favorable weather at the Utility and lower severance and retention payments at EWC partially offset the decrease. Moving to Slide 13. As we mentioned last quarter, with the progress we've made on our strategy to exit our EWC business and transition to a pure play utility, we are moving to a single, simpler measure that better reflects the nature of our business going forward. Today, we are initiating our new Entergy adjusted EPS guidance and three-year outlook. The new measure excludes all of our EWC earnings as similar to our previous UP&O adjusted measure with the following exceptions. We now exclude large tax items as opposed to normalizing to a statutory tax rate and we no longer normalize the effects of weather. While we have not changed our views of the underlying business, our Entergy adjusted guidance is higher than our previous UP&O adjusted disclosure. The change is only attributable to our expectation for lower than statutory tax rates in those years. The lower tax rates are created by the return of protected excess ADIT and AFUDC from the significant capital investments we are making at our core business to benefit our customers. The effective tax rate is lower in 2019 versus '20 and '21 primarily due to higher AFUDC in 2019. Reconciliation of the UP,O adjusted measure to the new Entergy adjusted measure can be found in our appendix. Starting next quarter, we'll report actual results under this Entergy adjusted measure only and our disclosures will be revised accordingly. The Entergy adjusted guidance range is $5.10 to $5.50 with the midpoint of $5.30. I will note that this is the same midpoint we showed at our Analyst Day in 2016, except for the $0.20 improvement related to the lower effective tax rate. On Slide 13, you will also see a few of the key drivers for 2019 guidance. Starting on the top line, our projected sales volume in 2019 is expected to increase about 1% year-over-year, driven by strong industrial sales of approximately 2.5% to 3%. We continue to expect volatility from quarter-to-quarter but slightly positive residential sales in the first half of the year turning slightly negative for the second half of the year as advanced meters go in service. Additionally, a full year of 2018 rate activity in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas contribute to 2019's results, along with the 2019 FRP filings in Mississippi and Louisiana. Recovery of the St. Charles power station is expected to begin mid-year when the plant goes in service. We project non-fuel O&M to be approximately $2.7 billion, which represents a 3% increase -- about a 3% increase compared to 2018. This reflects our ongoing capital intensive construction plan, which creates higher spending on fossil and transmission operations. We expect 2019 to be the last year for incremental nuclear hiring under our nuclear strategic plan, and there are a few costs anticipated for cybersecurity, grid modernization and customer initiatives to meet and explore new technologies and services building off of our AMI platform. We expect other expenses such as depreciation, interest and property taxes to increase as we continue to make productive investments to benefit our customers and our communities. And 2019 also assumes normal weather and no income tax planning items at the Utility. Finally, as a result of settling a portion of our equity forward in late 2018 and the remainder plan for second quarter 2019, we expect dilution of approximately $0.35. Even though EWC's results are excluded from the Entergy adjusted EPS guidance, we will continue to provide our expectations for EWC's financial performance through 2022. This information can be found in the appendix of our webcast presentation. I would also like to give an update on our cash position at EWC. While weak market performance led to lower returns on our nuclear decommissioning trust investments in fourth quarter 2018, we still expect EWC to provide positive net cash to parent from 2019 through 2022, and this includes our current view of potential decommissioning trust contributions. Additionally, we continue our efforts to reduce risk at EWC. We have rebalanced EWC decommissioning trust portfolio such that we eliminated its equity market exposure. Pilgrim's de-risked NDT, along with the close of the VY sale earlier this year, are notable steps in our transition to a pure play utility. Moving to the longer-term view on Slide 14, you'll see our 2020 and 2021 outlooks have been updated to reflect the new measure. And as I previously mentioned, our longer-term view of our business has not changed. We continue to target a 5% to 7% growth rate for adjusted earnings. Finally, our cash and credit metrics as of the end of the year are shown on Slide 15. Our Parent debt-to-total debt ratio has improved to 22.6%. This was largely due to the settlement of a portion of our equity forward in December. Our operational FFO-to-debt is 12%, but this includes the effects of returning $600 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers. Excluding this giveback, operational FFO-to-debt would be 15.3%. As I've noted on previous calls, we remain committed to our targeted ranges at or above 15% for FFO-to-debt and below 25% for Parent debt-to-total debt as well as maintaining our investment grade profile. Additionally, we continue to de-risk our balance sheet by managing our pension liability. 2018 pension obligation is lower by almost $600 million from last year, and we've lowered our return on assets expectation by 25 basis points for 2019. As a reflection of these collective efforts, Moody's upgraded our outlook to stable in November. 2018 was another year of strong results and we're proud of what we accomplished. We made significant progress in our exit of the EWC business and we continue to execute on our customer-centric investment plan at the Utility. As we have stated, we are committed to creating sustainable value for our customers, employees, communities and owners. I look forward to another successful year in 2019. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So just a quick clarification here. Obviously, well done on '19 and onwards guidance. But wanted to just -- structurally, as you think about beyond even '21, is this $0.10 sustainable in sort of the upside tied to the new effective tax rate you always talk about? I just want to understand how sustainable it is?
Andrew Marsh :
We believe it is sustainable, Julien. With the tax reform, there is a structural change in the way that that effective tax rate going to come out due to the protected excess ADIT. As you know, that that's going to go on for many years and it will lower revenue, also lower the tax expense that you see and so, it won't be exactly dollar for dollar like the unprotected piece, but it will effectively be in there on an ongoing basis and so we expect to see a lower effective tax rate going forward.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
Got it. Excellent. If I can just quickly follow up, it seems like Utility CapEx went up a little bit from the preliminary guidance you guys all gave back at [EEI]. Can you just elaborate a little bit on what's moving there? I mean, it sounds like there might be some, I'll let you elaborate.
Andrew Marsh :
Okay. Well, thanks for noticing that. It did go up a little bit. There's two areas. It's primarily in the distribution and the transmission area. The distribution area is continuing to increase our grid mod investments and specifically in the area of distribution automation, as we continue to push into that. And now in transmission, it's continuation of just needed transmission upgrades as part of the MTEP process. And so those are investments that we recognize out of the MTEP process and so we've added into the capital plan.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta from Citigroup. Your line is open.
Praful Mehta :
So on the EPS outlook going forward, just wanted to understand the change is driven only by the effective tax rate or also by the AFUDC going forward or is the AFUDC fall off only from 2019?
Andrew Marsh :
Yeah. So both of those are what we are citing as affecting the effective tax rate. The main change is the effective tax rate. There isn't really much change in the AFUDC expectation, not in our guidance outlook. But as the AFUDC comes down from '19 to '20, the effect that that has on the effective tax rate is going to diminish. And so it actually pass back up afterwards, but the protected excess ADITs starts to come off. So it's going to level out at around the $0.10 effect. It's just a little bit more this first year as we have three large combined cycle gas turbines under construction that are long-dated construction assets, there's just going to be more AFUDC on the books this year.
Praful Mehta :
Got you. That's super helpful, Drew. And then in terms of Grand Gulf, I know there was an NRC review ongoing. Is there any update on the status on that?
Leo Denault :
Good morning, Praful. Yes, we have expectations of a formal exit with the NRC next week. We have to self-identify the issues that are determined to be non-cited violations or the lowest safety significance. We're very pleased with our operator response to the issue and we expect a formal inspection report in about 45 days. So there is no significant issues identified in the inspection.
Praful Mehta :
Understood. And so is this effectively -- is there any change needed in terms of how you operate nuclear in general or do you see this within the plan of what was expected?
Leo Denault :
No. We believe we're on track with our plan and we don't see any need for change.
Praful Mehta :
Okay, understood. And then just the last thing on the credit side, Drew, the 15% target, obviously you're much below that, obviously, driven by the ADIT in the short-term. How comfortable is the rating agency view around that metric and like how much time are they expecting you to kind of grow back into that 15% level? Are there any levers that you can pull if the metric is delayed in terms of the improvement? Just wanted to understand kind of what's the flexibility you have on that metric.
Andrew Marsh :
Yes, well, the expectation that we would get above the 15% by 2020, next year, and we're still on track with that. We have ongoing conversations with the rating agencies. They're fully aware of the plan and they can see the expectation for the excess ADIT -- the unprotected excess ADIT going back to customers quite rapidly. In fact, that's one of the things that they cited as positive is that we are getting that behind us so that you can see our FFO-to-debt measure move higher more quickly instead of drawn out. When we discussed it with them, the expectation was that if we're going to have to deal with this on an ongoing basis, how we’re recalculating, it can show you the effect of it back to 15% in the materials today. If we had to do that on an ongoing basis, it would be much harder for them to get comfortable with our outlook. So they are very comfortable with it and they see the full depth of it and we all expect to get back by 2020.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Gregory Gordon :
A couple of questions, and I apologize if I'm making you repeat yourself. It's been pretty earnings morning. With the changes in the current EBITDA outlook for EWC, where do you stand in terms of your aspirations of sort of fully exiting on a cash and neutral basis or cash positive -- I mean, have the numbers moved around a little bit in terms of where you expect that exit on an NPV basis?
Andrew Marsh :
Yes, well, I mean, as the world turns, things are continuing to evolve. We affirmed our expectation that we would be cash positive from net cash back to Parent out of EWC '19 to '22. And the market has moved around -- the equity capital market has moved around. As you know, it dipped down in the fourth quarter. It's rallied in January. The rally in January of course was helpful for us and also allowed us to finish the de-risking of Pilgrim and that was very helpful in terms of getting us more comforts towards our expectation of keeping that cash outlook. We've also continued to find ways to manage our O&M and capital costs and those efforts are ongoing within EWC and some of those are realized in the fourth quarter of '18 in the form of -- significantly over O&M. And so those things are helping us keep our expectation for positive cash flow out of EWC net back to parent over the next few years.
Gregory Gordon :
Fantastic. And then I think you just answered my next question, which was, you expect to be very solidly inside your metrics through time here, so any significant incremental equity issuance is probably not in the cards here that you really need to be.
Andrew Marsh :
Yes. No change from what we said at Analyst Day last summer. We will finish up our last year's equity issuance. We have that in escrow right now. We should draw that out sometime in the second quarter, and then we wouldn't need to look at anything until 2021 and beyond.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Michael Lapides :
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Actually I have a handful of them. First of all, on the generation rider in Texas, can you talk to us just about the process behind that in terms of getting that finalized potentially and then whether it needs -- whether is this enabling legislation and therefore you need regulation that come with it that kind of outlines how it will work?
Rod West :
Hey, Michael, good morning, it's Rod. From a process standpoint, we have proposed legislation in Texas in both the House and the Senate. And you are correct, it is enabling legislation that if passed would give the PUCT an option to enact a generation recovery rider or something to that effect that would essentially match from a better timing perspective our investments with recovery. And so there would be the passage of the legislation, if we're successful, and then, it would enable the PUCT through the regulatory process to implement a generation rider.
Michael Lapides :
Got it. And then one question on all the generating plants that you have coming in the service over the next couple of years. Can you just remind us how those all get into utility rates, meaning, do they go into rates as a special rider win put in service? Do they go in only when the annual formula rate plan process is implemented -- like Louisiana, I think it's implemented and after the summer like in September each year and Mississippi is a different time line. Like how should we think about the timing of when those rate step-ups occur?
Rod West :
One of the reasons why we were seeking to get the law changed in Texas was to allow Texas to be more like the future forward test years of Mississippi and Arkansas. And to your point, in Louisiana, our largest jurisdiction, the moment a plant comes online and into service, it automatically goes into rates. And so we were trying to bring Texas forward. So all the other jurisdictions, with the exception of Texas, through a special recovery rider or through the formula rate plan. The moment that plant goes into service, we begin recovering through the rate regime. So Texas is -- we're trying to get Texas in line with the other three -- really four, with New Orleans.
Andrew Marsh :
And I'll just add, Michael. In Mississippi, we're not building a plant, we're buying a plant, the Choctaw asset, and it should go the same way as Rod just described, in-rates when we are able to close.
Michael Lapides :
Got it. So when I think about the other plants in Louisiana that are coming online, just as they come online, assume the step change that incorporates the O&M, the capital, the return on and recovery of capital et cetera.
Rod West :
That is correct.
Michael Lapides :
Got it. Last item, just on Indian Point, when is the last -- I don't want to use the word -- when does the state have to make a final decision about the Indian Point retirement in 2020, meaning, when do you reach a point of no return where if the state hasn't said, hey, do a refueling, get it ready, we need it to operate longer, let's talk contracts, when do they actually have to tell you that by?
Andrew Marsh :
I don't think that there is any process associated with the state. But in terms of a point of no return, I'll let Chris answer that.
Chris Bakken :
Yes, we're at the point where Unit 2 is refueled for its last cycle and it will operate until the spring of 2020, and Indian Point Unit 3 we will refuel shortly and it will then run through spring of 2021 and then that's it. I mean, we do not intend to refuel the units again.
Michael Lapides :
Got it. So if the state were to change its mind, it's got to happen within six to 12 months, before you'd have to do another refuel?
Chris Bakken :
We would need considerable warning and that's something that we would have to discuss with the state. But to be very clear from our end, we have not made arrangements to purchase additional fuel and have no intentions of doing another refuel outage beyond the one this the spring.
Michael Lapides :
Okay.
Andrew Marsh :
And then we'd also need the incremental capital that we need to go into the plant likely as well.
Chris Bakken :
Under negotiations.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Jonathan Arnold :
A quick question on just on the new guidance basis. Do we understand it correctly that, when you say that you will not include I think significant tax items in there? What's the -- do you have a threshold in mind that we should think of that you'll effectively exclude from evaluating yourselves against this guidance?
Andrew Marsh :
Well, I think I can give you a framework for it. In 2018, we had about $1 of tax items over a couple of quarters and we had one in the fourth quarter related to the restructuring in Arkansas, and then one in the second quarter I think related to an IRS settlement. Those two things added up to a buck. We would have excluded both of them. And we would had an effective tax rate in 2018 of about 21% excluding those items and the effect of the unprotected excess ADIT.
Jonathan Arnold :
Okay. Those would seem to be clearly material.
Andrew Marsh :
Yes.
Jonathan Arnold :
Should we think about this as sort of where you will manage around -- having -- weather in the guidance, perhaps? I'm just trying to get a better sense of how you will evaluate your performance on this new metric.
Andrew Marsh :
Well, I mean, I think we are trying to build flexibility into our business to help us do that, not use taxes. So we are actively working on ways that we can manage our business in light of the fact that we're going to have weather volatility in our numbers and I think that's the primary measure. You're not going to see a $0.75 tax item show up at the same time to kind of rescue us. That's not the plan.
Jonathan Arnold :
Okay. That's clear enough. Look forward to seeing it play out. And just a second issue. Leo, I think you talked about working toward a post shutdown sale of Indian Point when you talked about the decommissioning transactions. Should I take that to mean that you wouldn't anticipate a deal for Indian Point until after the shutdown or more that such a deal wouldn't close obviously till after shutdown? I just wasn't sure if you were trying to give us some indication of timing on reaching a similar agreement.
Leo Denault :
So the transaction would not close until post shutdown. What I was indicating is that we have begun work on a transaction. That, as we've mentioned before, we would expect to complete sometime between now and the end of the year.
Jonathan Arnold :
Okay. So that is something you think is a reasonable prospect for '19 because that was -- I was going to ask why it wasn't on the '19 items.
Leo Denault :
That's correct. It is something that we've mentioned before, in order to close the transaction post shutdown of the units, we would like to get into the regulatory process in such time that we would want to have a transaction signed and announced by the end of the year. Obviously, we've also mentioned we recognize from your standpoint, sooner would be better than later, but that's the timeline that we've got. But what I was indicating is that we've actually started that work.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon from KeyBanc. Your line is open.
Paul Ridzon :
Good morning. Thank you. For your '19 and '20 guidance, what your assumptions are for effective tax rate?
Andrew Marsh :
So for '19, I think it's about 22.5% and for 2021, it's a little higher. It's more like...
Paul Ridzon :
A dime higher basically?
Andrew Marsh :
Yes.
Paul Ridzon :
And then just kind of got lost on your comments about you will no longer weather normalize or you will continue to?
Andrew Marsh :
We will no longer weather normalize. We will still report what we think the effect of weather is on our results, but we aren't going to adjust our results because of that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza from Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open.
Shar Pourreza :
Sorry, I hopped on a second late. The de-risking of the decommissioning trust, did that have an indirect impact to the viability of the sales that you're looking at for Indian Point trust sometime this year? And then the other question is the transaction that you're sort of working on, can you just confirm whether it's with one bidder or are you still working through a couple of bidders?
Leo Denault :
I'll start with the second part of question. We're not going to comment on that.
Shar Pourreza :
Okay.
Leo Denault :
I got the answer but we don't comment. Merely just wanted to point out that we've begun that activity.
Andrew Marsh :
And Shar, this is Drew. On the first part of your question, so we -- the de-risking activities were related to Pilgrim and not related to Indian Point. As we have a transaction set there and we have expectations there that we want to make sure we meet, and so that's why the de-risking activity took place there. Any point is a different transaction. It will have a -- it will have its own set of expectations around the trust and we'll act accordingly on de-risking or otherwise when that's appropriate.
Shar Pourreza :
Got it, got it. But we could sort of use the proxies for the existing assets that you have right now as far as we think about return thresholds for this current transaction given some of the other assets are still operating but the decommissioning funds were pre-sold.
Andrew Marsh :
I'm not sure I'm following your question exactly. The de-risked elements around Pilgrim, they're going to return some sort of fixed income element in around 2% or so. The Indian Point, from a returns perspective, is unchanged at this point.
Shar Pourreza :
Okay.
Andrew Marsh :
And so once we get to a spot where we have clarity around what our expectations are for that trust, then we will act accordingly there.
Operator:
Our last question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Macquarie. Your line is open.
Angie Storozynski :
Thank you. I have two questions. I know a lot of questions about the decommissioning trusts for EWC assets. But when I think about Indian Point, in the past you'd mentioned that given that it's a two reactor site, it could have some economies of scale related to decommissioning of these assets. So when you talk about your expectations for EWC to actually return cash, do you already account for those efficiencies or is this based on the assumption of that minimum balances of those decommissioning trusts as stated by the NRC?
Andrew Marsh :
Yes. Angie, this is Drew. So when we're thinking about that return of cash back to the parent, we're thinking about basically operating cash flows and working capital in the current business and the operating business and any associated retention payments and capital requirements. We still have one refueling left et cetera. All of that is baked into our expectation for return of cash back to the parent. The decommissioning activities are strictly matched up against the decommissioning trusts and so we do anticipate economies of scale. We think that will be helpful. That helps us mitigate any expectation of actually having put money into those trusts, but other than that, it's mostly the operating expectations that are dictating our expectation that we would be positive cash flow out of that business net to parent through '22.
Angie Storozynski :
Okay. And separately on your new guidance and the effective tax rate assumption, so does it matter whether this tax benefit is going to be realized, i.e., if it's at the parent level or at the regulated utilities level and if it's the latter, is there any risk that you know as you go through your rate cases some of this benefit would actually be transferred to your customers, that is, it wouldn't be retained in earnings because you would have to basically embed the lower effective tax rate in your customer rates?
Andrew Marsh :
Yes. I think actually a lot of it hopefully will. That's one of the strategies that we employ to help keep our customer rates low, and one of the drivers of course is the protected excess ADIT, which is basically money that's going back to customers we collected over time for the higher tax rate in previous years. So that's going to be kind of dribbling out over time. That's really the source or one of the two sources of the lower effective tax rate and that is going directly back to customers over time. And then the AFUDC piece, AFUDC is recognized by books, it's not recognized by tax. So that's just a structural element that's in there associated with that. That will get reflected in rate base ultimately. But those are the two main drivers of the positive change in the effective tax rate, and of course, when we are defining tax items, we are not including those in our numbers going forward. But often, we are working with retail regulators to share those benefits with customers and as we do that those might flow back to customers as well.
Operator:
We have no further question at this time. I will now turn the call back to Mr. David Borde.
David Borde :
Thank you, Shirley, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on March 1st and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant Company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. Have a wonderful day. You may disconnect.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, IR Leo Denault - Chairman & CEO Andrew Marsh - EVP & CFO Roderick West - Group President Utility Operations & Director
Analysts:
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Praful Mehta - Citigroup Gregory Gordon - Evercore ISI Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Paul Fremont - Mizuho Securities Charles Fishman - Morningstar Inc.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2018 Earnings Release and Teleconference call. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's conference, Mr. David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Borde, you may begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions]. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, which are set forth in our earnings release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. We now have 3 quarters behind us, and we continue to consistently execute on the initiatives that keep us on track to achieve our goals, both near term and longer term. We've completed most of the 2018 key deliverables we outlined at the beginning of the year, and we've added a few more since then. We are pleased to report strong third quarter results with Utility, Parent & Other adjusted EPS of $2.27 and consolidated operational earnings per share of $3.77. Drew will cover the numbers in more detail, but the bottom line is, that we're raising our consolidated operational guidance range. For our UP&O adjusted view, we are affirming our 2018 guidance and our longer-term outlooks through 2021. With the EEI Financial Conference less than 2 weeks away, we are keeping today's call focused on the quarter. Before I go into our accomplishments, I'd to address a couple of news items that while not materially impacting financial results weren't being addressed. First, on the Mississippi Attorney General complaint. This is the continuation of litigation that was filed 10 years ago. The matter was set to go to trial in early November, but as you may have heard earlier this week, the trial was continued to sometime next year. The precise date has not been set. We filed 2 separate motions for summary judgment, and last June, the State of Mississippi passed legislation, which clarifies that a claim of this nature should first proceed in front of the NPSE before being filed in court. This matter has been disclosed and thoroughly discussed in our 10-K and 10-Q filings to which I would point you. The important thing for you to takeaway is that our generation practices are scrutinized, reviewed or audited in multiple jurisdictions on a regular and continuous basis and have been for decades. Claims similar to those brought by the Attorney General were alleged in Louisiana, New Orleans and Texas. Louisiana commission and City Council both rejected those claims on their merits, and the case was dismissed in Texas for lack of jurisdiction. We feel very comfortable about our position in the litigation, and for that reason, do not believe the lawsuit poses a material risk to earnings. Second, we received the shared Gartner report on the grassroots advocacy practices in New Orleans. We recognized and appreciate the effort undertaking by the City Council to thoroughly review this matter. Nevertheless, we take exception to certain characterizations and key omissions in the report, like the Hawthorn Group's written admission that they took these actions without our knowledge. There are no facts that support the conclusion that Entergy employees knew about the hiring of crowds on demand or their payments to individuals to show support for the New Orleans power station. However, we believe that better oversight and asking the right questions could have either prevented the actions of Hawthorn and crowds on demand or discovered them and allowed us to stop them. We continue our effort to regain the trust and confidence of the citizens of New Orleans and the Council. I will now turn back to the quarter. With good clarity on our strategy, our accomplishments included a major milestone in our transition to a pure-play utility. The NRC has approved the license transfer of Vermont Yankee to NorthStar. This was a necessary condition in our agreement to sell Vermont Yankee along with it's decommissioning assets and liability. The decision is also an important milestone for the nuclear decommissioning industry, and we are pleased with this outcome and encouraged by the NRC's acceptance of this transaction model. The sale of nuclear plants post-shutdown will benefit stakeholders and our industry by accelerating the decommissioning time line, drawing on industry-leading decommissioning and site remediation expertise and experience and laying the foundation for potential future business development opportunities in the regions. We are awaiting a decision from the Vermont Public Utility Commission, which we requested by November 30. We continue to target completion of the transaction by year-end. We're also making progress on our agreement to sell Pilgrim. In September, we attended the NRC's license transfer application pre-submittal meeting with Holtec. We discussed Pilgrim's status and the proposed transaction as well as Holtec's decommissioning strategy and financial and technical qualifications. We plan to submit our filing to the NRC before the end of the year. We also received renewed operating licenses for Indian Point units 2 and 3, which are scheduled to shut down in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Palisades will close a year later, finalizing the orderly wind down of EWC operations. Our progress at EWC significantly advances our strategy to transition to a pure-play utility. We've also continue to make good progress towards modernizing the utilities generation portfolio. In August, Entergy Mississippi agreed to acquire Choctaw Generating Station. The plant is a clean and modern 810-megawatt combined cycle natural gas turbine. We expect to close the transaction by the end of 2019 following receipt of regulatory approvals. At Analyst Day, we noted that our 5-year capital plan assumed a new build CCGT to meet Entergy Mississippi's capacity requirements. Choctaw will now meet that need. Purchasing the Choctaw facility is more economic than a new build and frees up capital resources or other investments that will also benefit our customers. This is a good example, of opportunities we continue to seek to meet our customers needs at the most economic price point. We'll provide a preliminary update on our three year capital plan at the EEI Conference. We're also making progress on our new build generation projects. Our 3 CCGTs remain on budget and on schedule. We're awaiting for an air permit from the state for the New Orleans power station before we can further proceed. We expect this to result in a 4 to 5 month delay in the plants commercial operation date, but we still anticipate completing the project on budget. We've also made significant progress on key transmission plants. We completed the Lake Charles project, our largest transmission undertaking to date. It included construction of 2 new substations, expansion of two others and added approximately 25 miles of high-voltage transmission lines. The project is providing improved liability and additional load serving capability in an area that is experiencing significant industrial growth. Also, in the quarter, Entergy Louisiana announced that it had signed a long-term agreement to serve Shintech's expanding manufacturing complex in Iberville Parish. Through the project, Shintech will create 120 new direct jobs. Louisiana economic development estimates an additional 590 new indirect jobs will result for a total of more than 700 new jobs. The expansion is also projected to create up to 3,000 construction jobs at its peak, and we expect it to come online in early 2021. We've also been busy with rate proceedings in many of our jurisdictions. In New Orleans, we refiled our rate case. The changes from the original filing related primarily to rate design and a revenue requirement request in our refiling is nearly identical to what we requested in the original filing. With next year's projected fuel savings and energy efficiency, the net rate change to our customers in 2019 is expected to be a $20 million decrease. In Texas, we filed an unopposed settlement agreement in our rate -- our base rate case proceeding. The settlement is a step in the right direction. It provides certainty and will improve earnings and return and resolve tax the reform issues in that jurisdiction. We expect the commission to take it up at an upcoming open meeting. Nevertheless, the settlement is less than we requested, and we will continue to work collaboratively with the commission, the legislature and other stakeholders to explore ways to improve the regulatory construct in Texas. Specifically, we'll ask the commission to review its rules and associated procedures to include appropriate post-test year adjustments. Regulatory mechanisms that better align the timing of cost and investments with their recovery are beneficial for credit ratings, access to capital at a lower cost to customers and infrastructure investments that drive economic development and job creation. Yesterday, parties filed a partial settlement agreement in the Arkansas FRP proceedings resolving all outstanding revenue requirements issues for 2019. The agreement recommends a rate adjustment of approximately $67 million consistent with EAI's initial filings. The rate adjustment is based upon a revenue requirement of approximately $163 million capped at 4% of total filing year revenue. We still expect a decision from the commission by year-end. This continued progress on regulatory proceedings improves clarity and solidifies our financial commitments. At Entergy, safety is a core value, and we recently achieved an important milestone. Our transmission group of nearly 1,000 employees achieved 397 days of injury-free performance. This milestone demonstrates that 0 injuries is achievable on a sustained basis. We're proud of this accomplishment. We're thankful to our employees for the focus, commitment and care they have demonstrated in achieving this outstanding performance. Before I turn the call over to Drew, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge Wayne Leonard who passed away in September. Wayne was a friend and a mentor to many and he was also a true leader. He led our employees and our communities through transformational events like Hurricane Katrina. He took a leadership role in key industry issues, including sustainability and corporate responsibility. He advocated for low-income customers who couldn't speak for themselves and demanded that we do a better job serving the poor. He was a visionary on issues of climate changes in the environment. Although, he retired more than 5 years ago, Wayne's legacy remains deeply woven into the fabric of our company. We set out to drive sustainable long-term growth by delivering strong financial results to our owners, investing in our employees to create a workforce for the future and proactively establishing policies to be an environmentally and socially responsible growth engine for our communities, while working to break the cycle of poverty experienced by many of the customers we serve. We never wanted individuals that have to choose between paying for electricity or necessities like groceries or medications. For us, that starts with controlling electric rates. S&P Global Market Intelligence studies show that in 2016 and 2017, Entergy provided power to retail customers at the lowest average price of the major investor-owned in the United States. In addition, we advocate for additional and fair funding for our customers from the Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. LIHEAP helps customers in dire financial circumstances pay their utility bills. With the help of our senators and congressmen, in 2018 an incremental $47 million was directed to 8 residents in the states where we serve. And we've recently learned that the U.S. Senate is recommending an additional $50 million for the program in 2019 with customers in our service territory getting their fair share. Today, we operate as much one of the cleanest large-scale generating fleets in the United States. Over the last 3 years, our mission rate across our entire fleet has been more than 40% below the national average and the EPA standard for a new highly efficient combined cycle natural gas unit. This year, we were named to the 2018 Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index. We earned top scores in the areas of policy influence, climate strategy, water-related risks and corporate citizenship and philanthropy. Only companies that excel in developing and implementing long-term economic, environmental and social strategies and actions are included on the index. And we're the only U.S. electric utility to be named to the world or North American index or both for 17 straight years. It is no coincidence that this recognition goes back to the time when Wayne's and Entergy's greenhouse emissions commitment may have seemed an unrealistic goal. Our investors are increasingly aware of the importance of environmental and sustainability responsibilities. Financial results are inexplicably tied to good corporate citizenship, acting with concern for safety, the environment, employees, communities, customers and owners is what makes Entergy a sound investment. We're proud of our legacy of leadership in these areas. We have made a lot of progress, but there is still a lot to do. To further our goal of improving communities, we have incorporated the UN sustainable development goals into our social responsibility, business plan and strategy. We will also continue to work with our local partners, such as the United Way to help families achieve economic stability, jobs for America's graduates to create a skill, ready and diverse workforce for the communities we serve, to have resources to fund coastal restoration and the power to care to provide bill payment assistance for elderly and disabled customers. I encourage you to learn more about our efforts and track record on ESG issues through our integrated report, which we publish annually. The fundamentals of our business are strong. 2018 has already been another year of significant accomplishments, including major milestones to keep us on track to achieve our strategic, operational and financial objectives. Our accomplishments this quarter are in many ways simply a continuation of the path Wayne set out for us many years ago, a path to become a world-class utility that prospers by creating sustainable value for all its stakeholders, a path where our success is not only remeasured in delivering shareholder returns, but also in leaving behind a better world, we're doing good is good business. I'll now turn the call over to Drew, who'll provide more details on our financial results and also a preview of what we are planning for EEI. We look forward to seeing you at the conference.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. As Leo mentioned, our accomplishments this quarter directly support our strategic, operational and financial objectives. Our results were strong with consolidated operational earnings of $3.77 per share and Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings of $2.27 per share. At the Utility, the fundamentals of our business are healthy. We are seeing the effects of productive investment on behalf of our customers and the lower tax rate. We also had positive effects of weather year-over-year. At EWC, we saw good returns on the nuclear decommissioning trust funds in the third quarter and as we've communicated, favorable tax benefits. Overall, operational earnings to date are better than we expected. Therefore, we are raising our 2018 Entergy operational guidance while our core Utility, Patent & Other business is firmly on track to achieve its 2018 guidance and longer-term outlooks. Breaking down the results, starting with Utility, Parent & Other on Slide 5. Adjusted earnings, which normalized weather and taxes, were $0.12 higher than the prior year. Setting aside offsetting line items, we saw a lower retail sales volume in the unbilled period. This was partially offset by higher-than-expected weather adjusted bill sales and positive rate actions at Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas. Finally, nonfuel O&M was higher as planned due largely to fossil spending and contract costs. Moving to EWC's results on Slide 6. Operational earnings were $1.42. Excluding this quarter's tax items, the key driver was higher returns on the nuclear decommissioning trust funds. Lower nuclear pricing as well as nuclear sales volume partially offset the increase. This quarter, as reported earnings -- as reported earnings included $110 million upward revision to Pilgrim's asset retirement obligation from an updated decommissioning study. The revision resulted in an asset impairment, which is treated as special item and excluded from our operational earnings. Before leaving EWC, I would like to update our cash expectation. We expect EWC to provide positive net cash to parent from 2019 through 2022. This remains a key focus area as we transition to a pure-play utility. Turning back to the quarter, Slide 7, shows operating cash flow totaling $780 million, $113 million lower than a year ago. The decrease was primarily due to the return of $266 million of unprotected excess ADIT to customers, which we expected. At this point, all of our customers are seeing the positive effects from tax reform in their bills. Roughly half of this was offset by solid weather as well as increased collections for fuel and purchase power cost recovery at the utility. In addition, lower net revenue at EWC and planned spending on Vermont Yankee decommissioning activities contributed to the decrease. Now turning to Slide 8 and 9. Because of our strong results to date, we're updating our consolidated operational guidance range of $6.75 to $7.25. This reflects a midpoint increase of $0.45 and a narrowing of the range. The primary drivers are strong weather to date and better-than-planned income tax outcomes. We're also assuming a tax item at the utility, which we expect to materialize in the fourth quarter. But to date, this quarter, the tax item is essentially offset by mark-to-market returns on the EWC nuclear decommissioning trusts. We're also affirming our Utility, Parent & Other adjusted guidance range, which we still expect to come around the midpoint. There are a few key drivers that I'd like to highlight. We've seen stronger-than-expected sales year-to-date, and as a result, we now expect positive growth for the year of about 0.5% versus our previous assumption of negative 0.7%. Nevertheless, we expect this to be partially offset by our settlement in the Texas rate case, which includes a $0.10 refund -- $0.10 per share refund to customers from the lower tax rate, retroactive to January of this year. Because Entergy Texas has a historical test year and has been under earning, we did not assume this outcome when we set our guidance earlier this year. We expect this refund to affect 2018 results and is reflected in our current midpoint expectations for Utility, Parent & Other adjusted EPS. And to the extent, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi continue to perform above our expectations, such that future true-up's would result in amounts due back to customers, we would accrue those this year. We're also affirming our long-term Utility, Parent & Other outlook through 2021. You'll see that our outlook is unchanged from Analyst Day just a few months ago. Switching gears a bit regarding our outlooks. For the past few years, we have focused on 2 earnings measures, Entergy operational EPS and Utility, Parent & Other adjusted EPS. Our Utility, Parent & Other adjusted view have helped us reinforce our focus on transitioning to a pure-play utility and has held us accountable to the quarter results of the utility business. However, now that we've been successful with our strategy, having 2 measures may no longer be warranted. Over the next few months, we'll be evaluating our earnings measures and disclosures to address feedback we've received from the investment community, including the volatility from large tax items and EWC reporting. While at this point, we can't treat EWC as discontinued operations from a GAAP perspective, we recognize that the time is right to guide you on a simpler measure that better reflects our current business profile. We plan to provide a further update on the fourth quarter call. Moving to our credit metrics, shown on Slide 10. Our FFO to debt percentage is lower at 13.1% and our parent debt to total debt has increased to 24.5%. In the third quarter, our customers continue to receive the significant benefits of tax reform, including the $266 million of unprotected excess ADIT I mentioned earlier. This brings the year-to-date total to $342 million. We expect FFO to debt to move a little over, over the next few quarters as we continue to return an estimated $640 million of remaining unprotected excess ADIT cash to customers. But beginning next quarter, we project an improvement in parent debt to total debt as we complete incremental debt issuances at utility and settle a portion of the equity forward. As I mentioned last quarter, we remain committed to our FFO to debt target at or above 15% by 2020 and our parent debt to total debt at or below 25%. Before we turn to Q&A, I want to reinforce that the fundamentals of our business are strong, and we are firmly on track to achieve our 2018 guidance and longer-term outlooks. We have executed on the majority of our business objectives for the year, including major milestones and the wind down of EWC. At the EEI, we plan to provide a preview of a few key considerations for 2019. We also plan to provide a preliminary three year capital plan. We're excited about where we stand as a company, and we're looking forward to continuing this conversation at EEI. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Bank of America Lynch.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So perhaps, first just to kick it off, good progress on the nuclear plan thus far. Curious on where you stand with respect to any end point, recognizing that there is still some time before you actually shut down these units down. How are negotiations and progress going there? And how also at the same time are you thinking about cash flow and the net cash flow comment in light of some of the mark-to-market improvements in the last few months in Northeast more broadly?
Andrew Marsh:
Julien, this is Drew. So on the first question regarding Indian Point, as we stated previously, our intent is to follow a path similar to Pilgrim, Palisades and Vermont Yankee on Indian Point. The good news is we have a lot of time. As you've mentioned, it's going to be a while before those plants are shut down. And we're receiving heightened interest because we've had success with Vermont Yankee on the NRC. So we're actually going to take some of the time to get the best deal we can, and we're not going to probably talk about specifics of the process and where we are in the process as we go along. And on the second question, regarding -- sorry, mark-to-market, when we were thinking about the cash measure, we were thinking about potential for contributions to our decommissioning trust funds and the current market expectations through the last couple of days are reflected in our expectation of positive cash '19 to '22.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it, excellent. And then, quick as a follow-up, good success on the regulated front as well. How are you thinking about execution against the higher equity ratios across your service territories as well? It seems like you've had some of the settlements coming already?
Andrew Marsh:
I think if you look at Texas, it was close to 51%, the New Orleans request is above 50%, Louisiana is around 49%. The ones that we're still working on moving up are in Arkansas and Mississippi. I think Arkansas is the lowest at about 46% or so, so we are working on moving those up, but it'll take a little bit more time.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. And how is that reflected just -- if in the case of Arkansas on the context of what you all filed I believe is part of a settlement there too?
Andrew Marsh:
I think that was what we anticipated when we made that filing, and we're expecting to move it up over the next few years.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Praful Mehta with Citigroup.
Praful Mehta:
I appreciate, Leo, the update on the legal topics proactively, so appreciate that. On the quarter, I wanted to firstly talk on load growth. The load growth year-to-date you mentioned is about 0.5%, but your guidance assumption was more like negative 0.7%. So just wanted to understand what's driving the improvement year-to-date? And is that more sustainable do you think? Or is that more 2018 specific?
Roderick West:
It's Rod. I think driving the year, we saw continued strong industrial growth. But what was different was the residential and commercial sector being stronger than we anticipated. But to your question about how we think about that in the outlooks, our outlooks haven't change given the guidance we gave you through, I believe, 2022. So we're not making any adjustments to our long-term outlook.
Andrew Marsh:
And just real I'll add that, we're expecting AMI as we deploy that will give our customers better information and that will actually put some pressure on residential and commercial sales as we go forward, and we are over that.
Praful Mehta:
Got you, fair enough. And Drew maybe for you, the second question more on finance and then like the credit side. Looks like your FFO to debt, obviously, has gone below 15% target that you have, and the debt to cap has gone above the 65%. Wanted to understand are the rating agencies allowing you some time to deal with this ADIT credit and kind of allow that lower than 15% for a couple of years? How is that pressure or discussion with the agency going?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. Praful, they're fully aware of where we are and our plan associated with the excess ADIT. And what we've committed to for FFO to debt is 15% or above starting in 2020, and they're aware of that. And if you actually back out the excess ADIT, you'll see that we're still at 15% on that, there is a reconciliation in the back of the materials. On the debt to total capital, I don't know that they focus on that as much. They're going to be -- the main measure that Moody's in particular is looking at is that parent debt to total debt, and so we're maintaining that at or below 25%, and that number should start to drop over the next few quarters as we pull down on our equity forward.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Greg Gordon with Evercore.
Gregory Gordon:
I'm wondering when we see you guys at EEI and we talk about the capital plan, I mean, your capital plan has been dominated by -- well, not dominated by, but a large portion of your capital plan has been focused on building large -- medium to large size CCGTs combustion turbines, the RISE plant in New Orleans. How much should we expect your -- the type of capital you're spending to evolve with regard to thinking about renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency technologies behind the meter as we move into the paradigm that other regions of the country, other utilities have sort of been compelled to or proactively embracing in terms of technological change?
Leo Denault:
Yes, Greg, I'll start and let Drew jump in. At Analyst Day, we talked about the continued need for new generation. Obviously, that's actually when we had identified the Mississippi need at that point. If you think about the generation that we have, we will still continue to need to refresh that as we get through time, we still have significant amount of legacy generation that we can replace with newer, more modern, more efficient better environmental footprint type of stuff. But as we also mentioned there is a dynamic of renewables battery storage becoming economic and competitive with central station generation, and that's why as we've announced in the past, we've got 1,000 megawatts renewable under development at the moment, and we continue to look at ways to test out battery storage either as we have it with our New Orleans solar facility right now or even on grid and other areas where it would be useful for us to have battery storage. That's not necessarily only for the backup of generation, but some, to me, the T&D needs of the system. But as you might recall also when we were at Analyst Day, we started to talk a lot more about grid modernization and where we could go with customer-facing types of investments, so we see that picking up as well, really in addition to and post-AMI, we should have a significant amount of investment where devices that give us more information about the grid, give us more capability to do things remotely, give us a little bit better troubleshooting capability and all that. In addition to how we manage information and data and analytics that go to our customers. So I guess, the bottom line is, we continue to have a lot of the traditional investment, particularly given the growth in the service territory, but you should see more and more of our investment start to pick up on the T&D side as well as we put together more of a grid modernization package. So the bottom line is, we are wanting for capital expenditure ideas. We're just managing those with what are the things that give us the most bang for a buck for our customers that continue to keep us as the lowest priced utility in the United States and to continue to improve our reliability all -- managing all of those at the same time, with a keen eye on where we're going from an environmental footprint standpoint. Each one of those new power plants that we add, adds a new resource that's significantly, more environmentally friendly than we want to replace. Certainly, when we go to renewables and battery storage more and more, that will improve our environmental footprint. And then, as Drew mentioned, AMI and some of these other technologies will get us in a mode to actually be able to drive our customer usage in a way that we're producing less such that we've got lower emissions as well. So a lot of win-win opportunities out there as technology starts to improve.
Andrew Marsh:
I'll just finish that up, and I don't have a lot to add. In the operational IT kind of area where we talk about AMI and our new systems and distribution automation that kind of stuff, we're anticipating spending around $1.8 billion, $1.9 billion associated with that through the entire program. Now a little bit of that has been spent in '18. A lot of the meters, which probably make up $700 million, $800 million of it are going to start to roll out in January and be through '21. And then, we're going to also start to pick up distribution automation in that same time frame. So we have a significant amount of spending that we have identified. And then we also have some of the build on transfers like the new 800 megawatts of solar that we have proposed in New Orleans and so forth. So there is some of it in our capital plan right now, but as we have said, there is a lot more to go.
Gregory Gordon:
One question, one follow-up, different topic. The end -- and think I applaud your desire to simplify your earnings disclosures. They are very, very, very complete and new but probably we could use some simplification going forward. But on that front, for many, many years, you've had a very successful ability to bring in earnings through tax and while that's created a lot of volatility, it's created value. How deep of a well should we assume you have? I mean, there must be a finite opportunity to go back and work with the IRS and the states to improve your tax positions pro forma. It's been so many years since year-after-year you've been successful in making that kind of a profit center, how long should we assume that can continue?
Andrew Marsh:
Greg, it's Drew. So certainly, we think about that like we think other line items and to the extent that we can benefit our customers, we would certainly continue to go look for opportunities. And so that's -- that part won't change, and so I think we will continue to drive in that direction for the time being and for the foreseeable future. We do think that there might be other things out there, but they're not well baked enough at this point to be able to articulate exactly what they would be or when they would come.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just a question. I believe when you recently announced Holtec deal, you indicated that you felt that they would be quicker to get through the NRC process second time around and you put some parameters around that. So I'm just curious having completed Vermont Yankee, do you still feel that's the case? And can you remind us sort of what you're thought process around giving Palisades and Pilgrim done would be time wise?
Andrew Marsh:
Sure. This is Drew. And as you remember, Jonathan, Vermont Yankee deal is kind of a first of a kind deal, so everybody was learning through that process, and certainly, the NRC was learning through the process, and we would expect that there would be some kind of learning curve associated with it. And so our current anticipation is that we would complete the Pilgrim process by the end of next year. The Palisades process, of course, won't commence until 2022. But if we would expect some time second half of 2022 is whenever we would be able to close that particular half of the transaction.
Jonathan Arnold:
Do I hear right that you would file with NRC on Pilgrim this quarter or early next? Sorry, I missed it.
Andrew Marsh:
We're aiming for this quarter. We're aiming for this quarter.
Jonathan Arnold:
So you're thinking this is roughly a little over a year process now rather than however long that you eye to?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, roughly, exactly.
Operator:
And your next question comes from Paul Fremont with Mizuho.
Paul Fremont:
I guess, you mentioned sort of a commitment to an improved FFO to debt ratio by 2020. Can you just elaborate on how you go from the current level to a committed higher level that you've promised for the rating agencies?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. Paul, it's Drew. So I think the main difference is just the absent of returning -- assets returning all that cash. So I think, I would have it as a top line deficit of year-to-date $342 million. You add that back in, it should improve. The other thing I think that will improve is just the business as well. Things like the Choctaw transaction, Moody's actually wrote about it as a positive thing because we will go into new rates as soon as we close, and we'll start to collect on that. There won't be any lag associated with it and it's a significant investment. So that should improve our cash coverage ratios.
Paul Fremont:
Okay. And you don't anticipate then any need for equity in the -- over the next several years then?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. It's no difference in what we said at Analyst Day, which is nothing expect until 2021 or beyond.
Operator:
And the next question comes from Charles Fishman with MorningStar Research.
Charles Fishman:
Of course, condolences on Wayne. I know he meant a lot to people at your end. He certainly was a well-respected executive among the analyst community.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Charles. Appreciate it.
Charles Fishman:
Slide 37 on the special items, just had a couple questions on that. Fourth line down, the gain loss on sale of assets, that line is driven by the performance of MVP. Is that correct?
Andrew Marsh:
A little bit. And the ARO as we mentioned for Pilgrim this quarter, the ARO changed as the decommissioning cost estimate changed. And it actually changed the amount of the loss that we would have experienced in next -- in 2019 next year and moved it forward to this quarter. So you saw that come down a little bit as relates to the Pilgrim transaction. The other thing that's been going on is we've been working hard on some deferred tax assets that we have in those companies -- those project companies. And to the extent that we can find ways to utilize those, we wouldn't have to write them off.
Charles Fishman:
So the ARO revaluation, you move that to '18 and that went up in what line 2? And then there was also an improvement in line 4 on the gain loss. Is that -- did I get it...
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, but it would have been in different years, yes. So it would have gone in, in '18 and out in '19. David and I have lots of time to explain that off the call. But yes, it's -- it basically -- we're expecting a larger loss at Pilgrim, now it would be a smaller loss because of that.
Operator:
Thank you. And I'm showing no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back over to David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Jimmy, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a reminder, we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's Investor Relations website called Regulatory and Other Information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information, you should not rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude your program and you may disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
David Borde - Vice President and Director of Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Shar Pourezza - Guggenheim Praful Mehta - Citi Group Nicholas Campanella - Bank of America Paul Fremont - Mizuho Securities
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2018 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct the question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I'd now like to introduce your host today for today's conference, David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. You may begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In efforts to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. Our planned remarks will be shorter today given our recent Analyst Day and we know you have a busy morning and therefore are scheduled for 45 minutes. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward looking statements due to a number of factors which are set forth in our earning's release, our slide presentation and our SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And, now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you David and good morning everyone. Given that we are coming off of the Analyst Day, our remarks today will be brief. The main update is that we had a strong quarter and we remain on track with all of our strategic operational and financial objectives. As we stated when we saw you in New York, we have a solid capital plan that is largely ready for execution from a regulatory standpoint, with a demonstrated track record of on-time and on-budged performance. This capital plan will modernize our technology across all functional groups and provide significant value for our customers in service level, sustainability and costs while fueling growth in our business. Additionally, we continue to make significant progress toward transitioning to a pure-play utility as evidenced by our announcement today that we have signed purchase and sale agreements with a subsidiary of Holtec International to sell both Pilgrim and Palisades after their scheduled shutdown. Turning to financial results, we are reporting second quarter Utility, Parent and Other adjusted EPS of a $1.23 and consolidated operational earnings per share of a $1.79. Drew will cover the numbers in more detail, but this quarter's results keep us firmly on track to achieve our full-year guidance and our long-term outlooks. At our businesses, we continue to make good progress achieving our goals. Starting with major projects, in Louisiana, the public service commission approved our agreement to purchase Washington Parish Energy Center. Calpine will construct the 361 MW facility which we expect to purchase in 2021. We also continue to make progress on our four new build generation projects. We discussed those in detail on our Analyst Day, and all projects remain on budget and on schedule. Yesterday, we issued a full notice to proceed on the Montgomery County power station. The transmissions are $187 million Lake Charles transmission project is nearing completion. Major portions are already in service providing benefits to our customers. We are finishing the final major phase of work replacing the towers and lines to expand the Calcasieu River. We expect completion in the third quarter. With approximately 1,000 MW in various stages of development, we are committed to providing our customers with renewable power options which are playing an increasingly important role in our resource planning. In Arkansas, the commission approved a new 100 MW solar PPA which includes a green pricing tariff option for Entergy Arkansas's customers. Entergy New Orleans submitted a request to improve three renewable projects totaling 90 MW of solar generation including a 20 MW PPA, a 20 MW self-build and 50 MW acquisition. The projects would be expected to be in service in the 2020 or 2021 time frame. Entergy New Orleans also included a request in its rate case filing to implement a community solar and a green pricing option. We are evaluating similar offerings in our other jurisdictions. Turning to nuclear operations ANO units one and two have returned to Column one of the NRC's reactor over-site process. This marks the culmination of a comprehensive and dedicated effort by our nuclear team especially our Arkansas Nuclear one employees. As a result of this hard work, we've improved human performance, equipment reliability and safety culture. At Grand Gulf the NRC held an exit conference on June 28. At that meeting, the NRC concluded that the plant had successfully met the objectives for the supplemental inspection. We expect Grand Gulf to transition the column one once the inspection report is issued which we anticipate later this month. Turning to regulatory activity. We've been busy with rate proceedings in all five of our jurisdictions. We are pleased to note that when combined with the positive resolutions around the implementation of tax reform, we expect our customers to see minimal impacts to the rates over the next few years, even, as we implement our solid customer centric investment plan. Specifically, Entergy Mississippi received approval of its annual FRP. The filings resolve the effects of tax reform including customer refunds and rate base offsets; and because of the lower federal tax rate, no base rate change was needed. In May, Texas submitted its filing requesting a net base rate change of a $118 million. In addition, we proposed refunds of unprotected excess ADIT to Entergy Texas customers, which will return approximately $200 million over two years. The net impact to customer rates in the next few years would be $17 million, significantly lower than the base rate impact. Entergy Louisiana filed its annual FRP in June. Because of the effects of tax reform and cost rolling off of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, customer rates will actually decline over the rate affected period. Entergy Arkansas Valley filed its annual evaluation report in early June-- July; because of the 4% rate gap we requested revenue change of $65 million for 2019. This rate change will be more than offset by the return of $466 million of unprotected excess ADIT through the end of next year. And finally, Entergy New Orleans filed its base rate case yesterday which reflects an expected net decrease of approximately $20 million. We also requested a formula rate plan for test years 2019 through 2021 and several new customer offerings, such as a prepaid tariff that we intend to launch after AMI is fully deployed ,electric vehicle charging infrastructure tariff and a fixed billing option. These filings are an important piece to achieving our objectives. There are also illustration of the commitment of our leadership, our employees and our regulators to our customers. I appreciate our retail regulators timely and constructive review and evaluation not only of these filings, but on a broader portfolio of changes we have implemented together in the past several years for the benefit of our customers. We look forward to our continued constructive relationships. As I just mentioned, in the quarter customers started to see benefits from tax reform in their bills, which included $278 million of unprotected excess ADIT. More than half of that, a $150 million was credited to customer bills. The remainder reduced plant balances at Entergy Mississippi. $278 million of benefits in one quarter is impressive and represents substantial savings for our customers. At EWC, see our proposal to sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar is still progressing; we are awaiting approvals from the NRC and the Vermont Public Utility Commission. The Vermont Commission has decided to issue its decision regarding the settlement after the NRC determination is made which we expect late in the third quarter. At the plant, all of the remaining nuclear fuel has been removed from the spent fuel pool and loaded into the last drive fuel canister, which will be moved to the fuel pad within the next few days. This is an important milestone for our VY transaction as completing this work is a condition to close. We still target completion of the transaction by year-end. Additionally, today we announced agreements to sell Pilgrim and Palisades to Nuclear Asset Management Company, a subsidiary of Holtec International. With these agreements we have now solidified plans to fully divest three of our remaining four EWC nuclear sites. This significantly furthers our strategy to transition to a pure play utility. The agreement will accelerate decommissioning at both sites. Holtech has partnered with SNC Lavalin group to form Comprehensive Decommissioning International or CDI, which will complete the decommissioning work. CDI bring significant experience and expertise in decommissioning and site remediation. We are very pleased with this announcement and the incremental clarity it provides for our exit from EWC. At Indian Point, unit two completed its final refueling outage. That unit is now in its final operating cycle. We are proud of the significant benefits that unit two has provided for its customers and its community remain focused on finishing strong, until the unit closes in April of 2020. I would also like to highlight a few of our other activities and achievements. In June, we received our 29th EEI award for emergency response following severe winter storms in the Northeast. The work of Entergy's crews to restore power to customers impacted by the Nor'easters is a great example of mutual assistance in action in our industry's commitment to serving customers. In May, we went to our nation's capital to advocate for low income customers. We helped United Way introduce a nationwide effort to quantify and describe the number of households that are struggling financially. The program is titled ALICE and represents families who are employed, but have limited assets and limited income. Helping Alice's families and our communities is an important business imperative for us as our success is directly tied to prosperity of our communities. As a result of efforts like this, Entergy was once again named one of the 50 most community minded companies in the United States. As I said in the outset, we had a strong quarter; 2018 has already been a year of significant accomplishments that keep us on track to meet all of our strategic, operational and financial objectives. At the utility, we are managing our business to preserve competitive rates for our customers, even as we implement our solid customer centric investment plan. At EWC with our announcement to sell Pilgrim and Palisades, we continue to make significant progress for transitioning to a pure play utility. Finally, our financial results firmly position us to achieve our full year guidance and our long-term outlooks. We look forward to a productive second half year, and I'll now turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo and good morning everyone. As Leo mentioned, our accomplishments this quarter directly support the plans and objectives we reinforced at Analyst Day, in particular results for the quarter were strong and keep us firmly on track to achieve our full-year guidance and longer-term outlooks. While I turn to the results in greater detail, there are two items of note for the quarter that I would like to point out. First, we reached a settlement with the IRS for the 2012 and 2013 tax years. This is a positive outcome and generated an earnings benefit of $0.31. Second, as Leo mentioned, our customers started to see benefits from $278 million of unprotected excess ADIT related to tax reform. As a result, the net revenue and income tax lines are complex, and I will continue until customers have received the full benefit of the return. Remember these entries offset each other dollar-to-dollar, so there is no bottom line earnings impact. Beyond the accounting, I want to point out that within six months of the enactment of tax reforms; we achieved sufficient clarity around implementation such that our customers are already receiving significant benefit. This accomplishment is a direct result of efforts with our retail regulators to meet our customers' expectation. Now turning to results on Slide 4, operational earnings for Entergy Consolidated were a $1.32 lower than second quarter 2017. You will recall that last year's results reflected approximately $2 of income tax benefit at EWC. This year's results include $0.31 of income tax benefit, $0.24 of which is at new P&L. This is the result of the 2012 and 2013 IRS Audit I mentioned a moment ago. Breaking down the results starting with Utility, Parent and Others on Slide 5, adjusted earnings were $0.11 higher than the prior year. Excluding the $278 million of unprotected excess ADIT, net revenue increased as a result of higher unbilled sales and positive rate actions in Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas. Similar to last quarter, regulatory provisions to return benefits of the lower tax rate to customers and Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans, partially offset the quarter's increase. Other factors included higher non-fuel O&M due largely to powerful average cost as well as energy efficiency and storm reserves, lower income tax expense due to the reduction of the federal income tax rate and lastly other drivers related to our growth such as higher depreciation and interest expenses. Moving to EWC's result on Slide 6, operational earnings was $0.14 excluding last year's tax item; the key driver for EWC was higher net revenue due to higher sales volume as a result of fewer outage days in second quarter 2018. Lower energy pricing somewhat offset this increase. Before leaving EWC, I would like to mention a few details regarding the progress of efforts to reduce risk at EWC and transform our company. As Leo said, the Pilgrim and Palisades transaction-- with the Pilgrim and Palisades transactions, we have now solidified plan to fully divest three of four remaining EWC nuclear sites. And these transactions support our expectation for EWC to provide positive net cash to parent through 2022. Energy sales are approximately 90% hedged for the remaining life of our merchant assets significantly reducing our revenue risk. We've improved operations through the focus work of our dedicated nuclear employees and expect Pilgrim to return to Column one before the plant closes in 2019. As Leo also mentioned, the VY, all the remaining nuclear fuel has been removed from the spent fuel pool and would soon loaded to dry fuel cash for long term storage. These collective actions significantly further our strategy to transition to a pure play utility. Turning back to the quarter; Slide 7 shows operating cash flow totaling $523 million, approximately $230 million higher than year ago. The increase is due to lower nuclear refueling outage spending, lower severance and retention payments in EWC and increased collection of fuel and purchase power cost at utility. However, return of the unprotected excess ADIT to customers partly offset the increase. Slide 8 and 9 contain our 2018 earnings guidance ranges and our longer-term Utility, Parent & Other adjusted outlook, both of which we are affirming today. For 2018, we expect results to come in around the midpoint for Utility, Parent & Other adjusted and in the top half of the range for consolidated operational. Also, as we mentioned on last quarter's call, our consolidated operational guidance assumes a $100 million favorable tax item at EWC which we still expect to materialize in the third quarter. Our credit metrics are shown on Slide 10. Our FFO to debt percentage remained at 15.4% and our parent debt to total debt have increased to 24.1%. The increase in parent debt to total debt is timing related due to the return of the unprotected excess ADIT and capital investments for growth. This measure should move lower later this year with incremental debt issuance that the utility and realization of a portion of the forward equity sale. We remain committed to our FFO to debt target at or about 15% by 2020; and our parent debt to total debt at or below 25%. Before we turn to Q&A, I want to thank you for joining our Analyst Day either in person or through the webcast. As we demonstrated, we have compelling strategy that translates into strong financial growth and value for our investors. With our capital plan largely ready for execution from a regulatory approval standpoint and good visibility on our rate growth, we are confident in our 5% to 7% UP&O adjusted earnings growth trajectory. Our accomplishments this quarter directly support our plan and objectives, and we're firmly on track to achieve our full year guidance and longer-term outlooks. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Shar Pourezza from Guggenheim & Partners. Your line is now open.
Shar Pourezza:
Good morning, guys. So, congrats on the Pilgrim and Palisades decom sales, just one question mainly about Indian Point, anything to read into the fact that Indian Point wasn't sort of part of this package deal, is there sort of some logistical challenges that are pertinent to Indian Point, so how we should think about the last remaining asset that you guys own?
Leo Denault:
There is no challenge associated with that Shar. It's really a function of, if you recall, at up until a little while ago, Palisades was going to be the first plant that we will close. Since that didn't come to fruition we continued on the path of the package deal with Pilgrim and Palisades because they were originally the first after VY, the nest two in line. So, nothing to read into it. I think the only thing to read in is that, as we have mentioned before there is a developing market for this kind of activity as we-- and as you have seen others started after decommissioning these plants.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta from Citi. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Hi, guys. Thanks. So, again congrats on Pilgrim and Palisades, just any more color you can provide in terms of the price-- have you provided some terms which-- wanted to get a little bit color around the transaction and what are the-- what are the challenge is you think in terms of approvals?
Drew Marsh:
Sure, Praful. It's Drew. In terms of the price, I think what we said it was a nominal amount which I mean, I think that probably means that you could afford it if you can demonstrate the capability to decommission a nuclear plant, but it's not a lot of money, and so the main objective for us, of course is to move the risk to a party that is capable of doing it and doing it much quicker than we can. And that will benefit our communities and/or other stakeholders much better. So, I think that's the main point of that.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. And from an approval process perspective, you would see a similar path that you went down with VY as an NRC kind of the key driver or do you see other kind of approvals that may take longer here in these transactions?
Drew Marsh:
Sure. From an approval perspective, it's really just the NRC in this case, and we don't see specific state regulatory role right now.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Thanks. And then finally as you continue to make this successful transition to the pure-play utility story, wanted to understand, again strategically, if there is anything else we should be thinking about, as you step back and look at the path going forward, is there anything in terms of utility growth or in terms of your own portfolio optimization, anything you should be thinking about as you look at the utility story going forward?
Leo Denault:
I think it's all the same-- the same story that we were telling you-- a little over a month ago in Analyst Day, we continue to see robust capital plan at the Utility. We continue to see the mechanism that we have in place that currently match up with that plan and your changes around the edges to a regulatory constructs to match new types of investments as we go forward. So really, this has given us between all the things Drew mentioned in terms of the hedging and the operations, the sales of these facilities gives us a lot of capacity financially, operationally, management, bandwidth et cetera to really focus on the growth of the utility and the benefits that our customers will see through those types of investments, whether those are the new generating plants that we are building, the renewals that we are putting in place, AMI and whatever comes after that. So, really, just a big focus on making investments that fuel the growth of the business, but as you can see we continue to be one of the lowest priced options as far as the provision of electricity in United States, and we are trying to hold on to that while we grow the bus rapidly.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella from Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Nicholas Campanella:
Hey, good morning. Congrats on the recent announcements. Just keeping up with the EWC business quick, can you give any additional color on how to think about the cash flow impact for the agreement? I am specifically thinking about kind of the NRC minimum site costs required versus the NDT balances that you disclosed in your slides?
Drew Marsh:
This is Drew. So, on an overall cash flow basis, like I said in my remarks our expectations from EWC is that we would have positive net cash flow back to the parent through 2022. That's still the case, and as it relates to NDT expectations, we do not expect to-- have to contribute any more funds to those NDTs prior to transaction for Pilgrim and Palisades.
Nicholas Campanella:
Thanks. Just switching to UP&O quick, I know that there has been higher authorized asks at Arkansas specifically, in the 5% to 7% forecast for UP&O how do you kind of think about the high-end versus the low-end of the forecast and your assumptions for equity layers? If we kept equity layers kind of flat through the period, where would that put within your guidance range?
Drew Marsh:
Well, our expectation is-- and we have talked about this a little bit on Analyst Day is that we would have to see the equity layers at the utility grow a little bit over time and so we are getting around 49% over the next few years. So, if you-- I don't have forecast that would say we keep it flat. If we did that, I think it would obviously change things a little bit; it would lower our current debt for sure, and so that would be helpful from a parent-debt perspective, but I think overall it might be slightly negative. But the-- our objective is to raise our equity layer on utilities over the next few years.
Operator:
Thank you and our next question comes from the line of Paul Fremont from Mizuho. Your line is now open.
Paul Fremont:
Thanks. So with agreements in place for three of the nukes and also a significant amount of hedging through everybody's remaining life, can you just give us a sense of what the cash flow associated with those three units is going to look like through 2022?
Drew Marsh:
That the - you are talking about Pilgrim, Palisades and Indian point?
Paul Fremont:
Well Pilgrim, Palisades and I guess Vermont Yankee, right because--
Leo Denault:
Okay, you are talking about--
Paul Fremont:
Because, Indian Point still isn't resolved, right?
Drew Marsh:
Right. So Vermont Yankee, of course is in decommissioning now, and its funds are primarily coming from the trust, and hopefully we will close by the end of the year, which is our expectation. And then those cash flows - there wouldn't be any significant cash flow on an ongoing basis in that regard for decommissioning there. The Pilgrim and Palisades are really no different from what we were showing before. I guess they're from a cash flow perspective once Pilgrim was going to close. Again those dollars in our forecasts we're going to be coming from the decommissioning trust, as well as Palisades. But Palisades was pretty much at the very end of our forecasts that we showed you at Analyst Day. So net --net, our cash flow forecasts overall for EWC which includes our expectations for shutting down those plants, and then completing the sales of them is positive net cash back parent through 2022.
Paul Fremont:
So is it fair to assume that for Pilgrim and Palisades, its likely sort of a negative cash flow profile that's offset by the contract revenue that's coming in from Indian Point?
Drew Marsh:
I'm not sure. There's isn't contract revenue at Indian Point. There is one at Palisades.
Paul Fremont:
I'm sorry the hedge --in other words, the hedge run is still coming in -
Drew Marsh:
Yes. Palisades is our most cash flow positive plant to be sure during the contracted period. On a merchant basis of course that's a different question. But you there is positive cash flow at Palisades through 2022.
Operator:
Thank you. And that concludes our question-and-answer session for today. I'd like to turn the call back over to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Glenda and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Our Annual Report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, as a remainder we maintain a web page as part of Entergy's investor relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. While some of this information may be considered material information we should rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program. And you may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Executives:
David Borde - Vice President and Director of Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer Rod West - Group President, Utility Operations Chris Bakken - Executive Vice President Nuclear Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer
Analysts:
Shar Pourezza - Guggenheim Julien Dumoulin-Smith - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Praful Mehta - Citi Group Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Charles Fishman - Morningstar Research
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2018 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I'd now like to turn the conference over to Entergy's Vice President of Investor Relations, David Borde. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in our earnings release, our slide presentation and the Company's SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting solid first quarter results with Utility Parent & Other adjusted earnings of $0.71 per share and consolidated operational earnings of $1.16 per share. Drew will cover the financials in more detail, but the bottom line is that this quarter's results keep us on track to achieve our full year UP&O adjusted and consolidated operational guidance and our long term outlooks. This first quarter was a productive start to the year and we executed operationally with success on key projects and regulatory initiatives. The quarter's accomplishments continue our strategic execution on key deliverables dating back to the first quarter of 2015 when we initiated the concept of our quarterly to do less. Its 13 consecutive quarters where we've met essentially every goal we set out as critical to our broader overall strategy. Some of our goals were ambitious, but we're confident that we have the organization, focus and commitment to succeed. Our progress this quarter is an extension of those efforts. Specifically, we continue to move forward with our new build generation projects. The New Orleans power station was officially approved and we've issued full notice proceed with the engineering, procurement and construction contractor. This 128 megawatt reciprocating internal combustion engine facility will provide significant reliability and cost benefits to customers and it will be the only large scale generation located within in the city of New Orleans. The flexible design of this facility will also make it well suited to support intermittent renewable resources like solar. The Montgomery County power station in Texas is also under way. The EPC contractor has been released to start engineering and order major equipment and this summer we were issued full notice to proceed on that project. As for the St Charles and Lake Charles power stations, construction advances on both projects. All the major equipment is in place for St Charles and Lake Charles is well into its engineering and procurement phases and moving forward with its construction phase. I'm pleased with the progress we've made on these important resources all of which are proceeding on schedule and on budget. For Washington Parish Energy Center, we have reached an unopposed agreement in principle and will be preparing settlement documents and filing to present to the Louisiana Commission. We expect to present the filing in time for the LPse consideration this summer. We are also planning for the future of our power generation organization. We recently announced a partnership with River Parishes Community College to open a power generation training center on the college's campus in Gonzales, Louisiana. We expect to send up to 400 employees each year for training at the center. We've made significant progress on key transmission projects that will improve reliability support growth and lower costs for our customers. Our Lake Charles transmission project is our largest transmission undertaking ever and it will provide improved reliability and additional load serving capability in an area that is experiencing significant industrial growth. The major components have been completed with portions now placed in service and already benefiting customers. We also completed large projects in southeast Louisiana and Mississippi that are already providing reliability benefits to customers in those areas and we are developing and constructing several large projects in Texas. In addition, the transmission employees achieved over one million hours without a recordable accident. That's just over 210 days through the end of the quarter, setting a record for the transmission organization. I applaud our employees for reaching this milestone in their continued diligence and focus on safety. We are approximately 60% complete with the build out of the IT systems required to support advanced meter deployment. We are working to complete those systems and finalize meter and communication network development plans as well as customer education plans. The AMI project remains on track to begin meter installations in 2019. These advanced meters will provide significant benefits to our customers and lay the foundation for the next generation of grid technology investments for our system. On the regulatory front, Louisiana Public Service Commission approved our unopposed settlement agreement for Entergy Louisiana's annual Formula Rate Plan through 2020. This is a good outcome and another positive step toward ensuring that we have progressive, efficient recovery mechanisms in our jurisdictions. This settlement was the result of another constructive collaborative effort among all the stakeholder groups and gives us the financial flexibility to continue to invest in the reliability of our infrastructure for the benefit of our customers. As part of the settlement we will reset rates to a 9.95% ROE in 2018 and our customers will receive the benefits of the lower income tax rate. The settlement also includes a provision for the return of more than $200 million to customers for unprotected excess ADIT. Half of that will be returned this year and the remainder over the next four years. The FRP now has a new transmission rider that will help ensure more timely recovery of Entergy Louisiana's transmission investment. The overall framework also includes other refinements that we believe will position us to earn our allowed return in Louisiana during the FRP period. We will submit our first filing under the FRP by the end of June for rates to be effective in September of this year. And finally, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual FRP in March because of the effects of the lower federal tax rate we have requested no change in base rates. The FRP filing also includes our proposal to return unprotected excess ADIT. Under our proposal Mississippi customers would receive bill credits this year totaling approximately $80 million and the remaining balance will be used to recover certain items on Entergy Mississippi's balance sheet that otherwise would be in rates [ph]. Of course as we execute on our investment plan we remain focused on customer bills. Today we already have some of the lowest retail rates in the country. Going forward, the lower federal tax rate, the roll off of securitizations, continued industrial growth and the deployment of AMI are all important drivers that will help keep our rates low for the benefit of our customers Also during the quarter Entergy Louisiana signed a ten year agreement with Yuhuang Chemical to supply power to a new methanol facility YCI is investing $1.5 billion in the construction of its methanol plant, which is scheduled to be completed by first quarter of 2020. This project is just another example of the continuing economic development opportunities in our service areas. We are proud of our contribution to these efforts as these types of projects are critical to the wellbeing of the communities we serve. Our economic development teams are actively engaged with existing customers, new prospects, site selection consultants, state agencies and local economic development organizations to bring more industrial growth opportunities to our region and we continue to see strong interest supported by a favorable business and economic environment. For example, we expect oil to gas ratio to sustain at competitive levels, which improves customer economics in the petrochemical value chain. In addition, LNG markets are absorbing incremental supply at a fairly rapid pace and the market is poised to meet additional liquefaction capacity by early 2020. The pending International Maritime Organization rules we kept sulfur and marine fuel starting in 2020. The high sulfur fuel oil that would no longer be suitable for burning in ships would require secondary process and to further refine the products to meet the new standards. This could create an economic opportunity for refiners to incrementally expand secondary processing units such as hydrocrackers. Overall the indicators that have led to continued industrial sales growth in our service territory are still trending in positive direction. At our merchant business, we continue to focus on safety and risk mitigation as we steadily move toward the end of operation we reached a settlement agreement for the sale of Vermont Yankee and NorthStar . Evidentiary hearings will be held in May and we've requested a decision from the Vermont Public Utility Commission in July. That transaction will also require approval from the NRC and we continue to expect a decision in the third quarter. With respect to Indian Point, we have received determinations from the New York ISO that I PEC's retirement will not create any reliability concerns nor will it raise any market power issues. We are on track to retire the units as scheduled. We recently wrapped up last refueling outage of the unit two and that unit is now in its final operating cycle. The outage was completed within our schedule and budget. The Indian Point 2 has been an important asset for Entergy and the communities it serves and supports. I would like to acknowledge the work of all of our employees at the plant over the years and their commitment to finish strong. On April 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission began its final quarterly inspection of ANO's confirmatory action letter progress. The few remaining items are being addressed in ANO's current refueling outage and all are expected to be satisfactorily closed to support closure of the confirmatory action letter this June. As a result, we are on track for ANO to exit column 4 and return to normal oversight by the end of the second quarter. At Grand Gulf, we're also in a refueling outage where we are working on a number of important maintenance projects and equipment upgrades. In combination with both the thorough review of processes, procedures and protocols we conducted at the plant and the more than 3,100 hundred hours of training in operations, maintenance and technical fields our crews underwent in the past 18 months, we expect the reliability of the plant and its capability factor to improve going forward. I'd also like to acknowledge a few awards and recognitions that we've received so far this year. Entergy Texas and Entergy Mississippi received 2018 ENERGY STAR Awards for their outstanding efforts to promote energy efficiency and educate customers. Entergy was named for the third consecutive year by the Women's Business Enterprise National Council to the list of America's top corporations for women's business enterprise. The honor recognizes corporations that have implemented world class policies and programs to enable growth and reduce barriers for women owned businesses. And the Louisiana Society for Human Resource Management also awarded Entergy its 2018 Excellence in Diversity Award, recognizing the impact we've made fostering a diverse and inclusive work culture. As a reminder we recently released our 2017 integrated report entitled Utility Reimagined, where we discuss in detail the many ways we are creating sustainable value for all four of our stakeholders. We've increased our environmental, social and government's disclosures and in particular we've adopted the Edison Electric Institute's ESG template as part of our integrated report. In a continued effort to provide you with relevant information, we're also reviewing and assessing evolving best practices on a two degrees scenario analysis including the newly published series framework for US utilities with a view toward preparing a two degree scenario analysis that would likely be published either as part or concurrently with our 2018 integrated report. We also remain focused on continuing to reduce our carbon footprint. Our efforts began nearly two decades ago when we were the first US utility to commit to voluntarily stabilizing CO2 emissions. We are working to expand our portfolio of renewable resources in ways that complement our existing resources and capabilities while maintaining our low customer rates. On our fourth quarter call in February we mentioned that we are pursuing over 800 megawatts of renewables, since then we have identified new opportunities and we are now evaluating more than 1000 megawatts of renewables. Some of these projects have been announced while others are still in confidential discussions. As renewable resources continue to become increasingly efficient and cost competitive, we plan to take further advantage of these opportunities. Increasing our use of renewables is one way for us to meet customer energy needs and expectations. As I discussed on our last earnings call, we recognize the utility industry is in midst of change. We're planning for the long term future of the company and are laying the foundation to provide innovative customer solutions in a changing world. To further enhance our focus on this commitment, we've assembled a cross functional team of employees led by a newly created leadership position that reports directly to me. This team is dedicated to developing ideas, evaluating opportunities and implementing action plans to meet the demands of our rapidly evolving industry. They're working to identify solutions that leverage new technologies such as data analytics, automation, distributed generation, utility and community scale solar, micro grids, battery storage, electric vehicles and other emerging technologies, all while keeping in mind as we always do our most impoverished customers and the environment. Finally, earlier this year we welcome John Burbank to our board of directors. John has strong experience in developing and executing strategies for customer facing businesses that are dealing with transformational change. He also has expertise in digital technology, customer data analytics and product development. All of this makes John, uniquely suited to help us take advantage of innovations to meet ever evolving customer expectations As I said at the outset, we had a solid start to 2018, a start that keeps us on our path for continued sustainable growth in our core business. We're well positioned for continued success in delivering on our commitments to you. We are excited about this journey and we look forward to talking to you more at our Analyst Day on June 21. I will now turn the call over to Drew to cover our financial results for the quarter in more detail.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning everyone. As Leo said, the first quarter was a solid start to the year and the bottom line is that we're on track to meet our full year Utility Parent & Other adjusted and consolidated operational guidance in our long term outlook. Let's get straight to the numbers. Overall, operational earnings for Entergy consolidated and increased $0.17 quarter-over-quarter. Drivers included the lower tax rate favorable weather as well the unfavorable effects from the implementation ASU 2016-01 on our nuclear decommissioning trust fund the DWC. We drill down into the different segments starting with our core Utility Parent & Other business on Slide 5. Adjusted earnings were $0.12 lower than the prior year due to a few key drivers. Despite strong weather adjusted sales growth and positive rate actions in both Arkansas and Texas, unbilled sale volumes were lower. We also record regulatory provisions of both Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans to reflect regulatory agreements regarding implementation of the effective tax reform, combined, these drivers resulting in a decrease. Non-fuel O&M was higher largely from nuclear expenses, including nuclear payroll, which has increased as we continue to ramp up staffing pursuant to our plan. We don't expect nuclear to be a significant driver for the full year. In addition, because of ongoing capital about in our core business, we naturally see increases in Ad Valorem and franchise taxes, which are partly offset by AFUDC. Finally, the quarter reflected the lower federal tax rate. Even though our UPO adjusted results were lower quarter-over-quarter, our expectations for the full year did not change. We're now on track to meet our 2018 guidance through a combination of factors that will benefit us in the second half of the year, including rate actions and O&M timing. Rate actions included an expectation for the recently approved Entergy Louisiana FRP. As Leo mentioned this is a good outcome for our customers and all of our other stakeholders and will position Entergy Louisiana on its elaborate turn during the FRP period. As you know Louisiana is our largest jurisdiction, we're happy with the collaborative effort from all stake holders to reach agreement. Turning to EWC's first quarter results summarized on Slide 6. Operational earnings were $0.33 approximately $0.04 lower than the prior year. Excluding FitzPatrick, the key driver for EWC was weak market performance in the quarter for EWC's nuclear decommissioning trust fund. Changes in the accounting rules now requires to mark the equity portion of investment to market. It doesn't change our view on the long term value of the fund, our anticipated cash flows from EWC or efforts toward commercial resolution of the EWC business. The balance of the trust as of March 31 was approximately $4 billion and the key value driver for decommissioning is identifying economies of scale and engineering solutions that could reduce the ultimate cost, we're aggressively pursuing these types of solutions. Lower income tax expense from reductions of federal tax rate combined with the change in pretax income partly offset the overall operational earnings decline. Slide 7 shows operating cash flow for the quarter $557 million, quite increase from a year ago. The change was driven by lower refueling outage spending and all the effect of favorable weather partially offset by lower net revenue at EWC. Today we are affirming our 2018 earnings guidance ranges and our longer term UPO adjusted outlook, which are summarized on Slides 8 and 9. For our consolidated operational guidance, the unfavorable nuclear decommissioning trust returns in the first quarter were lower than our planning assumption. But it's still early in year and we're working on various opportunities to both Utility and EWC. We're confident that we can overcome first quarter headwinds by the end of the year. Also as a reminder our guidance assumed $1000 million favorable tax item at EWC, which we currently expect to materialize in the third quarter of this year. Our credit metrics are shown on Slide 10. As we mentioned on our last earnings call the impact of tax reform [indiscernible] next few quarters. Continue to make good progress on tax reform in our jurisdiction. The dialogue with our regulators was constructive and we're optimistic that we receive approvals to return the unprotected portion of the excess ADIT sooner than we originally anticipated. This will temporarily put additional pressure on our credit metrics we recognize the value of returning the benefits to our customers sooner rather than later. There's an uncertainty of how tax reform will be implemented in growing our net rate base faster. This should also accelerate the recovery of our credit metrics. In short, our plan continues to shape up, positioning us better to maintain our current credit rating of BBB+ and Baa2. Our plan to include issuing approximately $1 billion equity [indiscernible] and we still expect that to occur before the end of 2019. The form of equity we issued, the timing of the issuance and the method by which we choose to execute are all under consideration with a priority of maintaining flexibility to optimize the execution. In summary, before I turn to Analyst Day, this is a solid start to the year. Our result keep us on track to achieve our full year guidance and outlooks through 2020, continues to strengthen our business risk profile and position us better to maintain our current credit rating. Now, let's look beyond 2020, which we will discuss in greater detail in Analyst Day. We see no shortage of investment opportunity to sustain our growth beyond our current outlook period. Investment opportunities that build on the strong foundation we've established in the past few years, which we continue to certify. The new clean efficient innovative generation resources to grid technology such as smart devices, distributed generation micro-grid and battery storage there is significant investment opportunity to deliver tailored solutions to meet our customers rapidly changing expectations. Because of the pace of change that we are anticipating, financial agility will be increasingly important and that means maintaining or even improving our strong balance sheet. Therefore, at the Analyst Day, we'll layout a financing plan meets our earnings and credit objectives. We see great opportunities ahead for our company and all our stakeholders. As Leo mentioned, in the future we want to deliver tailored customer solutions beyond basic power delivery and provide the most accessible, affordable, reliable and sustainable energy mix for our customers. We look forward to seeing you on Analyst Day to continue this dialog. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Shar Pourezza with Guggenheim. Your line is now open.
Shar Pourezza:
Good morning, guys. So let me just ask - start off by asking on the performance of your decommissioning trust funds. Obviously the performance for the quarter was somewhat materially less than your expectations. So can you kind of one, elaborate what drove this and more importantly does your fundamental view point that you exit EWC in a cash flow positive position at all puts the question? Because what you saw - and do you sort of see any impact on the sales process with the performance?
Drew Marsh:
Okay, Shar it's Drew. And your first question about the drivers, I think it's just the - it's the accounting change that reflected the equity market over the course of the quarter. And so of course last year we did not have the mark-to-market the equity field. We only saw the realized gains and losses associated with the trust and this year - and the rest of it was in other comprehensive income, this year all of it flowing through the income segment. And as part of that as we went to this accounting change, we actually moved about $600 million positive into retained earnings that didn't go to the income statement, it was just re-classed on the balance sheet from other comprehensive income. So those are the things that were going on there and of course we also had some of the portfolio management activity that we talked about last quarter, that we are de-risking our portfolio. So our overall loss was a very slight loss compared to may be an equity market loss a couple of percent over the quarter. And with regards to our EWC plans, it doesn't change anything overall for EWC plans or for our cash expectations towards the end of the - through 2022. So we still expect '17 to '22 to be neutral positive. In fact as we were thinking about this earlier this year, we were pressure testing these several things that could happen to make sure that we could sustain that statements through any volatility we might see in the market.
Shar Pourezza:
Okay, got it that's helpful. And then just appreciate the comments that you had on the equity, but your prior thoughts or language seem to point that you were more shifting towards something more market based verses initiation of an internal program. So is that sort of kind what you are tilting or should we assume sort of a combination of both given sort of the size of the potential offering? So sort of like how is your thought process generally revolving?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah, so we still have all our options on the table because we are thinking about optimizing against the timing and the need with the market and the cost that we might incur associated with that. So all of those things are still on the table and will likely be later this year when we get into the market.
Shar Pourezza:
Okay, thanks guys.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Shar.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, so I wanted to chat on transmission briefly, clearly there was an event in the quarter with respect of sort of North and South integration that transpired. Also, I suppose in the settlement itself in the Louisiana there is some discussion about capital spending. Can you discuss sort of the state of affairs and process with respect to MISO and your own capital budgeting plans around that and I acknowledge that it may preempt a little bit of the Analyst Day, but I wanted to delve into it if we could.
Rod West:
Julien this is Rod. One, we are staying in MISO and much of the capital planning for the utility business is consistent with the MTEP processes through '17 and certainly '18 and beyond. The significance of the settlement in Louisiana plays along with that. Part of that 995 reset in our Louisiana FRP includes an expectation of about $0.5 billion a year during the period in transmission alone. And so the capital plan is consistent with our expectations around our earnings opportunity and the growth in CapEx will be fueled in part by what comes out of the MTEP process with MISO.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Just to be clear about it, is there anything that's shifted in the MTEP process with respect to some of the limitations on the North South capacity I suppose this winter there some events.
Rod West:
No.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Okay, excellent and is the 0.5 billion consistent with the A25 as well?
Rod West:
When you say the 845?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
The '18 to '20 average preliminary transmission capital plan.
Rod West:
Yes, thank you.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent, thank you.
Rod West:
Thanks, Julien.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hi, good morning guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just, I thought I heard you say - and I may have misheard this, apologies if so. As of March 31, the decommissioning funds were approximately $4 billion?
Drew Marsh:
That's correct.
Jonathan Arnold:
Could you help us - I'm guessing that might not be on the same basis as the Slide 29, where the escalated funding adds up to 5.8, at 1231. And the question is when you say escalated can you just remind us what that means?
Drew Marsh:
That's using the 2% growth rate. But the - I think where you want to look, there's a different Slide in there that I believe has on Slide 25 in the appendix, has the NDT balances as of March 31, that's on Slide 25.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, so that's the one.
Drew Marsh:
Correct.
Jonathan Arnold:
But that's not on the same basis right as the?
Drew Marsh:
No, no the - the escalated, that's using the NRC funding formulas on the other page.
Jonathan Arnold:
That's fine; not this really I just wanted to get that straight. Thank you.
Drew Marsh:
No problem.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Praful Mehta with Citi Group. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Hi guys thanks. So firstly just on earnings, in terms of where you are tracking relative to your guidance? I know there were some talk on you're not at the lower end, where exactly do you see yourself now given Q1 is kind of done it in terms of 2018 EPS guidance?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah, that's a good question Praful. I think we are expecting to be about in the middle at this point. I mean it's early in the year, we have a lot of levels to manage this current volatility in the decommissioning trust and so we are expecting on operational basis to be about the middle when it falls that in time, [ph]. For Utility Parent & Other, we are right on track as of first quarter, so there wouldn't be any change there.
Praful Mehta:
Okay great, that's helpful and then secondly on this unprotected DTL refunds, they look meaningful and clearly it looks like you are doing them sooner than you had originally planned. So just to understand the impacts of that from the cash flow side and the credit side, I'm assuming that's a negative, but you're seeing that you are going to recover from that pretty quickly, just touch on that a little bit. And then secondly, on the rate base side that will be probably be a positive helping your growth. If you can just help us understand the kind of implications of the decommissioning unprotected - I'm sorry of the deferred income tax refund impacts?
Drew Marsh:
Sure, so in regards to the cash and the credit metrics and the pay, so we are anticipating when we talked last quarter a little slower pace on how fast the unprotected excess ADIT would be flowing back to customers and now it's a little faster. So the expectation is that - the way that that's going to work from an income statement perspective is there will be more effect, but we will be getting less revenue in the door which would be a cash item and we will be also be experiencing lower income tax expense, which would be a non cash item on the income statement, so that will offset the flow into the cash flow metrics and so the measures that we are talking about are the metrics like FFO to debt, last quarter we talked about 14% on a longer term basis. Now we are expecting it to be a little bit lower than that upfront, but will recover much quicker and so by 2020, we expect to be above that level because of the more ramp in return of the unprotected excess ADIT. And from a rate base perspective, we would expect that as - and we haven't finished this is in our regulatory process, but as we return back unprotected excess ADIT the customers on net rate base are to increase. And so on the last call we talked about the opportunity for about $1 billion of increased net rate base by 2020. We still expect that to be the case associated with the return of the excess ADIT, both protected and unprotected by the way for that.
Praful Mehta:
Super helpful, thanks Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Praful.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.
Steve Fleishman:
Yeah, thanks. I guess two clarifications, just on the comment on the middle order range for this year that you are tracking to, is that good for both the overall company and Utility Parent & Other?
Rod West:
Yes, I'll go ahead with that one for Steve, it is true. So yeah we have several levels and that we think we can pull to manage the operational spot, but as far as Utility Parent & Other, we're right on track to begin with.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay, and then just in terms of thinking about the comments on ADIT get back and the like. So, to a degree do you have this kind of lower upfront metrics, does that kind of incent you to get the equity issuance done sooner and then just to kind of manage the consistency. The metrics or is the fact that you get there by 1920, its fine for the agencies. They don't care if it's lower for one year?
Drew Marsh:
Yeah, so this is Drew. So, in terms of the overall timing of the excess ADIT return it is moving forward and we were and are trying to match up our access of the equity capital markets to that in some way. So it's going to move it forward a little bit. But the rating agencies are certainly aware that we are going to access the equity capital markets there. Looking at that plus a number of other factors like our progress on changing our business risk profile at EWC and the positive regulatory environment within the Utility as that's improving. So we are taking a number of things into consideration, I think only one of which is making sure that we match up the timing of the equity with the return of those cash flows.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay and then just on the - kind of on a long term discussion the - I mean it sounds like the pioneer role is to kind of just continue with more of what you are already doing and then obviously having better regulatory structures in place to cover it. Is that kind of at a high level what the plan is? And obviously you are trying to get ahead on changes in the generation mix and customer experience and technology things like that.
Leo Denault:
Yes, Steve, the bottom line is that as we have been for really over 10 years now, we are in a major technological improvement. And the entire system started in generation worked its way into transmission and now it's getting more into distribution and I would say in some respects you start to see a molding of some of the distribution opportunities with the kind of generation opportunities we have. So we continue to have an ageing generation fleet that we are updating in terms of what we got going on right now at St. Charles, Lake Charles, Montgomery County, Washington Parish Energy Center and the New Orleans power station. The 1000 megawatts of renewables that I talked about are things that will come into play to both - on the one hand replace other ageing generation that we would deactivate as new generation comes in line. But they come in line as renewables because they are both a competitive with generation that they would replace, certainly the market and potentially as we go forward with other types of generation. But also some of them have distribution reliability opportunities as well, just have to be more localized with generations, so you are not necessarily avoiding a generation that best be avoiding a large transmission investment. So those kinds of technological improvements plus distribution automation and other things that we could pursue that will allow us to better operate the grade lower cost or customers improve their liability and get closer to them in solutions. All of that we see as just a continuation of the process we've been undergoing. From a regulatory front, you're right, what we've done over the course for the last five years in particular is we've taken the opportunity to outline the types of investments that we need to make for our regulators and allow us to shrink up that regulatory marvel to match the customer benefits that will provide into the investments. So for example, what we have done with transmission in Louisiana in the new FRP, lines up really well with what was a big source of regulatory lag and a big source of dollars for our customers in the transmission space. So we already had AMI and generation covered really well, now we've got transmission in the same bucket to get a little bit more closely aligned with the regulatory mix with the type of investments we're making. So you're right the future is just improved technological advancements on the system across all functions and trying to make sure that we and our regulators work to benefit our customers with the most efficient regulatory model that we can get.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay, great, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Stephen Byrd:
Hi, good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning Stephen.
Stephen Byrd:
Wanted to touch base on just nuclear operations that are high level and just get your late response in terms of operational improvements, how you think about the trajectory of just really - co-operations and sort of the trajectory from here. You had could, the progress overtime in terms of the operation improvements [indiscernible].
Leo Denault:
Stephen, I'll start, I'll let Chris jump in, but the bottom-line is we are continuing to spend a significant of our resources and effort on our nuclear fleet and we are seeing progress in the areas we expected to see progress. As I think Chris outlined, when we first began, it's going to take a few years and a couple of outages in the new facility to get the equipment in the place that we need to get. But we hired a 1000 people last year in the nuclear fleet, so that we expected that Drew mentioned that we showed up in the first quarter. But at high level I would say that we are making progress in the way we expected.
Chris Bakken:
Can I just follow-up to that Leo? This is Chris. We are where we expected to be in terms of the execution of the plan. As we did outline at the last investor day, we looking at the two to three year period before you start to see significant improvement, we believe we are on track with that. We've been using the opportunities with the fueling outages to improve the safety and the reliability modules of the plan. And from the regulatory relations perspective as you mentioned in your remarks Leo, we do expect to see and will return back to normal NOC over site at the end of the second quarter. So, we've been making good progress.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay, that's very helpful. And just shifting over to the other renewables there's been opportunity you mentioned in your prepared remarks. Without getting into the specifics around some of those projects, is it something where we should expect a fairly material filing where you are proposing on a number of projects with total quite didn't make a lot, you mentioned 1000MW possible potential opportunities? In other words is this likely to result in a fairly clunky filing a request or is it likely to be relatively smaller and just improving momentum over time as you get more projects develop, how should we sort of think if its progressing?
Leo Denault:
At this point I would say, fairly ratable at some point in time. But, right now, what we are in the midst of is a couple of RFPs that were out there in terms of negotiating some of those projects, got a couple that we've announced that are PPAs and obviously some of these are going to end up being owned as I mentioned on the last call. The majority of the dollars that you would see which show up kind of - when they do at the end or outside of the outlooks that we provided, as you might guess, we are in discussion with things most of which will show up in the 2020 and beyond time frame. Some of the projects could be a decent size, but it's our objective as I mentioned earlier to a last question is just that we continue to evaluate these on two fronts and one is as new generation resources, but also given the nature of how you can locate and then the speed with which they can be put together were they would make transmission sense as well. So, we are excited about the opportunity, lot of it has to do with how the cost curves move over the next few years as well.
Stephen Byrd:
That's all I have. Thank you.
Chris Bakken:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Michael Lapides:
Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions. Real quickly on the nuclear, [indiscernible] Utility in general, do you anticipate in guidance, O&M and the Utility being up more than an inflationary level for 2018. And then how do you think about what the trajectory looks like, what's imbedded in the '19 and '20 guidance?
Drew Marsh:
So Michael this is Drew. Yeah, so in the 2018 I think we are still consistent with our expectations. I mentioned earlier that we are looking at some opportunities to help close the gap on NDT performance through March 31. And so we are walking through some of that, but as of now in our guidance expectations I don't think there's really much of a change. Looking forward - well, I guess you had question specifically around nuclear, as Leo mentioned we hired a 1000 people over the last year, we're still going to hire some this year, the effect of that payroll changes most acute in the first quarter. And so the effect of it will lessen over the next few quarters, but we also have even though it's larger, we have some projects that we had last year that will even out the overall O&M spending for nuclear during the course of the year. So, it will be comparable to 2017 by the end of the year. Looking forward in terms of '19 and '20 I think we have overall under inflation expectations for O&M growth, nothing dramatic at this point.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And I want to make sure I understand coming back to the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes, can you help me understand what the offset is? I get the cash outflow and kind of the accounting around the cash outflow, but can you walk me through what makes it, what kind of offsets that - it hurts near term FFO to debt, but can you walk me through how it might help longer term?
Drew Marsh:
Sure, well I just after we finish giving the $1 billion back that effect will stop being in our FFO measure. So what you're seeing is lower net revenue, while we are giving that money back and to the extent that you lengthen that out, if you're going four, five years with that give back, you would see a depressed FFO number for that period of time. The way it's shaping up is we are going to be giving it back over the next 18 months. So the depressed FFO may be more so than we are planning, but by the time we get up the 2020, that effect for the unprotected fee should go away. So your FFO to debt measure should improve.
Michael Lapides:
Got it and then one last one and I don't know to Leo or Rod question, but you guys have added four in the process of adding a lot of generation in both Louisiana and Texas, which makes a ton of sense giving the industrial pet-chem related demand that's occurring in the quarter. Just curious, if you look at Arkansas Mississippi, are there over the next few years or beyond opportunities for conventional generations either additions or repairing? And what I'm thinking to this, I'm thinking you know there are some higher cheap units in both states that may be aren't as sufficient as kind of newer technology, newer gas fire technologies are. You still have a sizeable coal unit in Arkansas with that significant pollution controls. I'm just trying to think about those two states as drivers of kind of future rate based growth after going through the cycle you are going through right now on the Louisiana and Texas.
Rod West:
If you think about what our generation moves have been over the course last ten years, Michael they actually have been generation that we've acquired in Mississippi and Arkansas. But it's all the same strategy. The majority of the generation hand has to do with age and the efficiencies you mentioned of the existing suite that we have. So as we deactivate those less sufficient, higher cost, less environmentally friendly units. We are replacing those with a combination of acquired units. What it would be Union [indiscernible] transferring, the long list of things that we already acquired or the new wells like St. Charles, Lake Charles, Montgomery County, Nine Mile 6 et cetera. So in those other jurisdictions that will be there as well, on the first - on the last quarter call we identified - I think somebody asked about the new generation dollars that didn't show up, those had shown up as one of those other jurisdictions because of that same need. And as you mentioned down the road we do have the coal plants that - certainly gas has become very, very competitive with coal and depending on what happens with environmental regulations et cetera, so you need the - the short answer is yes. We do see the need for new generating resources across all of our jurisdictions not just Louisiana and Texas. And in fact over the last decade you've seen us add generation in New Orleans, Mississippi and Arkansas as well. Going forward it will probably be a combination of looking at new gas, but also some of the projects have already been announced. For example project in Arkansas or PPA, that's a renewable resource. So we should start to see renewable battery storage those sorts of things show up at some point in time in that two as they become competitors. So, yes those leads are ageing as well and yeah we'll end up with new generating resources there.
Michael Lapides:
Okay, got it. Thank you, Leo and much appreciated guys.
Rod West:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Your line is now open.
Paul Patterson:
Good morning, how are you? Just very quickly to follow-up on Shar and Jonathan's question on decommissioning, there was a letter that the NRC sent with respect to [indiscernible] basically indicating that they didn't believe that there was enough information to make them feel comfortable with the ability to decommission the plant. Given the information that you guys have provided today and just in general, it's a little surprising considering that everything else in terms of the decommissioning fund seem fine. So can you elaborate a little bit on what the issue there and how that's going to be resolved?
Drew Marsh:
Hey Paul, it's Drew. That I think is part of the normal NRC processes, yeah, it requests for additional information. And our expectation is that we are - I guess in that case probably NorthStar responded to that and Vermont Yankee and so that is - I think it's just part of the normal back and forth we didn't see anything in particular in that we are concerned about at this point.
Paul Patterson:
Okay, so, I mean just to clarify this, first of all longer than enough decommissioning funding, is it just because it's a transaction taking place and NorthStar has been giving that information. Is that what you are dealing with here I guess?
Drew Marsh:
Well, in the normal course of business like the filings that you saw and the Jonathan referenced on page 29, those are more formulaic. And so when we go through a specific transaction they are not going to dig much deeper into the financials of the buyer and we totally expect that and understand why they are doing it. And so we will consider that, like I said its part of the normal process compared to normal annual filings which are very formulaic in nature.
Paul Patterson:
Okay, thanks a lot.
Drew Marsh:
No problem.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question comes from Charles Fishman with Morningstar Research. Your line is now open.
Charles Fishman:
Thank you. Just one more question on slide 29, which I believe is a new slide. The site specific study, so one at Indian Point and also Vermont Yankee, that takes place after the unit is shut down and at that point you make a decision whether you pursue a NorthStar type solution or something else, is that the process?
Drew Marsh:
Sure, so site specific studies can happen in a couple of ways. Like you said, if you're shutting down the plant you will give a site specific study to assess the overall cost of the facility and match that up against the trust and make sure that you're adequately funded. If you're having and this doesn't happen very often, but there are ways that you could also do it on an ongoing basis during the normal operations when you do these formulaic assessments if you didn't get all the funding you needed in the formulaic assessment, you can do a site specific study to see if you meet the NRC requirements. But typically I think as Paul was pointing out Charles, that I think you would do that at the end of the year or at the end of the life of the unit.
Charles Fishman:
Okay and then also make the decision of what process to pursue, whether it's NorthStar or something else.
Drew Marsh:
Sure, I mean I think you would do it relative to a safe store environment or an environment where you would more rapidly decommission the assets or if you - but if you're going to go through a sale process like we are with NorthStar, it's almost like a separate assessment than what you're seeing on page 29. Page 29 is more of the normal stuff.
Charles Fishman:
Okay, got it. Thank you very much. That was helpful.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. That's our last question in queue, so I'd like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, James and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Before we close, we are reminding you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and regulation G compliance statements. Our Annual Report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Finally, as a remainder we maintain a web page as part of investor relations website called regulatory and other information, which provides key updates of regulatory proceedings and important milestones on our strategic execution. Some of this information may be considered material information we should rely exclusively on this page for all relevant company information. And this concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen that does conclude today's conference. Thank you very much for participation. You may all disconnect. Have a wonderful day.
Executives:
David Borde – Vice President, Investor Relations Leo Denault – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh – Chief Financial Officer Rod West – Group President, Utility Operations
Analysts:
Julien Dumoulin-Smith – Bank of America Greg Gordon – Evercore ISI Praful Mehta – Citigroup Shar Pourezza – Guggenheim Partners Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs Jonathan Arnold – Deutsche Bank Paul Fremont – Mizuho David Paz – Wolfe Research
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2017 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I’d now like to turn the conference over to David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. You may begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an efforts, I commentate everyone who has questions, we requested each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in our earnings release, our slide presentation and the Company’s SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting strong results for another productive year. Utility Parent & Other our core business exceeded our adjusted EPS guidance and our consolidated operational earnings were in the top half of our guidance range and also higher than expectations – than our expectations. And we executed on our key 2017 deliverables. At the Utility, we had an active regulatory calendar and we continued to gain certainty for major product – projects in our capital plan. We received approval to build two new highly efficient gas-fired generating resources. All of our jurisdictions approved our plans to implement AMI in the respective service areas. For transmission, we completed another [indiscernible] cycle. We made significant progress in the certification of the New Orleans Power Station. We completed three annual formula rate plans in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. And we implemented two cost recovery factor increases in Texas. We are in discussions to extend Entergy Louisiana’s annual FRP. We continue to longer path to continue clarity on our exit from the merchant business in 2022 and we raised our dividend for the third consecutive year a trend we expect to continue subject as always to board approval. Our accomplishments this year are simply a continuation of the path we set several years ago. A path to become a world-class utility that prospered by creating sustainable value for all the stakeholders. We set out to be a company that delivers strong financial results to its owners, invests in its employees to create a workforce for the future and is an environmentally and socially responsible growth engine for its communities, while maintaining some of the lowest rates in the country for customers. Our key deliverable support this aspiration for our company. As we look ahead to 2018 and our three-year outlook period, our success is less dependent on strategic initiatives and more on our own operational execution. As a result, today we are initiating 2018 guidance consistent with our previous disclosures. We are affirming our Utility Parent & Other longer-term outlook through 2020. Beyond that we continue to see a good path for steady predictable growth at our core business as we continue to modernize our infrastructure. We are laying the foundation now to be the sustainable solutions oriented utility of the future that provides customer focused innovation in a changing world. Shifting now to 2017, let’s review some details behind our key accomplishments that keep us on track to attain both our near-term goals and our longer-term aspirations. On the regulatory front, we successfully completed Entergy Arkansas, second forward test year FRP with rates effective last month. The commission approved our comprehensive settlement agreement, which among other matters verified the prudes of the nuclear cost included in the 2017 and 2018 test year filings. Entergy Louisiana filed a request with Louisiana Public Service Commission to extend its formula rate plan for another three years. While the settlement talks have slowed to ensure parties understand the implications of tax reform, discussions have been productive and are ongoing. With respect to our large generation projects, we received approval to build the Lake Charles and Montgomery County Power Stations. With the St. Charles Power Station, these projects are an important part of our investment plan to modernize the electric grid and improve reliability. All three are on schedule and we are confident, successful, on time and on budget execution. We’ve also made significant progress in the certification of the New Orleans Power Station with the Council Utility Committee’s approval of the project earlier this week. We expect the full councils take up the certification for a final decision on March 8. We also made strides in transmission. We invested approximately $1 billion and placed more than $900 million of capital projects into service. We also made significant progress on the Lake Charles transmission project. This is our largest transmission endeavor to date and it includes 30 miles of extra high voltage transmission line and addresses reliability needs driven in part by low growth in Southwest Louisiana. We expect to complete the project in second quarter 2018. We wrapped up the 2017 MTEP review and MISO approved 70 projects in our service area totaling approximately $1 billion. Regarding the growth and transformation of our distribution system, we have now received regulatory approvals for the deployment of advanced meters in all of our jurisdictions. IT infrastructure, communications networks and meter data management systems that will enable commuters to be smart are being constructed. We are pleased with the progress we’ve made on AMI and each of our jurisdictions. And the positive feedback we continue to receive from our stakeholders, especially regarding the benefits and future opportunities this technology will provide for our customers. The investments we make in our core business also improve our environmental footprint. We have one of the cleanest generating fleets in United States and the principal objective is to remain an environmentally sustainable fleet for the communities we serve. The cornerstone of this objective began we were the first U.S. utility to commit voluntarily to stabilizing CO2 emissions in 2001. 10 years later, our commitment went beyond merely stabilizing CO2 emissions. In 2011, our environment 2020 commitment included a voluntary pledge that through the year 2020, we would maintain our carbon dioxide emissions at 20% below year 2000 levels on a cumulative basis. I’m pleased to report that we are meeting our commitments and the investments we are making will enable us to continue to lower our emission rates at the utility. For example, highly efficient combined cycle power stations such as St. Charles, Lake Charles, and Montgomery County will produce fewer carbon emissions than the legacy units they replaced, improve our average fleet efficiency and use less water. Nuclear generation is also an important not emitting base load resource. Prudently investing to preserve these valuable assets is an important part of our strategy to deliver sustainable value to all of our stakeholders. Our planned investments in new technologies to modernize our grid such as advanced meters will further improve efficiency. On top of that our customers of all classes are interested in the deployment of renewable resources and we are working to meet these expectations. To that end, over the next three years we expect to contract for over 800 megawatts of renewable resources. Of these approximately 180 megawatts are the two power purchase agreements in Arkansas that we have discussed with you on previous occasions. Of the remainder, approximately half represent ownership opportunities. These are just a few illustrations of the many investments that we are making today to develop an electric generating and delivery system that is well positioned for operations in a carbon constrained economy whatever that may look like in the future. Turning to EWC, we’ve taken important steps to provide a clear path to exit that business in 2022. We reached an agreement to cease operations Dominion point in 2021 and submitted our deactivation notice to New York ISO. The ISO concluded there will be no reliability issues resulting from Indian Point’s retirement. We sold Fitzpatrick preserving the plants benefits for its employees and community. And we decided to continue to operate Palisades through the spring of 2022 a cash positive decision. Finally, in 2017, we received a number of awards that recognize our accomplishments, values and commitments. We are once again included in the Dow Jones Sustainability in North America Index. We are named one of the top 10 utilities in economic development by Site Selection Magazine. Women’s Business Enterprise National Council listed Entergy is one of America’s top corporations for women’s business enterprise. We are one of Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s 100 best corporate citizens and we received EEI’s Emergency Recovery and Emergency Assistance Awards for our storm restorations efforts. Our commitment to our communities is further evidence by our charitable contributions, which total approximately $16 million annually, including investment in workforce development across our jurisdictions. Our employees and retirees are also generous with their time, volunteering some 100,000 hours annually. All of our accomplishments and successes are the result of our employees first rate level of professionalism, dedication and hard work every day. I want to thank more than 13,000 men and women of Entergy is the living by our values working safely and acting with integrity. Their ideas and can-do spirit make Entergy a better company. Looking ahead, our 2018 plan support our financial outlooks as well as our aspirations for the future of our company. As I mentioned earlier the foundation for success this year is largely in place and less dependent on strategic initiatives and on our own operational execution. We’ll be building projects that have already been approved continuing with the annual MISO, MTEP process making regulatory filings in the normal course of business. Two major transmission projects will – we will complete this year for the Lake Charles project noted earlier in the $130 million Southwest Mississippi improvement project. We look forward to their completion and the benefits that they will provide to our customers and to our region. We will also complete AMI’s core IT system implementations and initiate deployment of the communications network. This will support meter installations beginning early next year when customers will start to see the benefits this technology provides, giving them the ability to manage their usage and their bills. Another important goal for 2018 is for ANO to exit Column 4. Over the past few years, we have worked with NRC as well as our peers and we have systematically completed the actions outlined in our confirmatory action letter. ANO is on track to return to normal oversight this year. As for our regulatory agenda, we are working with each of our regulators on the effects of tax reform and we welcome the change for our customers. On an ongoing basis, the lower tax rate means that customer bills will be lower than they otherwise would have been. That’s important to us as evidenced by the fact that our rates are among the lowest in the country. We plan to make rate filings in each of our jurisdictions this year and we expect actually point to be addressed in the normal course of those proceedings. We are also focused on efforts to address customer needs in unique ways. For example, in Mississippi, working with the Public Service Commission, we are teaming up with cease fire on a fiber infrastructure project. This project will span over 300 miles in 15 counties to bring next generation broadband services to consumers and businesses in some of the most isolated and rural parts of the state. These services will open doors that were not previously available in those areas. At EWC, we will remain focused on safe and reliable operations to finish strong in the last few years of operation. Regarding our VY NorthStar transaction, we have made substantial progress towards finalizing an agreement and we filed a status update with the Vermont Public Utility Commission earlier this week. As the report states, the parties anticipate filing a memorandum of understanding by March 2. That some or all of the parties will join. The MOU will address financial assurances and site restoration standards. We still target closing the transaction by the end of 2018. All of these plants support our guidance and are the foundation for a long-term outlooks, which we affirm today. Drew will provide additional color around our forward-looking commitments. 2017 has been another year of significant accomplishments for our company. Accomplishments that will help provide the foundation for our pursuit of the much broader aspirations we have set for ourselves. Today, we are a very different company than we were just a few years ago. We are a simpler company and a stronger company for the benefit of all of our stakeholders. For years we’ve been committed to creating to sustainable value for owners, customers, employees and communities, the commitment that many investors are recognizing as essential to success over the long-term. That has been reflected not only in the steps we’ve taken to exit the EWC business and strength in the utility, but also in our leadership position among utilities and critical measures of sustainability including our recognition as an environmentally and socially responsible in Utility. Our operating and financial positions are solid and our strategic direction is clear. All of this prepares us to meet the challenges of an evolving industry. Over the next three years, we will continue to strengthen and deliver on our commitment to our stakeholders. We will place into service new, clean, efficient generating resources. New transmission projects throughout our service territory and of course AMI. AMI and its related technologies will serve as the foundation on which we plan to build the Entergy of tomorrow. As new technologies data and analytics continue to improve, so too our ability to deliver tailored customer solutions that better meet our evolving customer expectations through a dynamic, integrated energy network and new products and services beyond basic power delivery. We want to be in a position to deliver the most assessable, affordable, reliable and sustainable energy mix for the future. A future that offers transformative change and once in a lifetime opportunity and we are eager to lead the way. Before I turn it over to Drew, I’m excited to announce that we will host our Analyst Day conference in New York City on June 21. Our main objective will be to give you a view of our five year outlook and our plan for operational execution. We will also continue the conversation on how we define our company beyond five years. Stay tuned for more details. I will now turn the call over to Drew, who will provide more detail on our 2017 financial results, the implications of tax reform for our company, 2018 guidance and our three year outlooks.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning everyone. As Leo mentioned, 2017 was another productive year for us with significant accomplishments. Before we get into the details, for Entergy consolidated, we finish in the top half of our operational guidance range, exceeding our expectations for the year despite the negative effects of weather. This is better than we told you to expect on our third quarter call primarily driven by two factors. First with Utility, we experienced strong sales growth, led by our industrial sector which came in at 7% quarter-over-quarter. Second, we saw benefits from our continued efforts to derisk our EWC business. Our Utility Parent & Other on an adjusted view, we also ended above our expectations and above the top end of our guidance range due to the strong sales growth. Beyond the financial results, we also know the tax reform is on your mind. Leo mentioned that new legislation will provide significant benefits to our customers. Over time will return approximately $1.4 billion for the unprotected portion of the excess ADIT and one form or another, whether through customer refunds, cash investment in new asset accelerated depreciation or other options our regulators may consider. And on an ongoing basis, the lower tax rate will translate into lower bills than our customers would have otherwise. In addition, our 2018 guidance and a longer term outlook we are affirming today, include expectations for the effective tax reform. I will now turn to some of the drivers for our fourth quarter results in more detail, starting with our core business Utility Parent & Other on Slide 6. On an adjusted view, earnings were $0.21 higher than fourth quarter 2016, driven by strong sales growth. For the industrial class, we saw robust sales from existing customers largely from the chlor-alkali and primary metals sectors, as well as new and expansion customers. We also recorded non-recurring regulatory charges totaling $0.10 in fourth quarter 2016. Higher non-fuel O&M partially offset these benefit, primarily due to higher nuclear spending continued to drive our nuclear strategic plan. EWC on Slide 7, operational earnings increased $0.39 quarter-over-quarter. FitzPatrick contributed in $0.11 loss to fourth quarter 2016 results and the sale of that plan in 2017 affected variances from multiple line items. Excluding the effect of FitzPatrick, earnings increased $0.28, due largely to higher income from realized earnings on decommissioning truck, which we highlighted as an opportunity on our third quarter call. Strong market performance increased trust value to a level where we locked in game by rebalancing some of the truck investments toward lower volatility fixed income instruments. On Slide 8, operating cash flow in the fourth quarter was $911 million, approximately $165 million higher than a year ago. The increase is primarily due to collections of fuel and purchase power cost at Utility. Now turning to the full year on Slide 9, consolidated operational earnings for 2017 were $7.20 per share higher than the $7.11 in 2016. It is also above our guide midpoint despite negative weather and better than our expectations in October. As I mentioned drivers for the change versus our expectations included strong sales growth at Utility and higher realized earning on decommissioning trust. Utility Parent & Other adjusted EPS on Slide 10, was $4.50 in 2017, $0.18 higher than 2016. The increase was due largely to rate actions to recover productive investments to benefit our customers, as well as residential commercial and industrial weather adjusted sales growth. This increase was partly offset by our spending on nuclear operations and other operating expenses. Slide 11 summarizes EWC operational earnings, which increased year-over-year to $3.24 per share in 2017 from $2.01 in 2016, excluding Fitzpatrick, this increase was due largely to income tax items and as previously mentioned higher realized gains on decommissioning trust funds. 2017 results also reflected higher decommissioning expense, primarily from the establishment of decommissioning liabilities in Indian Point 3 in August 2016. Full year 2017 operating cash flow shown on Slide 12, was approximately $2.6 billion in 2017, $375 million lower than last year. higher refueling outage cost as we completed seven refueling outages this year at both the merchant and utility fleet on favorable weather at Utility and lower EWC net revenue were the main drivers. Today, we are issuing our 2018 consolidated operational EPS guidance of $6.25 to $6.85 and Utility Parent & Other adjusted guidance of $4.50 to $4.90. On Slide 13, starting with Utility Parent & Other on an adjusted view, our range is consistent with the outlook represented at the EEI financial property last November. Walking through a few of the key drivers, let’s start with the top line. Our projected sales volume 2018 is largely unchanged from our view at EEI, and our guidance reflects a slight decline year-over-year. However, we expect volatility from quarter-to-quarter. For example, we expect industrial sales growth in the first quarter as new customers become fully operational, but we expect sales declines over the remainder of the year as existing customers return to normal operation and take maintenance outages following strong performance in 2017. Despite the tempered outlook for our industrial sales growth in 2018, we see growth resuming in 2019 and 2020 as new projects come online. We are projecting non-fuel O&M to be approximately $2.6 billion, which represents a slight increase compared to 2017. This reflects slightly higher pension expense due to a pension discount rate assumption of 3.78%, which is lower than our previous expectation. Return of excess ADIT affects the top line. But it’s essentially offset in income tax expense. 2018 also assumes normal weather and no income tax planning items at Utility Parent & Other. Additionally, as a result of tax reform at Parent & Other, we’ll see a lower tax yield on that segment’s loss. We also expect higher financing cost. At the Utility, the tax change will affect each operating company differently and we expect the more significant impact to be in Entergy Arkansas. Because of the mechanics of the FRP, Entergy Arkansas can earn closer to its allowed return in 2018. This is a key driver that helped offset the negative drag at Parent this year. At EWC, we expect earnings to decline in 2018 largely due to income tax planning items. As you recall, in second quarter 2017, EWC recorded an income tax benefit contributing $373 million to operational earnings. This year, we are assuming that EWC will record another tax benefit currently estimated to be approximately $100 million. In addition, we expect lower net revenue largely due to lower energy prices and higher non-fuel O&M due to higher projected nuclear spending, partly due to the decision to operate Palisades until 2022. These decreases are offset by lower depreciation expense also due to the Palisades decision and higher earnings on decommissioning trust, due to the change in accounting rules require us to mark the equity portion of those investments to market. Right now our guidance reflect a return assumption of 6.25%, which equates to approximately $1 in earnings per share. We also expect lower income tax expense due to the lower income tax rate. Before we leave EWC, I’ll give a update on our cash position. We now see neutral to positive cash flow from EWC to the Parent from 2017 to 2022 and this includes our current view on potential decommissioning trust contributions. This is slightly better than last quarter due to walking in strong nuclear decommissioning trust returns and continued strategies to mitigate nuclear decommissioning costs. Tax reform will also affect our cash needs. And as shown on Slide 14, we will require incremental financing. The two primary needs are from, first, the return of excess deferred taxes, and second lower tax expense and rate. We expect the finance, this reduction through a combination of Utility company debt, Parent debt, internal cash generation and external equity. We plan to issue approximately $1 billion of equity over our outlook period. And currently, we expect that all to occur before the end of 2019. Moving to the longer term view on Slide 15, our earnings expectations continue to firm up as we execute on key deliverables. Our outlook through 2020 is unchanged despite the Parent drag that I previously noted. That’s in part because we will see increased rate base as we return excess ADIT to customers over time. Also, before tax reform, we were trending at the upper end of our ranges in 2019 and 2020. Collectively, these allow us to maintain our outlook. While I don’t normally talk about where in these outlooks we see ourselves, given the significant changes in tax reform, you should know that we do not see ourselves at the bottom of the ranges. Of course, these are our current expectations, but ultimately the amount and timing of earnings and cash impacts from tax reform will depend on the regulatory treatment. All of our jurisdictions have opened a docket in one form or another, and ratemaking regulatory proceedings are scheduled this year in each of our jurisdictions. We will work with our regulators through these proceedings to address the effective tax reform and develop the appropriate path forward so that this opportunity gets value to our customers as fast as possible. And also provide all of our Entergy stakeholders with a fair and reasonable outcome. Finally, our cash and credit metrics as of the end of the year are shown on Slide 16. The reduction in cash from tax reform will also put pressure on our FFO to debt credit metric. Even though this metric would be adversely affected, we are focused on maintaining the financial integrity detail of this credit profile by internally identifying the opportunities to improve cash flow and externally working with our retail regulators. Throughout, we expect to continue to hold an investment grade rating. As I mentioned earlier, 2017 was another strong year our results and we look forward to 2018. The foundation for success this year is largely in place as we focus on building projects that have already been approved, advance our operational capabilities, work with the regulators to implement appropriate changes and tax reform and prepare for the customer-centered and opportunity-filled future that Leo described in his remarks. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hey, good morning, congratulations.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Julien.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So first quick question. Just on tax reform to kind of nail this down early on. In terms of FFO to debt, where does the $1 billion equity raise get you on a kind of a pro forma and run rate basis? And how is that relative to where you want to be obviously looking at 2017 trailing, kind of what are the rating agency wanting for me today? And how much buffer more importantly are you looking to have against that?
Drew Marsh:
Julien, this is Drew. Right now the $1 billion will give us around 14% range. And so that’s where starting from and we think that will maintain investment grade as we talk about and discussed. And of course, we like to do better that. We’re looking for other ways to do that by driving internal cash flows and working with our retail and regulators, but that’s kind of the place where we see it bottoming out. The amounts we’ll see – will be varying by the exact timing of the return to customers of any excess ADIT, but that’s kind of where we see it bottoming out.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. Excellent. You generally speaking beyond the $1 billion equity. You would think that – you would organically see the growth of the business to support an improvement in the FFO?
Leo Denault:
Yes. Overtime, it will improve. But early on, that’s where we’re seeing.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent. And then on the NDT side, obviously, constructed statements in your prepared remarks. But as you see the wider strategic effort to kind of move that side of the business off your books, where do stand on that front as well, if any developments?
Drew Marsh:
On EWC?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Yes.
Drew Marsh:
So we are working on. I’m sorry.
Leo Denault:
Julien, you’re asking about the cash generation of that business. Is that what you’re getting at?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
No, I was thinking more around the strategic angles, around sort of divesting that business more structurally.
Drew Marsh:
Okay. So Leo in his remarks and yesterday or a couple of days ago, you saw the update on the Vermont Yankee process, so you’re clear on that. Beyond that, we continue to work through our process to try and duplicate that effort at our other plants and those processes continue to be ongoing. We are making progress, but the first thing is going to be Vermont Yankee, and we really focus on making sure that we bring that one home and then the others will follow on behind it.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. So you really want to see the case study of VY that first and foremost before we could closing that?
Drew Marsh:
That’s right.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. All right. Excellent, thank you. Best of luck.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
Thanks, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Greg.
Greg Gordon:
Thank you for the guidance around tax and appreciate you deviating from your normal way you talk about your ranges to give us a sense of that. So just to rephrase back to you what you said in your comments, so that I’m sure I got it correctly, given the regulatory outcomes you’ve seen, like your ability now to earn out your authorized ROEs in Arkansas because of the formula rate plan and that types of demand growth you’re seeing, at tax reform not happened you are looking given what you know now at being at the high-end of the range? And then the impact of, A, the loss of – partial loss of tax shield at the parent debt; B, the $1 billion of equity that you need to fund to offset the cash flow impact of tax, and C, the positive impact of rate base going up because of deferred tax. You still no lower than the midpoint of the range as you see it today?
Drew Marsh:
Right. Well, yes, we said we’re not at the bottom of the range. So I think you would be – I will not kind of characterize around the midpoint specifically but we’re now not at the bottom of the range.
Greg Gordon:
Fair enough. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. But generally speaking as I think about the moving parts, have I missed anything salient?
Drew Marsh:
No, those are the correct thesis, Greg.
Greg Gordon:
Okay, thanks. And what can you tell us on the margin has changed between your last disclosure and your current comments on the cash flow impact of exiting EWC? What on the margin has changed to put you in a position to say you think it will be neutral to positive?
Drew Marsh:
I think the main pieces are strong performance in the trust. And as you’ll see in our K, when it comes out early next week, the decommissioning actually I think it’s in the back of the disclosures in the appendix today. The trust are up over $4 billion at this point. So we see strong performance in the return of the trust. And then, secondly, we continue to work through our expectations on what it would cost to decommission facilities in the Northeast. And as we work through that, we are finding that we may be able to reduce our cost expectations there. So the combination of those two things is giving us the confidence to continue to move our expectations on the overall cash need at EWC.
Greg Gordon:
Great. Last question, how do you not – let me rephrase this. All things equal before the things you’ve done to offset the impact of tax reform on your credit metrics, how much of a negative impact on your FFO to debt metric before – this is obviously before the things that you’ve done to offset it, the tax reform have has an impact in a vacuum? I mean, you say you’re going to be at 14%. Where would you be had you done nothing to offset it?
Drew Marsh:
We will probably been around the 16%, 17% range FFO to debt.
Greg Gordon:
Perfect. Thank you guys.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Greg.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Thank you so much. Hi, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Drew Marsh:
Hey, good morning.
Praful Mehta:
Good morning. So on the equity just wanted to understand, which piece is more correlated with the timing? Is it from a regulatory perspective if you get decision on the unexpected piece for DTL and the timing of the refund? Is that going to drive the timing to be more 2018 versus a 2019 event? Just wanted to understand how should we think about the timing.
Drew Marsh:
I think that it’s more of a back-end question, Praful. So we will probably start executing second half of this year even though our processes are in complete based upon expectations for having to go into some no matter what, and then the question would be how quickly we get the certainty and we go ahead and how fast we begin to return those cash flows to customers. If it’s very quick, then we will accelerate the back end forward. But if it’s slow, obviously, we would need the cash until later. Did I answer your question?
Praful Mehta:
Yes, that’s super helpful, thanks. So on the second question on EWC, clearly it was good to see the decommissioning trust performing well and the fact that you walked on those gains. But just obviously, it opens up the question to if it performs now, there is also now the risk that if it doesn’t perform well what happens then given now you’re in a positive position from a cash flow perspective? Just wanted to understand how you protect against that risk of downside on the decommissioning trust now that it’s performed. And secondly, now that you have these assets in a good position, is this a better time to execute sales with people who are experts at decommissioning these assets?
Drew Marsh:
Okay. So on the first question, we have been actively trying to derisk our portfolio particularly for that for Vermont Yankee, for example. As that trust has grown we do know we have expenses that are coming, and so we’ve taken them ahead of schedule out of sort of an investment profile and putting them more into a cash profile to derisk because our trust has grown to a higher level. Similar for Pilgrim as we prepare for the retirement of that asset next year, plus Pilgrims trust by itself is up over $1 billion. So it’s a very well-funded. We’ve been actively derisking in that way. And then the second question was? What was your second question again, Praful?
Praful Mehta:
In terms of executing on sales for these assets…
Drew Marsh:
Yes, of course, it makes much easier to manage that sales process as though stress become higher. That is true.
Praful Mehta:
All right. Thank you, guys.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Shar Pourezza of Guggenheim Partners. Your line is now open.
Shar Pourezza:
Hey, good morning guys.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning, Shar.
Shar Pourezza:
Let me just follow-up on Greg and Julien’s question for a second on EWC. So it’s nice to see that you’ve got a higher cash flow trajectory upon an exit. But sort of how does the cash flow trajectory look under an assumption that you sell the decommissioning trust? So in light of the performance of the funds, would it be cash flow diluted for you to exit the decommissioning trust funds?
Drew Marsh:
Not necessarily because we wouldn’t necessarily have access to those decommissioning trust funds except to do decommissioning until well down the road. So the fact that it is performing better I guess maybe to Praful’s question helps us to move towards a transaction but it does not necessarily move more cash into the business.
Shar Pourezza:
Got it. Okay, that’s helpful. And then just on the Louisiana FRP extension, it sounds like, Leo, obviously from your prepared remarks that you’re confident in the second quarter settlement. So has tax reform sort of improved the conversations you’re having in the settlement talks? And then can you just remind us how much capital an O&M is on the nuclear side is embedded in this current filing?
Rod West:
I will address that first part. This is Rod.
Shar Pourezza:
Hey, Rod.
Rod West:
Yes, the conversation around taxes has slowed down our negotiations. But to the point that you just raised, we still feel good about our ability to settle the FRP. And our regulators, they issued the accounting orders as sort of a flag post to account and track the – how the tax reform would flow through that FRP before we close out the settlement discussion. Just keep in mind that our objective is still to resolve the issue to have rate effect changes happening in September. As it relates to the nuclear cost embedded in the FRP, I’ll have to get back to you on the actual numbers. I’m not sure whether we’ve disclosed a specific nuclear number in the FRP filing. But I’ll make sure that David gives a specific number if it’s public.
Shar Pourezza:
Okay. And then just let me just rephrase it. Has the Arkansas order improved sort of what you’re looking to do in Louisiana?
Rod West:
Well, remember we talked about that in prior discussions. The nuclear issue is less of a – had been less of a conversation in Louisiana. Our focus because of the size of our capital plan has been around transmission conversation. So nuclear is a much smaller component of Louisiana’s capital plan and as a result hasn’t been a line item, if you will, in the negotiation. So it’s been less of a I’ll just say less of an issue.
Shar Pourezza:
Got it. Thanks so much guys.
Rod West:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Michael Lapides:
Hey guys. A couple of questions. I just want to make sure I understand a few things. First of all, Drew, what is the O&M growth rate year-over-year you are assuming in 2018 versus 2017 at the Utility?
Drew Marsh:
I’m trying to think about the percentage. It’s probably 1% to 2%, Michael.
Michael Lapides:
Okay, so inflationary. And then do you see significant opportunity for O&M cost saves post 2017 at the utilities? Or do you think that’s kind of a normal run rate you go from there? I’m just asking because of the heightened nuclear spend that you had in 2017?
Drew Marsh:
Right. And we are still actually ramping up some of those nuclear costs. And I think a big piece of a driver for us is the pension expense and where that will go. But beyond that, operationally, we have several programs internally to try and drive operational efficiency within our organization. And as we begin to roll out our automated metering efforts in the next year, and we start to install meters and then we start to put all the other parts together with that, new operational and management distribution systems and asset management systems and linking all those things together, we would expect to begin to realize some operational savings going forward for our customers. And as we realize that, I think that will create headroom for incremental investment but it would not at least maybe on a temporary basis it might drop to the bottom line, but we would expect that it would be recaptured in rates fairly quickly.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And then Arkansas and Rod, I want to make sure I understand the puts and takes that are happening here. Can you walk us through how tax reform helps get you closer to earnings authorized? Is it simply because the 4% cap is no longer as big of a deal because you’re reducing rates this year? Or is there some other driver there?
Rod West:
Michael, I think the straightforward answer is the revenue requirements because of the lower tax expenses is less and as a result you’re closer to your allowed rate of return that you’re not having to worry about the carryover year-over-year for true up. So you’re actually earning allowed ROE in the year because of tax expense is presumed to be lower.
Michael Lapides:
So I want to just kind of think about the Arkansas income statement. This is actually a pretty big deal for you guys. So tax rate goes down but revenue goes down to adjust for the tax rate. But that’s earning – that would be earnings neutral by itself. But because you didn’t get the full increase that you could have been authorized due to the 4% cap, now you can actually get that full increase in 2018?
Rod West:
No, tax rate goes down. The revenue requirements, that is the amount of revenues that are embedded in our rates don’t go down. Remember, we are over. And so all I’m saying is the overage that we wouldn’t be earning on that would be subject to a true up is actually less in 2018. And so we’re actually earning closer to our allowed rate of return because of the taxes that we’re not paying that the over reach is not as great as it would otherwise have been.
Drew Marsh:
So, Michael, maybe think about it this way. Our original revenue requirement request was about $130 million. The cap limited us to think $70-ish million. And so we were short by $60 million. We are under earning by that amount. What, I think, Rod is saying is under the lower tax regime, the revenue requirement get something closer to the $70 million. So if you think of it as our revenue requirements kind of our revenue line, if you thinking about it 2018 income statement, our revenue line is about the same, our tax expense will be lower and all of it will kind of balance out to where we get close to our allowed return in Arkansas. Of course, next year we will be moving through the FRP and we’ll have an expectation for a lower tax expense next year as well and we’ll just continue to roll forward in the FRP process in that way.
Michael Lapides:
But thinking about the post 2018 growth in Arkansas because of the legislation and the change in ratemaking, are you thinking that 2019 and beyond barring any unforeseen things, you should be very close to annually to earnings authorized there now?
Drew Marsh:
We should get much closer, yes.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Okay. Thank you guys. Much appreciate it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Yes. Good morning guys.
Drew Marsh:
Good morning.
Jonathan Arnold:
Yes. I just noticed the comments about 100 megawatts of renewables potentially over three years. And if I heard you rightly it’s about 180 is PPA but then you said that they remainder I guess 600 or so would be about half of that would be ownership opportunities. Did I hear that right?
Leo Denault:
Yes, yes. And over the next three years, we would anticipate entering into contracts for those – the projects themselves would be kind of more towards the back end of the period or beyond.
Jonathan Arnold:
I guess, how do you have confidence that in that split at this point? And which jurisdictions OEM are we talking about?
Leo Denault:
Well, we’re in the process right now in some of those jurisdictions with some discussions around those. I really don’t want to get into any detail about it at the moment because those discussions are going on. But we’ve been looking at them for a while. It’s obviously the price point of renewables and everything that come down it begins to make sense in certain instances around the system so we’re pursuing that.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Thank you for that. And then just on the comments about FFO metrics, and I think you said a couple of times you obviously intending to remain investment grade. But with the Baa2 Moody’s rating, are you – are we to understand that you might be willing to not to downgrade or are you also pushing to try and defend the current rating as opposed to just staying investment grade?
Drew Marsh:
Right. So we’re committed to investment grade but we still wouldn’t prefer to keep our current credit rating and so certainly we’re not giving up on that. And so we’re going to be continuing to look for ways to manage to our current credit rating while we maintain our earnings outlooks that we’ve committed to you all to achieve. So I wouldn’t say that our current credit rating is going to necessarily fall down a notch but our commitment is to maintain investment grade.
Jonathan Arnold:
So if I’m not wrong that the – downgrade threshold is around 15%, so would you consider more equity to stay where you are or in that instance, do we – I guess I’m just pushing for how hard you defend the current number – current grade.
Drew Marsh:
Right. I mean, we will also endeavor to maintain our earnings outlooks and so that’s going to be the balancing mechanism.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, perfect. Thank you, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Fremont of Mizuho. Your line is now open.
Paul Fremont:
Thank you. Can you quantify the tax reform impact on your rate base?
Drew Marsh:
Sure. This is Drew. It’s going to depend mostly upon the amount of cash that’s ultimately returned to customers because that will represent sort of incremental rate base. If there is some of the excess ADIT that turns into accelerated depreciation of existing assets or is put into sort of pay for assets that we were already planning to put into rate base and then that would be kind of neutral. Right now, we would expect that we would grow the rate base by a little over $1 billion after the three years. And then also what we already have.
Paul Fremont:
Right. So in essence, I mean, you’re issuing equity but you’re issuing equity to build rate base over and above what you had an original plan?
Drew Marsh:
That’s correct.
Paul Fremont:
Okay. And then can you also – on the unfunded pension for 2017, can you give us an idea of where you ended 2017?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So we ended 2017 with about finishing trust assets around $6.1 billion and pension liability around $8 billion. So we’re at about 1.9 differences in that.
Paul Fremont:
Okay, so you actually improve their relative to where you were last year so that should also help in terms of the FFO to debt metrics, right?
Drew Marsh:
It will. But it’s not improved all that much. I want to say it’s improved by $50 million to $60 million. The rates have been going up but the pension discount rate at the end of the year versus the end of the prior year was still lower because as you know corporate spreads have tightened, curves have flattened and most of our liabilities are longer dated. So the liability went up more than we were anticipating despite the fact that we had strong returns and $400 million of contributions into our pension last year. And by the way, we would expect to put about $400 million in this year as well.
Paul Fremont:
And then beyond that, I mean, should we assume that $400 million number continues as a run rate? Or should we look at those more as just one-offs?
Drew Marsh:
Well, that was – this year will be the end of a five-year effort to put $2 billion of incremental assets into the pension trusts. I don’t know that it would necessarily we could continue but that is something that we’re investigating.
Paul Fremont:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question comes from the line of David Paz of Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
David Paz:
Good morning. I believe you said the $1 billion of external equity will depend on the timing of out of the rate case or rate filings. Do you have an at the money or turbo program?
Drew Marsh:
David, we don’t have one currently established. We would need to go get authorization with our board but also with the SEC to make that happen. We would anticipate that probably occurred in the second quarter or so.
David Paz:
Got it. Okay, and what’s the capacity of your internal equity programs like DRIP?
Leo Denault:
We don’t have one currently established, right now.
David Paz:
Okay, got it. And I believe you may have just address this, I apologized if I missed this, but can you explain why your pension discount rate assumption is falling again given the rate environment that we’re seeing?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, well, it’s said at the end of the year and so it’s a once-a-year snapshot and so you compare it to 12/31/2016 and – versus 12/31/2017. And if you look at that time frame sort of a 10-year treasury, it actually come down a little bit even though the front end and shorter term treasury would come up. Meanwhile, so you had to flattening of the curve and then you also had corporate spreads, which had tightened to that. So using a longer dated curve, corporate rates were a little bit lower than what they had been previously. So that’s those are the two comparison points.
David Paz:
Got it, great. And actually sneaking one more on your sales forecast, I know you said that there’s some volatility within the year. I know you see forecast the sales growth beyond this year rising. I mean, just can you characterize whether these are using conservative assumptions about industrial growth? Or are you kind of fairly comfortable with your assumption now? Just any room for further improvement and further upside?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So this is Drew again. On the industrial side, I would say that we have – we’re kind of middle of the road on our expectations for industrial growth. It’s for our large customers, it’s based upon our expectation for projects that we can see under construction right now through 2020. And what our expectation for them is in the marketplace. So I’d say that fairly middle-of-the-road expectation on industrial. For residential and commercial, there may be a little bit of near-term opportunity in 2018. But beyond that, we expect that the effects of automated meters and getting our customers better information about how to manage their energy usage would allow them to be more efficient and conservative on the way that they actually use their electricity. So we have actually built in an expectation that over the longer term, we would expect to see a decline in residential and commercial sales.
David Paz:
Great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And that is all the time we have for questions. I’d like to hand the call back for David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Great. Thank you, Nicole, and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Before we close, we are reminding you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and regulation G compliance statements. Our Annual Report on Form 10-5 is due to the SEC on March 1 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing, that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet, would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. And this concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. That does conclude today’s program. You may disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, IR Leo Denault - Chairman and CEO Drew Marsh - CFO Rod West - Group President, Utility Operations
Analysts:
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - Bank of America Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Praful Mehta - Citigroup Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Shar Pourezza - Guggenheim Partners
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the Entergy's Corporation Third Quarter 2017 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. And now I would like to introduce your host for today's program David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then, Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow up. And just a reminder, with EEI only days away, today's call is scheduled for 40 minutes. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in our earnings release, our slide presentation, and the company's SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you David, and good morning. Today, we're reporting a strong third quarter with operational earnings per share of $2.35 and utility, parent and other adjusted earnings per share of $2.15. We now expect to finish the year in the top half of our utility, parent and other adjusted earnings guidance range. Furthermore, we continue to execute on our strategy to achieve steady predictable growth at the utility, while managing risk and an orderly exit of our merchant power business as shown on Slide 3 with three quarters behind us, we've successfully completed most of the key deliverables that we set for 2017. Significant accomplishments we've made over the past several years position us well to achieve our financial outlooks in the coming years, which support our long-term dividend growth aspiration. As a result, today we are affirming our 2017 guidance and our longer term outlooks for utility, parent and other. With the EEI conference days away, we are keeping today's call focused on quarterly results as well as progress, updates on our key deliverables. We will defer questions on long-term strategy to EEI, while I will be giving a formal business update presentation. Now moving onto developments for our business since our last earnings call. First, Entergy Arkansas' formula rate plan proceeding, we reached an unopposed settlement agreement with the attorney general and the other members of the joint rate pair advocates. If approved, the settlement would resolve all challenges to the prudence of the nuclear costs included in the 2017 and 2018 test year filings. We also agreed to a process to review the costs associated with ANO's state or incident and placement in column 4 by the NRC. As a reminder these costs were not part of the 2017 and 2018 test year FRPs. The settlement agreement was included in a procedural filing with the Arkansas Public Service Commission last week. We are still engaging with all parties with the goal of reaching a comprehensive settlement of the FRP that may be presented to the APSE for review and approval. By November 1, we will either file a comprehensive settlement of the FRP or the settlement I just mentioned on the nuclear costs only. In August, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the Public Service Commission to extend its formula rate plan for three years starting with the 2018 filing. As part of the filing, we did request some limited modifications to the current FRP framework, which we believe will further improve the timing of recovery of investments and provide greater financial flexibility to support the needs of our customers. Specifically, we are requesting a one-time reset of base rates to the ROE midpoint for the 2017 test year. A narrowing of the authorized ROE ban from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow for more timely recovery of certain transmission related costs namely related to the MISO transmission expansion planning and critical infrastructure protection projects. We've requested that the Louisiana Commission consider this request by December 2017 to maintain the current cycle we're implementing rate adjustments. And finally, in Texas, the Public Utility Commission approved the Entergy Texas' DCRF settlement agreement to increase the rider recovery by approximately $10 million. The increase was effective September 1. Regarding our transmission operations, we are nearing the end of the MTEP process for 2017. The MISO Board is evaluating our nearly $1 billion plan for the next five years and will make it selections and give final approval to projects in December. In addition, in September we submitted over $500 million of additional projects for MTEP in '18 and we will work with MISO and stakeholders on the selection process for those proposals over the course of the next year. We are committed to ensuring that needed transmission is constructed to provide reliable service to our customers. On the distribution end of our business, after receiving regulatory approvals for the deployment of advanced meters in Mississippi and Louisiana, we continue to make progress towards similar outcomes in other jurisdictions, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas each filed a settlement agreement in their respective jurisdictions and we are waiting approval in both jurisdictions, which we expect by year end. And in New Orleans, the procedural schedule remains suspended to enable settlement discussions. We are pleased with the progress we've made on the approval of advanced meters in each of our jurisdictions and the positive feedback we continue to receive from our stakeholders, especially in light of the benefits this technology will provide to our customers. With respect to our large generation projects, the St. Charles, Lake Charles and Montgomery County power stations are underway and we are on target to complete them on time and on budget. Construction is ongoing at the St. Charles project and we have commenced site work on the Lake Charles project. We are on target to issue full notice to proceed on the Montgomery County project. Turning to our merchant nuclear operations, as you know we now plan to continue to operate Palisades until spring 2022 under the current power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy. While we certainly appreciate the merits of terminating the PPA early, any termination must appropriately compensate us for the value of the above market contract. This decision to continue to operate the plant will preserve value for our owners, while extending our exit from the merchant nuclear business by only a year. In light of this decision, let me be clear that our strategy to exit the merchant business and become a pure play utility remains unchanged. This quarter, our service territories endured Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall as a category four storm near Rockford, Texas. Harvey's torrential rains produced historic flooding and approximately 250,000 of our customers in Texas and Louisiana were left without power. More than 3,300 workers from our own ranks as well as those of other utilities and contractors worked to restore power as quickly as possible. I applaud our employees and mutual assistant partners for their tireless efforts. I also thank our customers as well as state and local agencies for their support as we worked together to recover from this event. I am always amazed by the dedication of our people to return power to customers as safely and quickly as possible in the toughest conditions. In addition to the sacrifices our employees make to do their jobs, their dedication goes well above and beyond when you consider that many sustained significant damage to their own homes. Yet they put the needs of their communities first before responding to their own circumstances. Of course we recognized that many of our customers also endured hardships beyond power outages. Our commitment to our communities continues after we get the lights back on and we are making a contribution of $400,000 to help rebuild communities across Southeast Texas. Shortly after Harvey, Hurricane Irma made landfall in Florida. Hundreds of Entergy employees headed out to help other utilities restore service to their customers. The mutual assistance provided by our industry is unique as are the employees who take tremendous pride empowering lives and communities across the country. In many ways, hurricanes such as Harvey and Irma are important reminders of who we serve and what we do best. Finally, during the quarter, we were recognized through a number of awards that exemplify our values of diversity and inclusion and also our commitment to the success of our communities through education and economic development. In August, the Disability Equality Index, a joint initiative between the American Association of People with Disabilities and the U.S. Business Leadership Network classified Entergy as one of the best places to work for people with disabilities. We are proud of this recognition as our inclusion practices are cornerstones of our culture and our company is stronger from these practices. Also Site Selection Magazine named Entergy as one of the nation's top ten utilities in economic development in 2016. This is the tenth consecutive year that we've been named in the list recognizing our integral role that has resulted in more than $25 billion of capital and investment and the creation of jobs in our service territories. We know that economic development is important for our customers across the region and it's also good for business. We will continue to work with our state agencies and local communities to promote growth across our service territories. And finally, Entergy was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the 16th consecutive year. It's an honor to be included in this highly regarded list, which signals to our stakeholders that our company has operated responsibly planning for the future providing excellent service to our customers and building and maintaining a thriving workforce. We earned perfect scores in the areas of climate strategy, labor practice indicators, biodiversity and water related risks. In conclusion, 2017 has already been another year of significant accomplishments that position us to deliver on our financial commitment. As a result we are forming both our guidance and our outlooks. With good clarity on our strategy, we continue to successfully execute and make significant progress to invest in our core utility business for the benefit of our customers and reduce risk including the orderly wind down of our merchant power business. As I mentioned at the outset we will defer questions on our long-term strategy to EEI, but I'll be giving a formal business update presentation that will be available by webcast. We hope to see many of you at the conference and if you can't make it in person, hope you'll get the materials from our Investor Relations website and listen to the webcast of our presentation. We'll now turn the call over to Drew who will provide a more detail on our financial results and also an overview of the disclosures we plan to provide at EEI.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you Leo, good morning everyone. I'd like to start this quarter's financial review with the key takeaways on Slide 4. As you can see, Entergy's operational earnings are up from last year driven by higher utility, parent and other adjusted earnings and higher EWC operational EPS partially offset by $0.25 of negative weather. We're also affirming our 2017 guidance ranges for consolidated operational EPS for utility, parent and other adjusted EPS. In the utility, parent and other results summarized on Slide 5 you can see weather was negative in the current quarter compared to positive a year ago which accounts for $0.43 swing in the operational earnings. Across our system, cooling degree days reflected in our build sales were 16% lower than normal this year compared to 14% higher last year. On an adjusted view, earnings were $0.17 [ph] higher than third quarter 2016 driven by higher net revenue excluding the effects of weather. This reflected positive build retail sales growth and new base rates and riders to recover productive investment to benefit customers. For the industrial group, we saw solid sales growth from existing as well as new and expansion customers, largely from primary metals and chloro-alkali sectors. Partially offsetting the net revenue benefit were higher operating expenses including non-fuel O&M, depreciation and taxes other than income taxes. Last year's DOE award which reduced expenses in that period was also a driver. Turning to EWC's results on Slide 6, operational earnings increased $0.26 from third quarter 2016. The sale of Fitzpatrick affected variances for multiple line items but had a small impact on the overall variance. Excluding Fitzpatrick revenue from nuclear plants increased due largely to higher capacity prices. And EWC's nuclear fleet ran strong this quarter at a 98% capacity factor. Nuclear fuel and refueling outage expenses were also drivers as these were lower due to previous impairments. EWC also recorded higher income from realized earnings on decommissioning trusts. On Slide 7, operating cash flow from the third quarter was $893 million, approximately $100 million lower than a year ago. This decline is due partly to the $54 million of DOE litigation proceeds received last year. Effective weather on utility sales also contributed to the decline, but were partially offset by positive weather adjusted sales growth. Before I leave the quarter, I'd like to briefly touch on the financial implications of Hurricane Harvey summarized on Slide 8. Progress today points toward the lower end of our preliminary range of $85 to $129, the bulk of that being in Texas. We're still early in the process. We will work with our regulators to determine the best path to recovery of those dollars. You should note that because we are confident in our storm recovery mechanisms, signatures for storm restoration did not affect the income statement, but rather collect on the balance sheet. However, we did experience some lost revenue due to customer outages, we estimate those around $3 million to $5 million, about half of which is in unbilled revenue this quarter. Now Turning to Slide 9, we are affirming our consolidated operational guidance range. As I noted earlier weather adjusted sales growth was strong in the quarter. Year-to-date we are ahead of our expectations on O&M at the utility. EWC also had higher than expected realized earnings on its de-commissioning trust as small benefit from Palisades no longer being impaired. This strong performance would be enough to position us near the top of our earnings expectations range, but for $0.50 of negative weather in year-to-date results. But given the effects of weather, we expect year-in consolidated operational earnings in the lower end of the range. We're also affirming our utility, parent and other adjusted EPS guidance. Just a reminder this metric normalizes weather and income taxes. With strong weather adjusted sales growth this quarter, we now expect full-year UP&O adjusted EPS to fall within the top half of the guidance range. Our full-year sales growth expectations now sit near or a little above our assumption at the beginning of the year. Moving to the long-term view on Slide 10, our earnings expectations continue to firm up as we execute on key deliverables while extending our adjusted UPO outlook one year through 2020. 2018 our expectations remain constant despite conservative flat sales growth estimates including industrial sales and a 4.25% pension discount rate, which is 25 basis points lower than where we were last quarter. Our outlook through 2019 is unchanged and you will see that 2020 is the same as presented in June of last year at our Analyst Day. We do expect industrial sales to pick up again in 2019, but we anticipate residential and commercial sales to continue to be flat to negative in the foreseeable future. We're also updating our EWC EBITDA outlook on Slide 11 and we're now extending that outlook through 2022, the end of our merchant nuclear operations. You can see that our EBITDA estimates have increased since last quarter due to our new plans to operate Palisades until spring of 2022 under the existing PPA. This change also means that going forward we do not expect that plant to be impaired from a GAAP perspective. Therefore future fuel expenditures and refueling outage costs will be put on the balance sheet and expensed over their remaining useful lives in a more normal fashion. This will increase operational fuel and reviewing outage expense starting with the next outage in late 2018 and decrease impairments which are considered special items from what we previously expected. Capital spending will also be reported to the balance sheet and depreciated over its remaining useful life. But depreciation expense will not affect EBITDA, but it will affect operational earnings. We have summarized these changes on Slide 38 in the appendix to help you understand how this will affect results in the future. These estimates also reflect our updated hedging profile. Excluding Palisades we have increased our contracted position since June 30 by approximately 8.6 terawatt hours over the next four years. This reduces cash flow risk as we exit the business. But also takes away some potential upside should practice increase. Finally, with our Palisades decision, we've made good progress towards our cash neutral goal for EWC including any contributions - including any contributions to the decommissioning trust. We are currently short of our goal by only approximately $100 hundred through 2022 which includes our preliminary assumptions for decommissioning trust contributions and we continue to work down a path to exceed our goal. Our cash and credit metrics are shown on slide 12. Our parent debt to total debt ratio is currently 20.9%. As we look ahead, the effect of our decision to run Palisades will be positive to cash flow and ultimately parent debt. But there will be timing differences, considering we won't receive the $172 million PPA termination payment next year and positive cash flow will be spread out over remaining operations of the plant. Debt to EBITDA is slightly above our target, while debt for construction expenditures are incurred in advance of recovery from customers. And our FFO to debt metric has been affected by the operating cash flow drivers previously discussed, including the negative weather incurred through the third quarter of this year and an unusually large number of nuclear refueling outages in the first and second quarters. We expect to finish the year stronger, well within our targeted range. As noted on slide 13, we will have additional details at the EEI Financial Conference, where we will continue the discussion of our business strategy, longer term views, 2018 drivers and other important topics. As has been our practice, we anticipate that we'll provide earnings guidance for 2018 and our detailed three year capital plan on our fourth quarter earnings call. I look forward to seeing many of you at the conference and now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Your question please.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So just wanted to follow up, first off, congratulations on Arkansas. I wanted to just see if - what your latest thoughts were about earning your ROE there. Obviously, you want to delay some of the conversation, longer term strategic thinking until EEI, but at least right now, what are you thinking your trajectory is towards earning your ROE again, assuming the current settlement stays. Obviously, there could be some shift still, but the status quo expectations.
Rod West:
Julien, this is Rod. Good morning. I think our point of view hasn't changed in terms of what we've stated in the past and that is, we've reflected both the rate case and FRP settlements in Arkansas, the operation of the - both the cap and the true up mechanisms, such that by '19, we expect to approach our allowed ROE in Arkansas. And so all of that is reflected in our existing outlooks.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Right. Absolutely. But '18 is still something of a transition year.
Rod West:
I think that's fair.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Okay. Excellent. And then turning to Louisiana, obviously, I'm looking for action here pretty shortly. Can you talk about what the specific impact on the transmission tracker you're talking about there, what would that mean in terms of your ability to earn and how meaningful is that within the scheme of what you're talking about there across the various points?
Rod West:
Yeah. When you think about the - what we're seeking in the FRP renewal, that transmission tracker is really for us a recognition that the lion's share of the transmission spend that we have line of sight on is in front of us and a forward-looking mechanism would reduce the likelihood of a lag for us and our expectation is that that would allow us to earn and sustain our ROEs over the period. And so, we're in the middle of negotiations with the parties in Louisiana and they have the same line of sight that we do on our capital outlook and we're hopeful that they'll respond favorably to the approach.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent. And very quickly on the decommissioning trust true-up or to the extent it's necessary, what's the timeline do you think that you could actually get this resolved in terms of thinking about any kind of bigger arrangement to deal with that? Is that, shall we say, nearer term opportunity, if you could kind of summarize that, apologies if I didn't hear it clearly in the remarks.
Drew Marsh:
Hey, Julien. This is Dew. I don't think I put a specific timeline out there in the remarks and with the movement of Palisades to 2022, it gives a lot more room to finalize that. We are moving forward on Vermont Yankee, so that piece of it will be finalized hopefully next year. But the other parts on Pilgrim Palisades and Indian Point might take a little bit longer. That doesn't mean, we won't make progress on it though. We are continuing to, well, I'm talking about longer it could be, longer for a transaction or something of that nature. But we are making progress on our own sort of go it alone strategies and other things around how we're going to de-fuel the plant and things like that. Expectations around those things, we could firm up as early as next year. We can continue to make progress on our overall objective.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Deutsche Bank. Your question please.
Jonathan Arnold:
I have a question about the number you gave for weather and the $0.25 negative versus $0.18 positive and I think if I heard you right, you said the cooling degrees across the service territory was 16% below normal. My question, when we look at the sort of raw cooling degree data, it just looks much closer to normal than that. So I'm curious, are you showing an index that includes humility or other factors or just what are we missing there.
Leo Denault:
No. That's weighted on our specific - different city than our service territory, Jonathan. It is just raw cooling degree data, we're not factoring humidity or other things in there at this point.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. That's helpful to know. So just pure CDD. That was my question.
Leo Denault:
Yeah. But it is weighted by the various cities in our jurisdiction and relative size of those loads in the area.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta from Citigroup. Your question please.
Praful Mehta:
So firstly on sales growth at the utility level, just clearly you have had some improvement. So wanted to understand that you're tracking now above the plan. Does that mean that 2018 will be benefited by that? Is that benefit going to flow through to 2018 as well or do you see that more as a 2017 impact in terms of retail sales.
Rod West:
Praf, this is Rod. Good morning. I don't believe that the volatility we're seeing, whether it be positive or negative in '17 changes our point of view. At the end of the day, we still see, as Drew alluded to earlier, our growth driven by industrials with residential sort of being flat, flat to negative. So I think the short answer is no. We don't see that as changing our point of view.
Praful Mehta:
And then on slide 35, on the EWC side, the hedging price has obviously gone up, but I'm assuming that's purely because of the PPA of Palisades, is that right?
Rod West:
That's correct, Praful.
Praful Mehta:
So - and the EBITDA impact that you also mentioned from EWC, which has also gone up from a guidance perspective, that increased looked quite substantial in the 100 million range, is that also just Palisades or are there other impacts there as well that impacted your guidance for EWC?
Rod West:
No. That's primarily driven by Palisades. There are other minor things going on at the other plants, but what you're seeing, the effect that you're seeing is Palisades.
Praful Mehta:
And just finally just clarifying on the decommissioning side, you mentioned that your goal still is to be cash neutral on the EWC side through the wind down through 2022, incorporating some contributions that you expect on decommissioning. Just wanted to understand, have you talked about what you expect to be contributing into decommissioning at this point and what is the whole you expect to be for that?
Rod West:
So we haven't disclosed that yet, Praful, since we're in ongoing commercial discussions with third parties on the potential decommissioning of those facilities. So we haven't disclosed those, but we did change the number that we put out this time slightly before we had - we've just sort of given you a general idea of where we were relative to our goal and this time, we gave you a more specific number, we're about 100 million out. And so we are continuing to work that down and we are making progress and I think we probably do have line of sight to close the gap, we just haven't been able to do that in our financials just yet. And when we do that, that will be cash that should be available to the parent and be able to reduce some of the parent debt or be reinvested in to the utility business.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd from Morgan Stanley. Your question please.
Stephen Byrd:
Congratulations on the progress in Arkansas. I wondered if you could just speak a little bit further. Leo, I know in prepared remarks, you talked about the scope a little bit, but I wasn't completely clear on the exact scope of this recent settlement. Could you just speak to that in terms of new costs particularly?
Rod West:
Sure. It's Rod. Good morning. When you think about the settlement, what we reached a settlement on, with the AG and the other interveners was solely around the NSP costs. If you think about the 130 or so million that it was a subject of our '17 filing with the '18 forward-looking test year, the nuclear cost represented about 53 million of that. And so we resolved with the parties on the settlement of just the NSP or the nuclear related spend and we also got the testimony from the APSC staff. And so that portion of the FRP, at least as it relates to the interveners is resolved with no outstanding issues. What remains is the rest of the non-nuclear spend component of the formula rate plan. By the way, we also resolved with the parties the prior year's settlement that was already in rate. So that's really not anything incremental since we were already recovering that prior spend in rates. And so between now and November 1, our objective is to resolve the remaining non-nuclear aspects of the formula rate plan and those issues are what we would consider to be normal and expected inquiries and debates around timing of spend, certain assets being used in useful, known and measurable for purposes of the cap, but at the end of the day, all of those issues will be resolved between now and November 1 and ultimately be resolved in the true-up mechanism next year, to the extent that it's above that 4% cap. And so, nothing out of the ordinary. This is a significant resolution with the nuclear spend and everything else is what we consider to be the basic blocking and tackling of closing out the FRP.
Stephen Byrd:
Well, that's great progress, Rod. And just if I can understand the, so staff was the party for this settlement, their testimony, I view it as constructive, but can you help me understand the intersection between staff and the settlement.
Rod West:
Sure. The staff was not a party to this specific settlement. Staff, of course, representing their point of view to the commission. And so both the settlement that we've reached with the AG and the JRA, I know them as the interveners. So the AG in the hospitals and industrials, that will all be presented to the Arkansas Public Service Commission who is the ultimate arbiter of all of the settlements. And so the staff is one voice and certainly a significant one from our vantage point that gets presented to the commission, essentially identifying any outstanding issues that may remain. From our point of view, resolution with the interveners, with the support of testimony from the staff gives us confidence that we provide a pretty strong case for settlement to the APSC.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research.
Steve Fleishman:
So just on the 2018, you mentioned that your forecast assumes conservative assumptions, including flat sales. Is that flat overall sales and are you just being conservative or is there a reason that you think they'll be flat overall sales.
Drew Marsh:
Hey, Steve. This is Drew. A couple of things there. One is, we haven't really changed our outlook for 2018 all that much. We had previously seen industrial sales kind of move out. So we weren't anticipating much in terms of industrial sales. So that's kind of flat and we're anticipating overall flat as well. But our residential and commercial hasn't really changed. It's been - '17 has caught up a little bit and so it's tracking, as we said, back where we were anticipating it previously at the beginning of the year. So now that our sales in 2018 for residential and commercial are the same, but starting point has changed from '17. So it's basically flat, residential, commercial, industrial and total.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your question please.
Michael Lapides:
Just on Entergy Louisiana, you're filing for the formula rate plan reset and when would those new rates go no effect, is it still kind of the September timeframe or would it be before that in 2018?
Rod West:
Mike, it's Rod. You're right. It's September '18 and that's just the reason why we're seeking to get the settlement. If we're going to reach a settlement to get that issue resolved by the December, early first quarter of '18, so that the Public Service Commission and their staff has the ability to review, approve and comment on, so that rates could go into effect by September '18. That's the normal rate making path that I think Leo made reference to in his comments.
Michael Lapides:
And then the current FRP filing where you didn't request to change, that's because you aren't within the ROE band. I'm just trying to think about whether you would anticipate needing a sizable rate increase to get to the midpoint or are you kind of already close to it there when you think about your 2017 expectations at Entergy Louisiana?
Rod West:
Well, we certainly have a request for an increase to the midpoint. That number is not public. But we do have a point of view that the interveners are working through on getting to the midpoint. But Michael, it's not public at this point.
Operator:
Thank you. Our final question comes from the line of Shar Pourezza from Guggenheim Partners. Your question please.
Shar Pourezza:
Most of my questions were answered. Just, Drew, one thing I'm not clear on is on the sale of the decommissioning trust funds, what's sort of driving the complexity that's causing sort of the sales to get somewhat pushed out, especially since you've got sort of a benchmark deal already with Vermont Yankee? And then just a follow up is can you confirm if there is any other buyers out there outside of the NorthStar JV.
Drew Marsh:
Yeah. So, Shar, those are good questions. So, a couple of things are driving the timeline. One is it's first of a kind. And so it - any kind of first of a kind transaction is going to take you a little longer. But second, we're working on creating a market here. And so you alluded to any other buyers outside of the NorthStar JV and yeah, the answer is yes. There are a few. But it's taken a while to get everybody up to speed and give them access to materials, give them access to plants to make sure that they have a good sense of what they're trying to accomplish and so forth. And so, as we are going through this first of a kind transaction, we're trying to build a market for us to sell into. So it's taking us a little bit longer than we anticipated. But having said all that, we are finding some robust interest. I mean I'm not saying there is 10 buyers out there, but there's 4 or 5 people that have serious capabilities and serious interests that we are looking at. And so, the market is coming along, but it is taking us a little while to get it all together.
Operator:
Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to David Borde for any further remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Jonathan and thanks to everyone for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for safe harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. The events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This concludes our call. Thank you and we'll see you all at EEI.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, IR Leo Denault - Chairman and CEO Andrew Marsh - CFO and EVP Roderick West - EVP Christopher Bakken - Chief Nuclear Officer & EVP
Analysts:
Praful Mehta - Citigroup Chris Turnure - JPMorgan Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Shahriar Pourreza - Guggenheim Partners Neel Mitra - Tudor Pickering Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research Greg Gordon - Evercore ISI Charles Fishman - Morningstar
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the Entergy’s Corporation Second Quarter Earnings Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode and later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference call Mr. David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.
David Borde:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then, Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements and these forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in our earnings release, our slide presentation and the company's SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David and good morning, everyone. We had another productive quarter executing on our strategy to deliver steady predictable growth in earnings at our core utility business, which supports our long-term dividend growth aspiration. 2017 is on pace to be another year with significant accomplishments on multiple fronts that continue to position us to deliver on our outlooks. Specifically, the Louisiana Commission approved the Lake Charles Power Station project. The Texas Commission approved to the Montgomery County Power Station project, Entergy Louisiana filed for approval of the Washington Parish Energy Center. The Mississippi and Louisiana commissions were the first of our jurisdictions to approve deployment of advanced metering infrastructure. The State of Texas passed legislation that clarifies the applicability of existing advanced meter regulation to Entergy Texas and we now have made our formal AMI filing. Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana filed their annual Formula Rate Plans. The Mississippi Commission approved Entergy Mississippi's 2017 test year FRP. And finally, Entergy Texas filed a settlement to increase its distribution cost recovery line. In many instances these results are the product of the strong collaborative efforts between our teams and our regulators and their staffs for the benefit of our customers. And with these projects decisions and approvals more than 85% of our cumulative capital plan through 2019 is ready for execution from a regulatory approval standpoint. And more importantly, we continue to manage the effects of our investments and rate actions on our customers. In fact, in a recent report from S&P Global Market Intelligence based on data from the Energy Information Administration indicates that in 2016 Entergy provided power to its retail customers at the lowest average retail price in the United States. Today we are reporting that Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings per share contributed $1.12 to our consolidated results for the quarter. These results are in line with our financial plan and they keep us solidly within our full year adjusted EPS guidance range for our core Utility, Parent & Other business. At the same time, we are shifting our Entergy consolidated operational earnings guidance through the second income tax item at EWC which Drew will discuss further in his remarks. During the quarter we continue to demonstrate significant progress to modernize the utility infrastructure and enhance its efficiency and reliability for the benefit of our customers. Starting with generation. In June we received final approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission to move forward with the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station in Westlake Louisiana. This approximately 990 megawatts CCGT is expected to be placed into service in 2020. In July, we received final approval from the Public Utility Commission of Texas to build the Montgomery County Power Station. This too will be in approximately 990 megawatts CCGT, with the same technology as the Lake Charles Power Station. The plan is expected to be placed into service in 2021. These projects will contribute to our portfolio transformation efforts to replace older less efficient plants with new generation. These new units we use state-of-the art Emission Control Technology in a highly efficient by capturing and using waste heat that are part of their generation. They are an important part of our strategy to meet our voluntary commitment to develop an electric system that is well positioned to operate in a carbon constrained economy. Beyond environmental benefits these projects are also the result of our collaborative work with our stakeholders to advance economic development in our region. Combined, the Lake Charles and Montgomery County projects are expected to produce at least $3 billion in net benefits to our customers in Louisiana and Texas to lower production costs. They are also expected to provide thousands of jobs during construction and generate over $2 billion in economic activity for their local communities. In July we also filed a supplemental and amending application for the New Orleans Power Station. The application renewed our request for approval of the originally proposed 226 megawatt combustion turbine and also presented an alternative proposal to construct a 128 megawatt unit composed of seven natural gas fired reciprocating engines. Both projects offer significant benefits to our customers and provide modern, efficient, faster technology that will enhance reliability and operational flexibility. Either resource will aid in restoration efforts following major weather events, which is particularly critical for the city of New Orleans. In addition either project could facilitate the adoption of renewables into Entergy, as well as portfolio by providing a resource capable of cycling around the intermittency of renewables. Our application also reaffirms our commitment to pursue up to 100 megawatts of renewable resources. Finally in May we filed for the approval and cost recovery of the Washington Parish Energy Center with the Louisiana Public Service Commission. This project will benefit customers by adding much needed long-term peaking and reserve capacity at a cost below that of the comparable new facility. In addition, the project is expected to generate millions of dollars in economic development, tax revenue and construction jobs for Bogalusa and the surrounding area. We also invested over $220 million this quarter in transmission grid. These investments which have now exceeded $425 million through the first half of the year are necessary to improve the reliability of our system, reduce transmission congestion and enable the delivery of additional cost effective energy, maintain compliance with NERC standards and support economic development in our region. We continue to work with MISO on future transmission projects. The 2017 MTEP planning process is on course and the MISO board is evaluating nearly $1 billion plan over the next five years and will make its selection and give final approval to projects in December. In addition, in September we will be submitting MTEP 2018 projects for approval next year. Turning now to the distribution side of our business. As you know, we made our filings in our jurisdictions seeking approval for the deployment of advanced meters and the back office systems supporting those meters. We continue to get positive feedback from our stakeholders and I'm pleased to announce that we've reached significant milestones. In Mississippi and Louisiana Public Service Commissions were the first very jurisdiction's to approve the implementation of AMI. In Texas, legislation was passed that clarifies the applicability of existing advanced meter regulation to utilities outside of ERCOT. This cleared the path for Entergy Texas to file its AMI deployment plan with the PUCT which we did in July. Procedural schedules have been modified in New Orleans and Arkansas to allow additional time for settlement discussions among the parties before the next rounds of testimony are filed. And finally, we are moving ahead with the construction of our back office systems and testing of the infrastructure ahead of a 2019 star for meter deploying. We are very pleased with these important developments, particularly in light of the benefits that advance meters will provide to our customers and the follow on technologies and services then able will to provide new opportunities to reduce costs and provide our customers greater control and options over their energy usage, in addition to a better customer experience. We will continue to provide updates on these efforts, which will serve as the foundation for an integrated energy network and represent a key milestone for the future of our company and our industry. On the regulatory front, we've carried out our rhythm of Formula Rate Plans and other filings across our jurisdictions. In Mississippi, the Public Service Commission approved AMIs 2017 FRP filing with an earned ROE of 9.79% within the allowed range with no change to base rates. In May Entergy Louisiana filed its 2016 test year FRP. We earned ROE of 9.84% was within the approved band indicating no change to base rates. As a reminder, this marks the last filing under the current three year Formula Rate Plans and we will be working with our commissioners and stakeholders to seek to renew the FRP mechanism with some adjustment. Entergy Arkansas filed its 2018 test year FRP in July. The filing indicated an earned ROE of 6.23% with a projected deficiency of approximately $130 million. However, rate adjustment is capped at 4% of total revenue or around $70 million dollars. We expect a decision from the commission in the fourth quarter of this year. In April, we requested that the Commission review in conjunction with this year's FRP filing the costs from last year's filing that remain subject to refund. The commission approved our request, filing includes further information supporting the prudence of those costs. In addition, in Texas the governor signed a bill that removes the distribution cost recovery factors 2019 termination provision, thereby formally recognizing the DCRF as a permanent rate making construct of available to Entergy Texas. In July, Entergy Texas filed a settlement agreement to increase its rider recovery by approximately $10 million. The DCRF, along with the transmission cost recovery factor provides greater financial flexibility to support the needs of our customers in Texas. From an operational perspective, I would like to highlight that our nuclear organization completed seven refuelling outages this year, which was a significant undertaking. In addition to the actual refuelling, we invested over $230 million to complete multiple planned capital projects across the fleet. These were driven by the need to replace equipment that has reached the end of its useful life or to proactively replace equipment before it becomes an operational challenge. All of these are consistent with the types of projects performed at other nuclear fleets and support sustained operational excellence to improve the equipment reliability, efficiency and capacity factors all to the benefit of our customers, as we work to keep these important resources online for the long-term. For example, at River Bend we are replacing analog trimming control system with a modern digital control system. With analog spare parts no longer available, many of our peers have converted to digital controls or are currently working on similar conversion projects. This modification has already presented an automatic shut down. We replaced heat exchangers at two units to correct marginal heat removal capabilities. We replaced turbine blading at two units to maintain optimum performance and made large motor replacements across the fleet. These are just a few examples of the many projects we are conducting at our plants on an ongoing basis, some are substantial, but others are smaller in scope, but all are important to support operation excellence. As reflected in our accomplishments over the quarter, our execution at the utility was once again on the mark. Each of the projects, each of the approvals, each of the decisions contributes to reduce the risk of our capital plan and strengthen our ability to deliver our near term and long-term outlook. With critical decisions behind us, our strategy to execute a planned orderly exit of our Merchant business remains on track. Our employee’s dedication to the safe operations of our plants through this transition exemplifies the essence of our merchant team's determination to finish strong. Pilgrim successfully completed its final refuelling outage and at Palisades the Commission is scheduled to make its decision on early termination of the existing PPA at the end of September. As we move toward a complete wind down of our merchant operations, we will continue to look for opportunities to test our nuclear assets, post shut down for the purposes of decommission. However, those efforts do not materialize into firm transactions. We are prepared and able to successfully manage the process from shutdowns into dormancy, also known as safe store and then to eventual decommissioning decades from now. And Entergy we play a vital role as a corporate citizen in every region where we operate and our core values are reflected in our support of our communities. We work hard every day to earn the trust of our customers we serve. Nowhere are these values more apparent than when our employees go above and beyond to serve our customers during their most difficult times. So our system withstood Tropical Storm, Cindy well. Our employees remained diligent and we safely repaired damaged infrastructure and restored power for those affected. Storm restoration is just one of the many ways our engaged workforce, powers life for all of Entergy’s stakeholders. We recently received recognition for our civic minded approach to doing business and our commitment to diversity in the workplace and organizational health. For the second consecutive year, Entergy Corporation was named to the Civic 50. The Points of Light initiative honoring the most - 50 most community minded companies in the nation. The Women's Business Enterprise National Council presented Entergy with the America's top corporations for women's business enterprises award. Recipients of the word were celebrated for collectively spending more than $35 billion this companies owned by women. Entergy was recognized as one of the top of the 2017 top workplaces in New Orleans region in recognition of introducing organizational health. Furthermore, we remain dedicated to the economic development of our region through our $5 million five year workforce development initiative. So far we've awarded $2.5 million in grants to 25 grantees in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We will continue to work with state agencies and local communities to promote growth across our service areas. Our success is dependent on ensuring that the communities we serve and live in are flourished. In conclusion, our results year-to-date keep us solidly within our full year adjusted EPS guidance range for our core Utility, Parent & Other business. 2017 has already been a year of significant accomplishments that position us to deliver on our outcomes. A large majority of our capital plan to 2019 is ready for execution from a regulatory approval standpoint and is supported by progressive regulatory mechanisms. We are making progress toward the improvement of our nuclear operations and with AMI we are taking an important foundational step toward investing in integrated Entergy Network of the future. Technology investments beyond them, I represent the future of our company and our industry and will deliver benefits to our customers, who will fundamentally alter their energy consumption habits. In the second half of the year, we look forward to continued execution on our strategy, to invest in our core utility business for the benefit of customers and reduce risk including the orderly wind down of our merchant power business. And we will continue to manage our business to preserve our competitive race for the benefit of our customers. And now, I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning everyone. I'd like to start the quarterly financial review with a key takeaway on the platform. Starting with our core business on the upper right Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings were $1.12 per share, normalizing the effect of weather and income taxes. This result keeps us in the middle of our UP&O guidance range for the year. Turning to top left corner, our consolidated earnings were $3.11 per share on an operational view last to a year ago. Entergy as reported earnings per share were $2.27, including special items related to decisions to sell or close EWC nuclear plants. This quarter special reduced earnings by $0.84 and included $0.48 for refuelling outage and fuel impairments, $0.22 for capital that was immediate expense and $0.14 for severance and retention costs. Similar to last year, our operational earnings for the quarter reflected tax items. You previously noted the potential of our tax item this year that was not included in our guidance. Therefore as we communicated last quarter we are now shifting our 2017 consolidated operational earnings guidance upward by $2.05 per share to reflect the magnitude of the tax item, as you can see in the bottom right corner. Utility, Parent and Other results are summarized on slide 5. Operational earnings were a $1.03 and adjusted earnings were a $1.12. Weather is estimated to have reduced operational earnings by $0.09 in the quarter. On an adjusted view, earnings were strict and lower than second quarter of 2016, as higher expenses for nuclear operations consistent with our plan were partly offset by higher net revenue. Net revenue increased from new base rate and riders to recover productive investment to benefit customers. Billed retail sales increased on a weather adjusted basis with growth across all customer classes. In the industrial group growth from sales to new and expansion customers came from primary metals, chloro-alkali and industrial gases. The chloro-alkali segment also contributed to the increase in sales to existing customers. Although billed sales growth for the quarter was strong, the net revenue effect was more than offset by a decline in unbilled revenue. Turning to EWC results on slide 6, operational earnings were $2.08 in the current period compared to a dollar $1.34 in the second quarter last year. Both periods include income tax items from election battle. For tax purposes resulted in recognition of deductions for decommissioning liabilities today. These deductions created permanent differences. Excluding the tax items, EWCs operational earnings would have been $0.01 in each of the periods. Other variances which offset each other were higher earnings on decommissioning trust and higher decommissioning expense. EWC specials are largely on track for the original full year expectation. With the exception of the income tax benefit in the first quarter and the results from FitzPatrick sales. Our current estimate for special items is $2.05 for the year. On slide 7, operating cash flow in the second quarter was $290 million, approximately $439 lower than a year ago. While this was unusual there are a few understandable explanations for the decline. First, as Leo noted, we had a large number of nuclear refuelling outages this quarter both EWC the utility plants, including the cost of the outages, as well as loss revenue of EWC this accounted for about 50% of the total decline. Expect to recover these cost through revenue at EWC and rates utility. EWCs severance and retention payments was approximately $100 million in the quarter, as compared to minimal payments last year. It's important to note that severance and retention expense is accrued rateably over time, paid out at specific milestone, such as the completion of refuelling outage. These have been considered in our EWC cash flow outlook. And most of the remaining change to operating cash flow was in utility, we saw a decrease in cash flow due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchase power cost. We expect these costs to be fully recovered over time. The second half of the year, we expect operating cash flow to be higher than last year, making up a portion of the current quarter decline. Now turning to slide 8, we are affirming our Utility and Other adjusted EPS guidance. While full year non-fuel O&M is expected to be favourable to plan, top line growth is expected to be lower. We now see full year sales growth a little higher than 1% with residential and commercial sales lower at around negative 0.5%, mostly offset by industrial sales above our original plan. EWC is expected to come in close to the midpoint assumption plus quarter's income tax item. As I mentioned earlier due to the tax item we shifted the consolidated operational guidance range upward by $2.05 to a mid point of $7.10. This means that we are in the same position within our guidance range where we would have been. Driven by $0.25 of weather and year to date results, we currently see year end consolidated operational earnings in the lower end of the range. Looking ahead to the second half of the year on slide 9, there are a few key drivers for the next two quarter that I'd like to highlight in order to bring your expectations in line with ours. For the first half of the year UP&O adjusted earnings were $0.18 lower than a year ago. Aligning with expectations around the midpoint of our guidance range for the full year, the second half of this year is anticipated to be about $0.20 higher than last year. There are non-recurring items in 2016 that will drive a $0.05 decline in third quarter earnings and a $0.10 increase in the core. These include DOE awards and regulatory charges, which we highlighted on our quarterly consideration slide on the fourth quarter call. Looking at the business, we expect continued top line growth primarily from rate actions about $0.30 over the remainder of the year. We will continue to see higher nuclear spending to increase staffing levels to be consistent with industry norms and execute on projects that will improve the reliability. This will decrease earnings about $0.20 in the second half of the year, about two thirds of that coming in the third quarter. Excluding those items, other non-fuel O&M is expected to drive a $0.10 decline in third quarter earnings and a $0.20 increase in the fourth. The fourth quarter variance is primarily project driven, including four planned outages at natural gas and coal plant in the fourth quarter of 2016, compared to only one this year. Online, we expect third quarter to be below last year and fourth quarter to be above last year. Moving to the longer term view on slide 10, our adjusted UP&O outlook remains unchanged. Our expectations especially for 2019 and beyond are firming up with execution on key deliverables such as regulatory approvals for the Lake Charles Power Station and Montgomery County power station, as well as AMI and Mississippi and Louisiana. As always, we are working to mitigate near-term risks and sales growth and discount rate now assume at 4.5% for ‘18 and ’19. We're also updating our EWC EBITDA outlook on slide 11. Our 5 year EBITDA view has come down from last quarter due mostly to lower power price curves. The spring outages were also longer than planned, which reduced EBITDA. Nonetheless, from an overall cash flow perspective, given changes to EBITDA, capital, working capital and other categories, we now see an improvement in EWCs free cash flow through 2021, to slightly positive from about breakeven excluding any potential contribution to the decommissioning trust. However, it is still our goal to achieve a cash neutral position through the end of operation including the decommissioning trust and that goal remains achievable. Our cash and credit metrics are shown on slide 12. We remain committed to solid investment grade credit ratings. For the past few years and especially in the last 12 months, we have made a significant improvement in our credit risk profile. We transitioned to a pure play utility from a hybrid with ongoing merchant risk. Our parent debt to total debt ratio is currently 20.5%, down from 21.1% a quarter ago. We were made focused on optimizing the timing and size of the utility debt issuances to maintain the appropriate equity ratios and the right levels of cash at each of our businesses. Our FFO to debt metric has been affected by the operating cash flow drivers previously discussed and we expect this year stronger within the targeted range. Our results this quarter keep us on track to achieve our full year commitment. We continue to execute on a strategy, focus is on our four key stakeholders and strengthen the foundation to achieve our steady and predictable growth outlook. At the same time, we will continue to manage risk throughout the company, including the order of the wind down of our merchant business. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is open.
Praful Mehta:
Thank so much. Hi, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Praful.
Praful Mehta:
Morning. So a quickly on nuclear O&M, saw the nuclear O&M was higher, the utility side as well. Just wanted to understand is that related with the improvement in nuclear operations and also wanted to understand for instance you often saw what's the process in terms of recovery of that or getting that as part of the regular proceeding on the regulatory side?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew, Praful. And I’ll take the first part and turn it over Rod for the second part. So yes, it is related to the ongoing improvement efforts that we are making within the nuclear organization and the same dollars that we highlighted last fall at EEI when we talked about the expectations for spending within the nuclear business going forward. So they are the same thing.
Roderick West:
Hey. Good morning, Praful. It’s Rod. And on the on the process of - in SP recovery and the Arkansas FRB, the ex-parte rules are in effect that FRP process is undergoing with an expectation that a December decision is part of the procedural schedule. Discovery is under way in both the NSP and other costs associated with Arkansas that drive our point of view on revenue requirements are well supported by the record. And so we expect to get resolution on your question within SP by year end and alongside the rest of Arkansas is operating costs.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Thanks. And then secondly on the tax part, there was a meaningful I guess benefit tax deductions on decommissioning liabilities Drew that you talked about. Could you just give a little be more color of what that is and how –again, I guess what's the way that you get that benefit?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, Praful, essentially it's an acceleration of the decommissioning liability to become a deduction today. And the way it happens, it's very similar to the same transaction that we had last year, only a little larger because of the decommissioning liabilities are larger this year. There's a lot that goes on in that transaction in addition to the deduction. There are offsetting gains, there are basis step ups, there are reserves. But it doesn't all that back to zero and that's where the earnings comes in. So you know, we have certainly worked with the IRS. We've worked through external counsel to make sure that we have the interpretation of the code correct. But – and we're comfortable where we are. I think those are those are sort of the main drivers, it's that decommissioning liability recognition that is the main driver of the deduction today.
Praful Mehta:
Understood. Thanks, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Turnure of JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Chris Turnure:
Good morning. Just to follow up on the last question on the Arkansas FRP, you said that by year end you would expect a final decision there. Have you had any conversations with interveners or other parties to give you an indication as to whether the nuclear cost issue would be settled or agreed upon in this exact schedule or if that would get deferred again? I mean, kind of what are you thinking there?
Roderick West:
I think one of the reasons I think I stated ex-parte rules are in effect is that we're not allowed to engage at least on the commission staff side of the equation. And so it's early and I would expect us looking at the procedural schedule that we get some indication sometime in the October timeframe, as we begin to get our responses to the positions we've taken from some of the stakeholders. But everything right now is happening on paper with RFIs consistent with the procedural schedule. RFIs is being requests for information amongst the parties.
Chris Turnure:
Okay. And then transitioning to either do you see, you mentioned I think the multiyear cash flow outlook was slightly positive now versus roughly neutral before, excluding any kind of decommissioning activity or funding needs. What has really driven that change and kind of has anything changed on the expense O&M expect front there specifically?
Andrew Marsh:
A little bit, but that hasn't been the primary driver. We've also been able to reduce our capital expectations and reduce some of our fuel cost expectations. Those have been probably much bigger drivers than the O&M side and those - but those are being offset little bit by the fall in market prices. So we didn't make as much progress as we hoped, but still enough to say that we are a bit ahead of neutral at this point.
Chris Turnure:
Okay, great. That's all I have. Thanks.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I want to ask about a couple of the regulated periods. First of all in Arkansas, Do I understand correctly you're asking for almost - you're showing that your revenue requirement request is almost $130 million, but due to the caps you can't actually get that much in the way of new revenue increases?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes, that's correct Michael. You know, that you have it exactly right.
Michael Lapides:
So we should assume that at least for 2018 there's probably a little bit of under earning in Arkansas just due to the ballpark $16 million spread between the two unless you’re somehow able to manage O&M down or you get above average demand growth?
Andrew Marsh:
Michael, throughout, I think directionally you're right. We expect to get substantially close to the allowed ROEs by ‘19 and beyond, as we work through both the 4% cap and the true up mechanisms that will take us through that ‘17 and ‘18 timeframe. But keep in mind that we affirmed our outlooks and in doing so we contemplated the allowed ROEs and earnings for Arkansas during that period. So it's consistent.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And then in both Louisiana and Mississippi on the electric side in the $4 million process, you're not asking for revenue increases. Do either of those subsidiaries see the impact of some of the higher nuclear costs? And if so, why wouldn’t those costs kind of flow through and therefore you need recovery at those expenses?
Andrew Marsh:
In Louisiana we're filing to renew the FRP process that expires in - with the ‘16 thresh year and we are not seeking specific of the nuclear costs outside of the normal rate making process. And so it is with Mississippi, where Mississippi despite the fact that we have grand golf sitting in the state of Mississippi, grand golf is a FERC regulated facility that's not part of Mississippi's rate based recovery mechanism. So Mississippi recovers their grand gold associated costs through recovery rider.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And I guess last thing, you mentioned the grand golf and kind of the FERC oversight of grand golf, just curious what's embedded in that in guidance for the ongoing rate case or rate complaint that's under way there?
Andrew Marsh:
That's true. You know, we have contemplated something different than our expectations or I guess the current ROE that we haven't - we haven't published what that is because we have ongoing proceeding. But it is based into your outlook.
Michael Lapides:
Are you actually currently baking in your earnings numbers and seen this in some of the transmission cases where companies went ahead and started booking for earnings purposes a low ROE. Are you actually still booking the original ROE for Syria or are you booking something lower than that due to the complaint?
Andrew Marsh:
We're booking something lower. Michael, we're not booking the full amount at this point.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Okay, guys. Thank you, much appreciate it.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Good morning, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Morning, Shahriar.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Shahriar Pourreza:
So let me just ask on the decommissioning activities and the sale process, it's been going on for some time. Can you just maybe elaborate on sort of the interest level there? And then what the process looks like. Are you still looking at Pilgrim Palisades to potentially the end point? And then - or is this just as simple as saying Northstar has made an announcement and that you expected to make something by year end? Just a little bit of color on that process if you could?
Andrew Marsh:
Sure, Shahriar. You know, we'll continuing to work down the path on that front, that is still a key objective for us. But as we talked about on the call last quarter, it's a pretty involved process and as we've gone along in Vermont, Vermont has been very engaged on the discovery process. It's been more than probably we were all anticipating in terms of the volume of information, but we continue to believe that we are making good progress on that. But because of the engagement level and the process is likely going to be a little bit slower than what we had anticipated. I don't think it will change our expectations on closed rate because we weren’t playing close until the end of 2018 anyway, but it's slowing down the regulatory process. And in turn that slowing down our expectations for where we might go with Pilgrim in Palisades and ultimately the end point. So we are thinking about that we're working down those paths. But these are first of the kind transactions and they're probably taking us a little longer than anticipated, but there's still an objective for us.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Okay. That's helpful. And then just on the same topic. It's good to see that you're modestly you know, cash positive here, despite the down moving on the power curves. But, do you expect that if there is a sale process with the remaining three assets from the decommissioning activities that would have a material impact to the cash flow trajectory of that of that business?
Andrew Marsh:
We are assuming some cash in our current outlooks to be used for that purpose. And so I don't know that it should have a material change in our outlook. But that that process remains missing. And what we have out there is based on our expectations for the decommissioning costs, not necessarily a third party. So there could be a little bit difference and we are aiming through these processes to try and bring our expectations down a little bit so. So we do have something built into our outlooks already, particularly it's going to be reflected mostly in that parent debt to total debt number. But I don't know that we have an expectation this point to be materially different than that.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Okay, great. Thanks, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Neel Mitra of Tudor Pickering. Your line is open.
Neel Mitra:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Morning, Neel.
Neel Mitra:
Just had a quick question on scheduling with the Arkansas FRP. I believe the procedural schedule had a final decision in sometime in January and I guess you guys are assuming that you're going to get something in December. Just wanted to understand the discrepancy in and you know, when you think that could ultimately play out and actually matters if it's in January versus December?
Roderick West:
This is Rod. We had the procedural schedule with a hearing and the decision in December that with a rate adjustment would take place in January.
Neel Mitra:
Okay. So the final decision will come in December and then the…
Roderick West:
The actual rate impact or adjustment would be made at the beginning of the year.
Neel Mitra:
Okay, great. And then could you kind of remind me you know, on a rough percentage level the Nuclear Sustainability plan you know, in each jurisdiction how involved it is, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi et cetera?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. I think that the easiest way to think about it and I don't know we have any updated disclosures around it, but you know, there's two points - it's almost my eyesight. You know, we have two units in Arkansas. We have two units in Louisiana and then you have Grand Gulf which is in Syria and it's sort of allocated amongst the few of utilities. So I think that's probably the easiest way to think about it.
Neel Mitra:
You know, are there some sites that are going to require more capital spending in O&M than others or for our purposes should be kind of just weighted equally?
Andrew Marsh:
I think awaited more or less equally. There aren't any, you know, we have sort of like visual controls and condenser type projects and most of them. And so there there's not - there's not a project a plan in particular it has a very large capital expectation. And the O&M is pretty much the same, increase is pretty much the same across each unit.
Neel Mitra:
Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Yes. Good morning, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning.
Jonathan Arnold:
I'm just curious, I mean, one of your fellow utilities as it goes, I think over the last of the several states just announced a major rate base wind project. I'm curious whether you think that's something that might be an opportunity for Entergy, also something along those lines?
Andrew Marsh:
You know, Jonathan we are obviously like everyone else we're watching what's happening with the price points, or renewable storage. New technologies, we've deployed renewables from the solar standpoint, which is more applicable in our service territory. If it's going to be source in our service territory, not without a lot of transmission of a structure to come in. And as I mentioned, as part of our New Orleans filing we have also made a commitment per hundred megawatts renewables there. We see them playing a bigger role in our strategy going forward. The majority of what we add in the future will be natural gas and then transitioning into renewables and then other technologies as they become cost competitive. Big wind farms like that for us. We haven't found that make a lot of sense. I wouldn't rule it out. But right now our focus is probably on smaller more targeted projects within the footprint of our service territory and so.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. And then separate topic, I think Leo you mentioned might so in the planning process in your prepared remarks and I'm not sure, did you indicated you thought there might be some incremental opportunities coming out of that or is that - we should we think about those being within the context of the current plan?
Leo Denault:
It's most likely in the context of the current plan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. All right. That’s it. Thank you very much.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Jonathan.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
Steve Fleishman:
Yeah. Hi, good morning. Just a quick question on the quarter, I think were a lot of nuclear outages in the quarter and should we view that as primarily being doing the work on the Nuclear Sustainability plan or operational issues?
Leo Denault:
I'll let Chris give some color. But I will say it's probably a little bit of both. You know, the biggest outage I think we had at EWC was related to the [indiscernible]. But then there was a lot of work that went on with the nuclear strategic plan in the utility.
Christopher Bakken:
Especially if I'd characterize it the same way this is of course, the seven outage that were planned normal refuelling outages and then those outages we do take some extra time to improve the safety and the reliability of plants. So it's a combination of the two.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. And then Drew, at the end of your comments you mentioned that - and please re-characterize, as I think you said you kind of better firmed up with these plant approvals for 2019 and beyond outlook for the Utility and Other . And then – but then there some pressures I thought on ‘18 from sales and pension. Could you could you just give a little more color there and what also you know, what should we expect at EI this year, you're going to get some of like drivers like you normally do?
Andrew Marsh:
Sure. We’ll probably come out with the same type of drivers that we typically do see. ‘19 and beyond that was I think analogous to what Leo was talking about with continued execution on the major capital projects that are going to lead us into the future in terms of rate base growth. And so you know our earnings growth should follow that rate base growth over time. But at any given period, what I wanted to say was you know, we always have risks around both positive and negative for sales growth and pension you know. The pension growth risk hi highlighted at 4.5%, we might be 25 basis points below that right now. So $0.05 to $0.10 of risk for ’18 sitting there. And then you know kind of using rules of thumb you know, probably the same kind of risk on or opportunity on sales right now. So I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that those risks on a near term basis are always out there. But over you know, a couple of cycles in the regulatory process, so should smooth out and the main driver is long - term going to be the capital growth in our rate base.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Greg Gordon:
Thanks. Most of my questions have been answered. But pardon me if I missed this, but I know that you continue to say as you did in the first quarter that you're doing better on O&M relative to the baseline expectation and guidance. Can you refresh our memories specifically what areas you are doing better than budget?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. Greg, so the main areas where we have been doing better are in the utility related – I am talking about year-to-date, there a little bit difference on second half of the year because some of it's project driven. But the main things is year-to-date have been expectations around primarily our power generation business, it was primarily our fossil generation. We have been able to operate at lower costs year-to-date there and capture some of that. And we've also seen some lower insurance costs. We were anticipating lower insurance costs this year, but some of the premiums are coming even better than what we are anticipating. So that's been helping out. And those are things that we would continue to expect to see through the balance of the year. Some of the other pieces are timing related cost if we thought we were going to spend you know, like the second quarter, but they're now in the third quarter of that kind of thing. And those we are anticipating in the second half of the year, as part of what I've laid out. But the main things have been in our power generation business, not including nuclear and in some of our you know, traditional sort of overhead costs.
Greg Gordon:
Great. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Greg.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question comes from the line of Charles Fishman of Morningstar. Your line is open.
Charles Fishman:
Thank you. Leo, I believe you said the industrial sales are ahead of plan year-to-date. Can you give a little more color as far as on long-term, I mean are you still pretty bullish on industrial sales and what growth rate are you - can you look at. I know you talked a lot about that in the past?
Leo Denault:
Yeah. Actually Drew said it, so I'll let him start…
Charles Fishman:
It works for me.
Leo Denault:
So when it works for me too because Drew's a smarter guy than I am, so I appreciate the comment.
Andrew Marsh:
So Charles the industrial growth expectation is that will continue on for the next few years. Although in ’18 we are anticipating a slight slow don to the industrial growth and that's because one of the – or actually a couple of the main drivers for ‘18 growth, those projects have been delayed and are now expected to come online in ‘19. And they were pretty large customers. So while we still are expecting large growth over the next few years comparable to what we are expecting this year on average it's going to be a little off center, a little less than ’18, probably a little bit more than ’19.
Charles Fishman:
So going forward lumpy, but you're still seeing in that same growth trajectory in the Mississippi Delta, correct?
Andrew Marsh:
That’s correct, for the next couple of years, next few years.
Charles Fishman:
Okay…
Andrew Marsh:
You know, once you get out beyond like ’20, ‘21 it's a little lumpier. But you know we - because we're talking about these large industrial customers you can usually see them coming a couple years out. So we're basing our industrial growth based on those large customers being added to the system. And beyond that it's hard to see because they're not yet you know, reaching their financial decision points in order to me make decisions to go forward.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. That was all I have. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Charles.
Operator:
Thank you. And at this time, I'd like to turn the conference back over to Mr. David Borde for any closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Amanda and thank everyone for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for safe harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. The events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. And then finally please note that we've added a new page to Entergy Investor Relations website called regulatory and other information, which contains information that we think will be helpful to investors. We plan to provide key updates to regulatory proceedings and important milestones on the execution of our strategy and the company plans to use its corporate Twitter feed to notify investors of updates to this web page. While some of this information may be considered material, investors should not rely exclusively on this new website for all relevant company information. The website will not provide updates of every filing made in every regulatory proceeding or updates of all progress made on a strategic execution. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participant in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Everybody have a great day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, IR Leo Denault - Chairman and CEO Andrew Marsh - CFO and EVP Roderick West - EVP Christopher Bakken - Chief Nuclear Officer & EVP Theodore Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations, Chairman, CEO, and President, System Energy Resources, Inc.
Analysts:
Christopher Turnure - JPMorgan Chase Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Shahriar Pourreza - Guggenheim Securities Praful Mehta - Citigroup Charles Fishman - Morningstar
Operator:
Welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2017 Earnings Release and Teleconference. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for this conference call Mr. David Borde, the Vice President of Investor Relations. You may begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then, Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the earnings release, the slide presentation and the company's SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David and good morning, everyone. Our first quarter results reflect a good start to another important year for Entergy, as we build on the momentum of last year's achievements that have made us a stronger company. We continue to make significant progress to transform our generation portfolio, reduce the risk in our merchant power business and invest in our core Utility business. In fact, this quarter, we accomplished everything in our plan to achieve our objectives. The Indian Point settlement that we announced in January is being implemented on the agreed-upon schedule. We completed the sale of FitzPatrick to Exelon Generation. We filed for regulatory approval to transfer Vermont Yankee. We received the final order in our transmission cost recovery factored filing in Texas. We filed our annual FRP with forward-looking features in Mississippi. We finalized renewable RFP selections in Arkansas and Louisiana. And today, we're reporting first quarter operational earnings per share of $0.99. These results are in line with our expectations for the quarter and we're on track to achieve our full year guidance. As a validation of the disciplined execution of our strategy to reposition our company for steady predictable growth in earnings and dividends, Moody's, following on the actions taken by S&P last year, has recently upgraded our issuer rating to Baa2 from Baa3. Turning to Slide 3. This quarter we reached milestones that further reduce the risk in our merchant power business. The sale of FitzPatrick to Exelon Generation marks the culmination of months of preparation by employees from both companies to ensure a seamless transfer of the plant and its approximately 600 employees. And more importantly, FitzPatrick will continue to generate carbon-free electricity for more than 800,000 homes and businesses in its region. The FitzPatrick transaction is another important achievement in our plan to orderly wind down of EWC. We'll manage our organization each step of the way so that the level of overhead that remains after we enter merchant nuclear operations in 2021 encompasses only what is reasonable and necessary to operate our business going forward. At Indian Point, we're working toward license renewal with the NRC and we're meeting all critical milestones outlined in the terms of our settlement with New York. Specifically, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a final water quality certificate and final water discharge permit. New York State and Riverkeeper have withdrawn their remaining contentions before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the board has terminated the proceeding. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the New York Department of State has issued its concurrence with our Consistency Certification filing and all pending court litigation related to Indian Point license renewable -- renewal has been dismissed. Let me repeat that. All pending court litigation related to Indian Point license renewal has been dismissed and we expect the license renewal to be issued in 2018. At Vermont Yankee, we filed with the NRC this quarter and with the Vermont Public Service Board last December for approval to transfer the plant, its decommissioning trust and its decommissioning obligation to NorthStar. We've requested the NRC's approval by the end of this year and the Public Service Board's in the first quarter of next year. Finally, at Palisades, the Michigan Public Service Commission has scheduled hearings for June 13 through 16 on Consumer Energy's petition for approval of the early termination of the PPA. The commission is targeting its decision by August 31. As a reminder, Palisades and Pilgrim have begun their final refueling and maintenance outages. In Utility, Parent & Other, we continue to make strides towards delivering on our earnings outlook for 2017 and beyond. After receiving approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission in November, we broke ground on construction of the St. Charles CCGT project which we expect to come online in 2019 as scheduled. We also have applications pending for construction of the Lake Charles CCGT in Louisiana and the Montgomery County Power Station in Texas. Procedural schedules have been set and we expect decisions from regulators in the third and fourth quarters of this year, respectively. In New Orleans, we requested a temporary suspension of the procedural schedule for approval of the New Orleans Power Station. We requested the suspension to accommodate consideration by all the parties of our latest load forecast and the implications, if any, it would have on the project. Last week, we filed a status report with the New Orleans City Council informing the parties that by late June or early July, we expect to make a supplemental and alternative filing that will include a peaking resource with a lower capacity. The filing will also include testimony setting forth a firm commitment for Entergy New Orleans to pursue construction of up to 100 megawatts of renewable resources to serve New Orleans. We plan to continue pursuing certification for the original project, given its many benefits, but will present a smaller resource for alternative consideration by the City Council. Today, I am pleased to announce that Entergy Louisiana recently signed a purchase and sale agreement with Calpine Corporation for the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant which will consist of 2 natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 360 megawatts. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be located in Bogalusa, Louisiana and is expected to be completed in 2021. This agreement is another step in our broader portfolio transformation efforts to replace aging units with cleaner and more efficient generation for the benefit of our customers. We also are making progress towards the deployment of our advanced meters in our service territory. Our advanced metering infrastructure project and associated regulatory approval remain on schedule. Working with vendors, we're in the early stages of implementing the IT infrastructure needed to support meter deployment and developing the logistical plan for that deployment. Regulatory filings were made in 2016 in 4 jurisdictions. Procedural schedules are now set and hearings are scheduled for the third quarter of this year. In Texas, legislation was introduced in the current session to clarify the applicability of existing advanced meter regulation to Entergy Texas. We expect to file our deployment plan with the PUCT by the fourth quarter. Following regulatory decisions and initial implementation of the communications network starting in 2018, we anticipate initiating meter deployment in 2019. Finally, Mississippi welcomed the news of Grand Gulf's 20-year license renewal with numerous local and state officials recognizing Grand Gulf's strong community support and the plant's positive impact to the state and local economy. In March, celebratory events were held which Governor Bryant presented to support a proclamation declaring March 6, 2017, as Grand Gulf's Day. On the regulatory front, with progressive constructs in most of our jurisdictions, we're carrying out our rhythm of annual formula rate plan filings and other riders. EMI continues to utilize its formula rate plan with forward-looking features and made its annual filing on March 15. The filing reflects no changes in rates with an earned ROE of 9.72% within the allowed range. The final order on that filing is expected before the end of the second quarter. In March, the Texas Commission approved a $19 million annual increase to ETI's transmission cost recovery factor. The settlement reflects $286 million in incremental transmission investment since ETI's last rate case proceeding. Use of this rider, along with the distribution cost recovery factor, provides greater financial flexibility to support the needs of customers in Texas. Our core values resonate in the ways we support our communities. The success of our business is dependent on making sure that the communities we serve are thriving. We remain committed to the economic development of our region through our $5 million, 5-year workforce development initiative. In partnership with the Texas Workforce Commission in March, we announced $600,000 in grants to support workforce readiness in Southeast Texas. The grants will support programs at community college and high schools to equip individuals to step into high-demand, good-paying jobs. We also renewed our partnership with Jobs for America's Graduates, with a grant that will help at-risk students in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, stay in school and graduate on time. All of these initiatives are focused on creating a competitive advantage for our communities in helping them attract new industry to the area. We're pleased to have been recognized through several awards for our corporate stewardship and community development. For example, in recognition of our employees' emergency preparedness and response after major events, we received the Edison Electric Institute's Emergency Recovery Award for Outstanding Power Restoration Efforts on behalf of our customers and the Emergency Assistance Award for helping other utility companies recover from Hurricane Matthew. This marks the 19th consecutive year EEI has awarded Entergy a National Storm Restoration Award. Recently, we were also included in Corporate Responsibility Magazine's annual list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens. This is the eighth time we've been named to this list which recognizes companies taking responsible actions in employee relations, philanthropy and community support, environment and climate change which is a good segue into the administration's recent executive order around promoting energy independence which includes a review of carbon regulation. In light of the order, I will highlight Entergy's position as one of the cleanest generating fleets in the United States. The principal objective of our strategy is to remain an environmentally sustainable fleet for the communities we serve and to continue to prepare that company for operations under any type of carbon emission costs that may accrue in the future. According to the 2016 Benchmarking Air Emissions Report authored by MG Bradley and Associates, Entergy produces fewer CO2 emissions per megawatt hour than 78 of the top 100 power producers. Our emissions rates for 2015 and 2016 across our entire fleet were 540 and 590 pounds per megawatt hour, respectively. This is well below the 1,000 pounds per megawatt hour standard issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in previous administration for a new highly efficient combined cycle natural gas unit. Thus, we consider our environmental strategy to be aligned both with global ambitions for transition to a low carbon economy and with our commitment to provide reliable low-cost electricity to our customers. Preparation for this transition began when we -- we're the first U.S. utility to commit voluntarily to stabilizing CO2 emissions in 2001. 10 years later, our commitment went beyond merely stabilizing CO2 emissions. In 2011, our Environment 2020 Commitment included a voluntary pledge that through the year 2020, we would maintain our carbon dioxide emissions at 20% below year 2011. I'm pleased to report that we're meeting our commitments. And in 2016, our CO2 emissions were approximately 20% below our Year 2000 emissions. Due to the challenging economics of relying on renewable resources in our geographic footprint, we're meeting our goals through a combination of methods. For example, we're replacing older, less efficient legacy units with cleaner, more efficient resources. Highly efficient combined cycle power stations, such as St. Charles, Lake Charles, Montgomery County, will produce up to 40% fewer carbon emissions and improve our average fleet efficiency by roughly 800 BTUs per kilowatt hour. Nuclear generation is also an important source of clean, reliable baseload power. Prudently investing to preserve these valuable resources for our stakeholders is an important part of our strategy. Our planned investments in new technologies to modernize our grids, such as advanced meters, will further improve efficiency and reliability. On top of that, we're actively working to deploy and incorporate cost-effective opportunities to expand our user renewables, including distributed energy resources. These will allow us to improve supply reliability and control costs for our customers and to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the economics, performance and reliability of these sources -- resources continue to improve. We're committed to working with our regulators, customers and other stakeholders to consider all proven technologies. We provide additional information about these efforts in our standard reporting, including in this year's integrated report which is available on our website. While it is too early to comment on the specific impacts of the recent executive order, we remain committed to developing an electric generating and delivery system that is well-positioned for operations in a carbon constrained economy, whatever that may look like. I am pleased with all that we have achieved to date in 2017 and I see great things for Entergy this year and beyond. With critical decisions behind us, we now have good clarity on the plan we need to execute to achieve our results for the next 5 years. We now know the timing and the sequencing of the wind down of our merchant operations. We have time to manage the overhead costs associated with the exit from that business and we have a firm goal to minimize overall cash flow impacts. At the utility, we've identified the projects that we need to support our goals in that business. And we have the regulatory constructs and relationships in place to facilitate the growth of our core business through these infrastructure investments for the benefit of our customers. And while we recognize there is still much to do, our accomplishments so far are a confirmation that we have the right strategy, leadership and workforce to deliver on our operational plan and financial outlooks. Now before I close, I'd like to recognize the very valued and significant contributions of Theo Bunting, who is on his last earnings call with us before he officially retires. He has been an incredible leader, mentor and colleague at Entergy for nearly 34 years. His deep knowledge and experience in both the industry and the business have been key to our success today. Personally, I've worked with Theo almost everyday since I came to Entergy 18 years ago. While it goes without saying that his knowledge and counsel have been invaluable, I cannot imagine where I or any of the rest of us would be without his support and friendship. My appreciation for all he has done for me and for Entergy is only matched by my best wishes for his health and happiness as he and Tony enter the next chapter of their lives. And now I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo said, we continue to execute on our strategy and we're on track to achieve our 2017 guidance. Let's get straight to the first quarter numbers starting with Slide 4. On the left, Entergy's as-reported earnings of $0.46 included special items related to decisions to sell or close EWC's nuclear plants, including the sale of FitzPatrick. These special items reduced earnings by $0.53. On an operational view, our consolidated earnings were $0.99 per share. This compares to $1.35 a year ago. Utility, Parent & Other results are summarized on Slide 5. Operational earnings were $0.62 and adjusted earnings were $0.83. Weather is estimated to have reduced operational earnings by $0.16. Adjusted earnings were $0.12 lower than the first quarter 2016. This result is in line with our expectations. Although residential and commercial sales were below our plan, our new -- our nonfuel O&M was also lower. Net revenue was higher from new rates to recover productive investments which benefit customers. Over the past 12 months, we've had a number of rate actions across utility, operating companies, from rate cases, FRPs and riders, including for last year's Union acquisition. One that became effective this year was Entergy Arkansas 2017 test year FRP rate change. Despite a steady growth in customer count, we experienced a decline in combined residential and commercial sales of 3.1% on a weather-adjusted basis. One factor was that last year was a leap year which means we had an extra billing day in 2016 and that accounts for about 1/3 of the change. In addition, our service territory experienced the mildest first quarter in over 120 years of recorded temperature history. During periods of abnormal weather conditions, such as this, it can be difficult to capture the effect of weather on residential and commercial sales. Looking on a longer term basis, the 12 months ending residential and commercial sales declined about 1%. While we're closely monitoring customer usage going forward, it is worth noting that the projects that we have identified in our capital plan are driven by customer reliability and aging infrastructure replacement needs and not by occasionally volatile quarterly sales. In the Industrial segment, sales growth was positive as continued growth from new and expansion customers was somewhat offset by lower sales to existing customers. For new and expansion customers, growth came from the primary metals, industrial gases and chloro-alkali segments. The decline in sales to existing customers was driven by refinery outages. This is consistent with our expectations as I noted on our last quarterly call. The refiners are starting to come out of their outages now. Crack spreads are currently high and we expect these customers to run strong in the second half of this year. Nonfuel O&M increased $0.20, quarter-over quarter. There were several drivers, including a beneficial cost deferral recorded last year in connection with the EAI rate case order which reduced 2016 O&M by about $0.06. Nonnuclear generation expenses were higher, primarily due to a full quarter of Union costs. Nuclear operations spending also increased as expected, while spending in support of ANO inspection activities was lower. Turning to EWC's first quarter results, summarized on Slide 6, operational earnings were $0.37 from the current quarter, $0.14 lower than the prior year. FitzPatrick accounted for $0.06 of the $0.14 decline. Excluding FitzPatrick, the other key driver was net revenue, due primarily to lower prices. The price variances partially offset by lower fuel expense attributable to impairments. As you know, Indian Point Unit 3 is in the midst of its refueling and maintenance outage which includes a baffle bolt inspection. We will replace 270 bolts. That work is underway and we expect the plant to be back online by the end of May. Slide 7 shows operating cash flow this quarter of $529 million, essentially flat to first quarter of 2016. Reduced cash flow from the timing of recovery for fuel and purchased power at the utility and lower operational net revenue at EWC were largely offset by project cash flow from income taxes and reduced spending of Vermont Yankee decommissioning. Today, we're reaffirming our 2017 earnings guidance ranges which are summarized on Slide 8. We continue to expect Utility, Parent & Other adjusted EPS to come in around the midpoint of our range. Even though first quarter weather-adjusted residential commercial sales were lower than planned, nonfuel O&M is tracking favorable to our guidance assumption due to effective cost management. For our consolidated guidance, the negative weather to date has caused us to move below midpoint expectations, but it's still early in the year and weather could turn around over the remainder of the year. There are other risks and opportunities that could apply to both Utility, Parent & Other as well as Entergy overall, such as keeping more of the O&M benefits in the first quarter and capturing additional nuclear decommissioning trust benefits as we rebalance the portfolio due to the equity market rally. Separately which we mentioned on our last quarterly call, it's a potential for an income tax item at EWC, possibly as early as the second quarter of this year. If that does materialize at the magnitude similar to or slightly larger than last year, we will shift our consolidated operational guidance accordingly, but would not change our adjusted UPO guidance. Moving to the longer term view. Slide 9 shows our adjusted UP&O outlook which is unchanged. We're also updating our EWC EBITDA outlook on Slide 10. We still see the free cash flow out of that business as relatively neutral through 2021, excluding any potential contributions to decommissioning trust. And our goal to get to completely cash neutral remains achievable. Although it is a separate analysis, we submitted the most recent NRC financial assurance filings on March 31 which indicated that no NDTs had a deficit. Summaries of these filings are included in the appendix of our webcast presentation. Our cash and credit metrics are shown on Slide 11. As you can see, parent debt to total debt is higher than our targeted range. We expect this to turn around in the year near the top of our target range or about 20%. Looking further out, we still expect the parent debt ratio decline to the 22% to 23% range in 2019. This is consistent with our estimates last fall. We continue to look for opportunities to become more efficient with our capital and O&M spending. In January, Moody's upgraded Entergy Mississippi to A2 to recognize improvements in the company's formula rate plan and expectations for improved cash flow metrics. As Leo mentioned, earlier this month, Moody's upgraded Entergy Corporation's issuer rating to be Baa2, matching our upgrade to BBB+ for Standard & Poor's last summer. Both actions are the result of our efforts to improve our business risk profile by focusing on our core Utility business and winding down our merchant business. As a reminder, we remain on positive outlook from Standard & Poor's from earlier this year. Our strategy to achieve the goals laid out for each of our 4 stakeholders remains the same as we focus on steady predicable earnings and dividend growth from our core Utility business. Meanwhile, we're continuing to manage risks throughout the company, including the orderly wind down of our merchant business. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Chris Turnure with JPMorgan.
Christopher Turnure:
Drew, in your comments, you mentioned that there's the leap day in the first quarter as well as the extreme weather which impact normalization calculations on year-end. But at this time, can you say that your full year 2017 normalized guidance is still appropriate? And secondarily, when you look across the different new projects that you're working on in terms of utility generation, is there any other pushback in terms of the need for those plants, like you've seen so far in New Orleans?
Andrew Marsh:
All right, this is Drew. I'll take the first one and then I'll hand over the second part of that question to Rod. So at this point, obviously, if nothing changes, we haven't updated our expectations for second, third and fourth quarter to be higher than what we anticipated at the beginning of the year. So all else being equal, we would be probably slightly below where we initially anticipated the year. But it's still early in the year. So I think, it's still premature for us to make any changes as to what our expectations would be for the full year. And I'll turn the rest over to Rod.
Roderick West:
As it relates to the rest of the supply plan, keep in mind that the rationale behind the supply plan was not primarily driven by point of view on load in New Orleans, for instance. Out of a sense of transparency, we actually brought the change in our 30-year load forecast to the attention of the stakeholders, again just to be transparent, but the rationale behind the investment is still very much intact. We've not seen across the jurisdictions any response or opposition to our plants, based solely on the load or sales forecast. Keep in mind that the load is different from the sales forecast. And I think that's a distinction we need to keep in mind as well as we look at the rest of our generation portfolio. But the answer to your question is, we're still -- we have not seen any additional pushback throughout the rest of the jurisdictions.
Leo Denault:
And Chris, this is Leo. I'll just jump in as well from a strategy standpoint. As Rod mentioned, we've got an aging infrastructure in terms of our fleet and locational issues as it relates to what we need to build from a generation standpoint. New Orleans, for example, there is no generation inside the city of New Orleans and part of the need for that, in addition to meeting peak demand, is to be able to supply the system, should we have some sort of storms that comes through and knocks out transmission infrastructure which has happened in the past. So that's a locational issue, same with some of the other plants. We've got the need because of the fact that we went into all of these transformation short to begin with. But add to that, the first quarter weather just in sales, is just an anomaly. As you know, weather normalization and these things are really mathematical algorithms that work well in most cases. But I think, Drew mentioned that this was the most mild winter in terms of degree days in the history of recording degree days, 120 years or something like that. So that's really not cause for any kind of an alarm in terms of what's going on long term.
Christopher Turnure:
And then switching gears to EWC. I think on the last call you commented on cash flow being pretty negative this year because of some outages and then slowly getting better into the early part of next decade when Indian Point shuts down. Can you just give us your latest thoughts there? And in particular, I'm interested if there's been any advancements with your potential offsetting cost cuts to some of that cash outflow?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. In terms of the overall forecast at this point, Chris, I think, it's essentially the same as it was before. We still have all of the outages this year. And so that's pretty expensive, but we're anticipating pretty strong cash flow generation through the next periods primarily because we won't be paying for another refueling outage at each of the plants, well I should say, Pilgrim and Palisades. We will be doing one more at Indian Point for each of those units and then those 2 units would have better cash flow generation as they ramp down in -- into 2021. So from an overall cash flow perspective, at this point, it's still about the same. But in regards to I guess, your second question, are we making any progress? I would say, absolutely. Internally, we've been scrubbing the numbers down hard. And so we would hope to show you some specific progress over the balance of the year to demonstrate that we're closing that gap and meeting that objective that Leo talked about in his script of getting to cash flow neutral. Cash flow -- let me just clarify, cash flow neutral overall. I think from an operational cash flow perspective, we're already at neutral. It's just the NDTs that we're working on. And in addition to the operational piece, we're also working on transactions there as well.
Christopher Turnure:
Okay. So that cash flow neutral number is all in, including the decommissioning trusts over the 5 or 6-year period?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes. Our goal is 0, including the decommissioning trust through 2021. Right now, our forecast has essentially 0, operationally not including the trust, over that same time frame.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan Arnold:
So I was going to ask about sales, but I think that got covered. Maybe I could ask on -- can we get an update on the Nuclear Sustainability Plan, both progress on metrics and also just maybe a reminder of where you are on moving towards getting some of this relevant to rates?
Leo Denault:
Well, I'll let Chris give you the first part and then Rod will take the second.
Christopher Bakken:
In terms of the Nuclear Sustainability Plan, we remain on track working and continuing to make improvements in the performance of our fleet and improve our regulatory margins. So I would characterize this straightforward as on track.
Roderick West:
Jonathan, it's Rod. In terms of the timing, we expect to make a filing on this coming Friday, day after tomorrow, with the APSC seeking -- formally seeking to reconcile the nuclear cost adjudication with our formula rate plan filing in July, so we can handle the nuclear cost conversation in conjunction with the FRP. And nothing has changed in terms of our point of view on the recoverability of those costs. We think the facts support the finding that the costs we're seeking recovery are consistent with what you've heard over the last several quarters with Chris. And Leo made a reference to it, the costs associated with people with improving the equipment and the plant to preserve those assets and the benefits for customers and so we feel comfortable that the evidence will support the finding of continued recovery, not just of the costs that are in question for purposes of the 2016 or 2017 forward test year, but the actual 2018 forward-looking test year that we'll file in July. So no change there and again, a consistent message around what we're seeking recovery off. I will note that the cost associated with the FRP filing and what we expect to file on overall nuclear costs in July do not include costs associated with regulatory oversight or state or things of that nature. So it's pretty much a clean nuclear cost, cost to run and operate the plant through beyond the expected life of those assets.
Jonathan Arnold:
And the outstanding issue from the '17 Arkansas FRP is still sort of pending as scheduled, is that correct?
Roderick West:
That's what I was referring to when I said we'll make a filing on Friday to join or conjoin those issues from a timing standpoint at Arkansas. So the outstanding issue that you made reference to, that's what -- that's the subject of the filing we'll make on Friday. We will formally ask the APSC, let's handle it all in conjunction with the planned FRP filing in July.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, so take it out of the old one and put it into the new one effectively.
Leo Denault:
I think, that's fair.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So quick first question on the Utility side. Obviously, AMI is the big program, you guys repping up here for. Can you discuss a little bit of the precedents in Louisiana and Arkansas with respect to perhaps peers and just some of the nuance you might expect as you move through the process there? And then I suppose specifically, on Texas, obviously, it seems that you guys are looking to file later this year, any reason for kind of the shifted schedule? And what potential size of the program that might be? And the further detail would be just is that already encompassed within your CapEx program?
Leo Denault:
I want to make sure that I'm ideal with the question in order and you may have to reask the last part. On AMI, we have filed for -- we made the AMI filings in every jurisdiction except for Texas and we're trying to address some legislative prerequisite, so we can do that, do Texas as well. And we expect resolution of the formal AMI filings by year-end. In terms of precedent with other jurisdictions, I think, the timing of both the conditions, precedent to deployment, that is the deployment of workforce management system to asset management systems and the actual timeline of our '19 deployment comes from experiences we've gathered, lessons learned from other jurisdictions, who have gone down this path before. And the message that's consistent across each of our filings and jurisdictions is that our objective is to have the benefits to our customers of AMI deployment be available to them, in addition to our benefits at the time we put those assets into service. And so that affects our plan regarding the timing of deployment. And again, that message is consistent across the rest of the jurisdictions. The third question, I didn't -- I need you to repeat, so I'll make sure I'm answering it.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
The last one's is an easy one. With respect to Texas, obviously, you haven't formally filed, but have you baked into your expectations and CapEx something in there for when you do likely eventually file?
Leo Denault:
Yes. Our plan includes -- the capital plan includes the Texas AMI filing as well. The threshold issue for us was making sure we had legislative and regulatory mechanisms in approval set up. And so we had to take care of that with the legislative session. We've had some support on the Senate side of the Texas Legislature. We're waiting word on the House legislation that would authorize us and PUCT to go down that path. But the answer to your question is yes.
Andrew Marsh:
And let me just give one point of clarity on that. So our capital plan, Julien, is true -- through '19 mostly includes corporate-wide efforts, communications, IT platforms, that kind of thing that would support the scaling of Texas when it comes in. And beyond our capital plan would be maybe more Texas-specific meter deployment and stuff like that, that would be -- still maybe starting in '19, but certainly going into '20 and '21.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Just a quick clarification on the prior. You were talking about a cash flow as a sort of breakeven target for the business overall or the EWC side. Can you just elaborate a little bit on what you expect the ongoing impact to operational earnings are? Can you remind us how you're thinking about that through the period and specifically, in the later years, how we should think about operational versus nonoperational items on earnings?
Andrew Marsh:
You're talking about '17 through '21?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Yes or specifically, kind of like an ongoing. I understand that obviously...
Andrew Marsh:
On an ongoing -- yes, on an ongoing basis, once we get the plants to shut down status and removed in the decommissioning activities or the plants have been taken off our balance sheet, like the VY type transaction, we would expect to be essentially flat at EWC. A part of that is -- next year, there is an accounting rule change that we anticipate around how you account for new decommissioning trust earnings. And that would give us an opportunity to not just realize gains that -- we've had realized gains show up on our income statement, but actually mark-to-market the growth and the trust over time on the equity side. And the effect is going -- we typically see about 6 1/4% of returns in the decommissioning trust, but you only recognize the income statement about 3%. And when you kind of closed that gap, it starts to close the gap to the ARO liability, the asset retirement obligation liability that's out there and the amortization of that. So once you get out to 2022, it's about flat.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent, so to be clear, it's effectively 0 for the cumulative cash flow and flat on an earnings basis?
Andrew Marsh:
Beyond 2022 -- starting 2022 and beyond, yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.
Michael Lapides:
I hate to do this, I kind of want to come back to the demand question. Can you remind me for residential and small commercial demand, what is the end year 2017 guidance and your multi-year guidance in terms of the assumption for just kind of weather normal growth there?
Leo Denault:
I'm sorry, Michael, could you repeat that question?
Michael Lapides:
Sure, what's in your 2017 guidance and your multi-year guidance for weather normalized growth for residential and small commercial?
Leo Denault:
For residential and small commercial, it's about almost 0. In fact, I think, if you -- we only put out to 2017, but if you went out to 2020, 2021, it's actually slightly negative. As you see, automated meters coming online and customers realize the benefits associated to that. One of the benefits is lower expected demand. And so we actually see negative growth over sort of a 5-year period.
Michael Lapides:
And when we think about industrial demand growth because your forecast is pretty robust, 3%. There's a lot going on, obviously, in East Texas and in Louisiana with the petchem industries. But just curious how sensitive your supply needs are that kind of like every percent change in that, meaning if it turns out to be, I don't know, closer to what you've seen more recently, closer to 2% or even a little less than that, does that significantly influence how much new capacity you need to build or buy?
Roderick West:
Michael, this is Rod. I think I want to reiterate here that the driver behind our capacity needs is not so much driven by assumptions around low growth, although its precedented and that low growth certainly helps offset the impact of those capital additions on customer rates. The driver -- the primary driver locationally might be around the specific needs of industrial siting in the region, but it's really around modernizing the grid and fleet and responding to retirements of aging assets. And that represents the lion share of the generation in transmission investment in the region driven less so by assumptions on overall industrial load.
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew, let me just add. We do still see positive industrial growth out through our forecast period and beyond. And a lot of that industrial growth is based upon projects that we see coming up and under construction right now over the next few years. And we've actually seen a bit of a pickup recently here on some of the petrochem, chemical industries and other things getting to their financial decision points on whether they're going to go forward with the projects. So we're still seeing good positive demand growth in the industrial space and that is offsetting the residential and commercial fees that we're talking about earlier. So even though that part looks like it's kind of flat over the next few years, we do still see overall expected growth in our business.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And finally, on Indian Point. When does the state need to tell you guys whether they could potentially need Indian Point past the 2020, '21 retirement date? Meaning, I know the original agreement left the room for the plant to operate through about '24 -- 2024, 2025. But a lot of that is kind of based on the ISOs and the state's potential views on whether it needs it or not. When do they need to tell you guys? When do you need to know?
Andrew Marsh:
Michael, this is Drew. We have to make a filing with New York, a formal filing with the ISO. And that will allow them to make the assessment about Indian Point and when it's going away and how they would deal with that. We were working with the ISO. We expect to make that filing later this year. And once we do make that filing, I think, there's a statutory 90-day timeline associated with the analysis that they would do and come up with a formal recommendation. But certainly, they are aware of it and -- but that process will get kicked off later this year.
Michael Lapides:
Okay. And if the ISO comes back and says, "hey, actually for local reliability purposes, we need one or both of the units beyond 2020, 2021," what happens?
Andrew Marsh:
Okay. Well, first of all, if they said that there was a challenge that they needed to solve. If there was some operational system issue that they would need to solve, they would need to go through a process that would identify the best way for them to solve it and it wouldn't necessarily mean keeping Indian Point online. It could mean we need to upgrade a transmission line or we need to get a peaker in at some place or something like that. So depending on the nature of the issue they identify, there could be a lot of potential solutions and their objective will be to go find the most economic one that solves their problem. If for some reason, nothing else matters until you get down to Indian Point, well then we would need to work with the State to figure out how we would move towards something different besides 2020 and 2021. So it's not unilateral. If they can't tell us to do it, they have to work with us on it, but certainly we don't want to create a reliability problem in the State of New York, either. So we would work with them on that. But it seems unlikely to us that it would get to the point where they would need Indian Point to stay online at this point. It seems likely to us that they're going to find a different solution that will be more economic than keeping the plant online.
Operator:
The next question comes from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim.
Shahriar Pourreza:
When we've discussed in the past, I think we've talked about sort of the Arkansas prudency review, a separate procedural schedule, but now it's sort of looks like it's going to be rolled into a larger one. Is that -- any signal on why that wasn't separated? Is there a function of the fact that the original prudency review was small and it made sense to roll it into a joint proceeding? Just a little bit of clarity there would help.
Roderick West:
Sure, it's Rod. I think, think about it as a nature of the cost. We've maintained all along that one, we weren't seeking separate recovery mechanism for recovery of the nuclear costs because those costs were consistent with our objective to maintain those assets and the benefits that accrue to customers. And so as we think about what's going -- what was going to happen in July, anyway, with the formula rate plan filing and our forward-looking test year, it made sense for us to -- from our vantage point, given that the APSC had not set a separate docket procedural schedule to go ahead and address it all in conjunction with the FRP, so neither we nor the APSC had to deal with essentially ongoing normalized nuclear spend in 2 separate dockets with nuclear and the rest of ANO. And so it simply made sense to us. And because of the ex parte rules, we weren't allowed to really have conversations with the commission. And so on Friday, we'll look to affirm and clarify their point of view that it makes sense to handle them both at the same time.
Shahriar Pourreza:
And then just on sort of the pending -- sorry, if I missed this, but on the decommissioning expense, the activities, the sale potential for Pilgrim and Palisades. Is there sort of any update there? And eventually could we see the same process with Indian Point?
Andrew Marsh:
It's Drew, Shar. Yes. So we're continuing to make progress on this. These are pretty complicated transactions. We're working through the Vermont Yankee one right now at the Public Service Board in Vermont. And it is the first of a kind process and it's very complicated and they are taking their time. They are very active in engaging process, so we're answering all their questions and expect to get through that sometime in early '18. That's sort of setting the table for Pilgrim and Palisades and we're certainly learning from Vermont Yankee as we go along. But we're making progress to introduce 2 plants instead of 1, hopefully by the end of the year or around there, get to a point where we're ready to bring a transaction forward and that satisfies all the stakeholders. And then in Indian Point, I was going to add that we're definitely planning on looking at something similar for Indian Point once we get down the road a little further.
Shahriar Pourreza:
And then just your cash flow picture, assuming you exit all of the decommissioning activities, are you still neutral? Or is there an opportunity to be slightly positive?
Andrew Marsh:
There could be an opportunity to be slightly positive. The objective of getting to cash flow neutral includes operational elements, while we're still operating and includes some of these transactions. So if we were -- if we hit a home run, we could certainly get to positive over the -- through 2021, over the 4-plus year period.
Shahriar Pourreza:
And Theo, congrats on the retirement, even though I think you're too young to retire, congrats.
Theodore Bunting:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
He's heard that a couple of times.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Praful Mehta from Citigroup.
Praful Mehta:
Just a quick question going back to the decommissioning part. It sounds like in the base case plan, there is some funding required for decommissioning which you're trying to work on with [indiscernible] on cost savings. Just firstly, I wanted to figure out what's driving that? And secondly, what's the variability around it? And site-specific review is going to potentially increase that or decrease that? And Drew, you mentioned just hitting the home run. What are the variables that could allow you to hit that home run, I guess?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, I mentioned in my prepared remarks that we have our quarterly or I guess annual testing on the -- for the NRC minimums for the decommissioning trusts. And we passed all of those that we submitted in March, without having to post any additional information. It is when we get to the actual shutdown analysis which is the very detailed decommissioning estimates and they call it as the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report. We had to file that with the NRC within a certain amount of time after we actually shutdown the plant. When we do that, that's actually a little different than the NRC minimums. The NRC minimums are somewhat formulaic. So with all the extra detail and the studies that we've done, we expect that there could be the potential to put in a little bit more money at a couple of plants and we're working through that right now. We have our own estimates. We're working through the estimates that our potential counterparties may have and the potential sale of those trust to them. And so that's a commercial negotiation and is ongoing, but that's where the potential benefit could be. But there is also still significant potential benefits in the operating piece before we get to actual shutdown of the plants.
Praful Mehta:
And then secondly, on the potential tax rate decrease. And if there is, let's say, a tax rate decrease, 15% or 20%, whatever it gets to, assuming no other tax reform, just the tax rate decrease, what does that mean in terms of -- is there any change in like a capital allocation plan or a financing plan for Entergy? Or is the current business plan really business as usual? And any benefits or impacts you've already talked about kind of stay in place?
Andrew Marsh:
You're talking about tax reform administration from -- at the federal level?
Praful Mehta:
Yes. That's right.
Andrew Marsh:
Okay. Yes. In the near term, we wouldn't anticipate any significant changes. We're in an NOL position and so whether or not we're paying taxes -- we're not going to be paying taxes a whole lot in the near term under the current tax regime and we wouldn't anticipate paying taxes a whole lot in -- under a tax reform scenario. So our capital plan should be about the same either way. We will, obviously, work closely with our retail regulators to get whatever affects are into rates. And then at the parent level, since we also have the NOL there, the fact -- not the fact, the possibility, I should say, that we lose an interest deduction or there's a lower tax rate, both of which would affect the parent negatively because of the losses there. But from an earnings perspective, they wouldn't necessarily affect it from a cash flow perspective. And so we wouldn't anticipate changing our capital structure as a result of tax reform anytime near term or for the -- I should say, for the foreseeable future.
Praful Mehta :
So the parent debt to consolidated debt targets would remain about the same, in respect to the tax reform?
Andrew Marsh:
That's what we're anticipating.
Operator:
Our last question comes from Charles Fishman with MorningStar.
Charles Fishman:
Drew, let me ask that question a little different way. You put up a slide last quarter on your preliminary thoughts on tax reform. Is there anything you've heard since then that would make you change anything on that slide?
Andrew Marsh:
No, Charles. Nothing yet. As you know, there hasn't been anything really definitive that has come out of D.C. as of yet. Perhaps today, we'll get some information from the administration about where they intend to go, but we had certainly been participating in EEI activities up on the Hill. Leo's been up there, I've been up there, our tax team has been up there, our regulatory folks had been up there to try and discuss the impact on utility customers primarily and what they mean and the impact on our ability to rate capital on the cost of capital, primarily. So we spent a lot of time up there, but we haven't garnered any additional intelligence because there hasn't been anything to discuss, really, as of yet. So we're still discussing the same kind of frameworks that we had a quarter ago.
Leo Denault:
The only thing that I'd like to add and I know we're running up against the time here, but from the standpoint of where we sit, all the questions that you all had are really, really good and helpful for us to make sure we know which to focus on. But I just want to kind of end where I started and that is from a strategic perspective, everything that we're doing is right on track with what we've laid out over the last couple of years. From an operational perspective, across the entire business, everything is right on track in terms of what we've laid out over the last couple of years. And then from a financial perspective, everything that we're -- have achieved and the things that we see in our outlooks are right on track with what we've laid out over the course of the last years -- a couple of years. So from the standpoint of where we sit, right here today, we're still very excited about the opportunities in front of us. The capital plan we have is solid, the regulatory structures we have around it give us the flexibility to benefit our customers through those investments and most of what we're doing on the -- certainly, everything we're doing on the capital side and investment has been done elsewhere within and outside of our jurisdictions, both from a regulatory and operationally and a technological standpoint. So we feel really good about where we sit and everything's right on track.
David Borde:
Great. Thank you. And thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for safe harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our annual report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on May 10 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. And please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. And that concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, IR Leo Denault - Chairman and CEO Drew Marsh - CFO Bill Mohl - President, Wholesale Commodities
Analysts:
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Praful Mehta - Citigroup Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank
Operator:
Welcome to Entergy Corp. Fourth Quarter 2016 Earnings Release and Teleconference. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to David Borde, VP, Investor Relations. Please begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the earnings release, the slide presentation and the Company's SEC filings. Entergy does not assume any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David and good morning, everyone. Today we're reporting final results for 2016, a pivotal year for our Company, a year in which our objectives were ambitious and our execution was on the mark. We delivered on our commitment to grow our core business and our utility, parent and other adjusted earnings reflected over 40% growth year over year. These financial results are the outcome of exceptional performance and have positioned us to achieve our financial outlooks in the coming years and to deliver steady, predictable growth in earnings, as well as our dividend. We raised our dividend for the second consecutive year, a trend we expect to continue subject as always to Board approval. And finally, with the Indian Point announcement last month, we completed our plan to exit the merchant power business and transition to a pure play utility. Our results today are the outcome of the disciplined execution of our strategy for the past few years, a strategy intended to fundamentally reposition our Company on a steady, predictable earnings trajectory. And today we're initiating guidance for 2017. We're also affirming our three-year utility parent and other adjusted earnings outlook, targeting a 5% to 7% growth rate, acknowledging that some years may be above or below that range. This morning, I will provide more detail about our longer term initiatives and the progress we made toward them in 2016, as well as our plans for the future. As I mentioned at the outset, 2016 marked a critical milestone in our exit from EWC and the risk associated with the merchant power business. We have finalized plans to sell or shut down all remaining nuclear plants in the EWC portfolio through a deliberate, planned and orderly process to cease all merchant nuclear operations by 2021, effectively exiting the merchant space. We began this process with the shutdown of Vermont Yankee at the end of 2014, followed by the sale of EWC's Rhode Island CCGT in 2015. In 2016 we sold EWC's interest in the wind assets in Iowa and Texas. The proposed sale of FitzPatrick to Exelon is on track to close in 2017. In 2018 we expect to close Palisades followed by Pilgrim in 2019. And finally, in 2020 and 2021, we will close Indian Point Units 2 and 3. This orderlywind down of EWC will provide us sufficient time to look for ways to integrate employees into other areas of the business and right-size our corporate organizations. With a sustained low wholesale energy price environment and increased operating costs, exiting our merchant power business is a sound, strategic decision. Looking back at some of our more significant announcements this year, we reached an agreement in August with the state of New York and Exelon for the sale of FitzPatrick. In January, the NRC approved the transfer to Entergy of the decommissioning trusts for both FitzPatrick and Indian Point Unit 3 and we remain on track to close the transaction in the first half of this year. For Palisades, we reached an agreement in December with CMS Energy on early termination of the long term purchase power agreement subject to approval from the Michigan PSC. We plan to shut down that plant in 2018. And as you are aware last month, we announced the planned shutdown of the two operating units at Indian Point in 2020 and 2021. The shutdown is part of a settlement under which New York will drop legal challenges and support the renewal of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point. The plan will run for seven more years, allowing time for the New York ISO to replace this key generating resource which currently provides roughly 25% of the electricity for New York City and the Hudson Valley. We appreciate the commitment to safety and operational excellence of the nearly 1000 employees at Indian Point. They have enabled the site to run at greater than 90% capacity factors under Entergy's ownership compared to roughly 60% under its previous owners. The NRC has placed both units in its top regulatory column for safety. Our plans to mitigate the risk of our merchant business extend beyond operational risk. We reached an agreement this past November to transfer Vermont Yankee's decommissioning liability and trust funds to NorthStar, conditioned on regulatory approval by the NRC and the Vermont Public Service Board. This transaction will eliminate the residual risk from decommissioning and is targeted to close in December of 2018. There are many advantages to this kind of transaction and we view this as a model to pursue for future risk reduction as we move forward with the shutdown of the remaining nuclear plants. Finally, I would note that the decision to close our merchant nuclear plants was a difficult one. We cannot overlook the impact these shutdowns will have on the lives of our employees and the communities they serve. Despite these challenging circumstances, our employees remain dedicated to the safe operation of these plants through shutdown and I thank them for their ongoing hard work and professionalism. Our decisions were driven by adverse economics and are not a reflection in any way of the quality of our work force. The Company remains committed to supporting them as they manage this difficult transition. With the orderly winddown of our merchant business underway, I will now talk about our strategies to grow the utility for the benefit of our customers. Beginning with our generation fleet, we're delivering on our promise of portfolio transformation as part of our ongoing Environment 2020 commitment. Recall that in 2011, we made a voluntary pledge that by 2020 we will maintain our carbon dioxide emissions at 20% below year 2007 levels. We're meeting this goal in part by replacing older, less efficient legacy units with a cleaner, more efficient portfolio. Additionally we had begun to add renewables to our portfolio, along with a greater emphasis on energy efficiency programs, as well as completed upgrades to our nuclear capacity. This transformation began about a decade ago and to date we have deactivated roughly 5100 megawatts of older generations since 2005. Currently over 8000 megawatts of our legacy generation is over 40-years-old. We've added nearly 6000 megawatts of generation through acquisitions, including our most recent acquisition of Union Power Station which received final approval in 2016. We're now transitioning from acquisitions to building new plants, beginning with Ninemile 6 in late 2014. After receiving approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission in November, we're moving forward with the construction of the St. Charles CCGT expected to come online in 2019. We also have applications pending for the construction of the Lake Charles CCGT in Louisiana and the Montgomery County Power Station in Texas, as well as the New Orleans Power Station. All combined, this will represent nearly 4000 megawatts of new generation to replace older, less efficient plants. These plants will improve the reliability of our system, increase our environmental efficiency and reduce costs for our customers by using less fuel and improving our average fleet efficiency by roughly 800 BTUs per kilowatt hour. Additionally, new units will have lower maintenance costs and produce up to 40% fewer carbon emissions. These critical attributes provide significant benefits to our customers and support our environment 2020 commitments. Nuclear generation also continues to be a key component of our cleaner generation portfolio. It's an important source of clean, low-cost, reliable baseload power. These plants provide fuel diversity and reduce fuel price volatility for our customers. Prudently investing to preserve these valuable resources for our stakeholders is an important part of our utility strategy. Our transmission system is critical to deliver -- to the delivery of this newer, cleaner generation and in 2016 we completed projects like upgrading the 230 kv lines from the Ninemile generating facilities for Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans. Transmission is also needed to support economic development by serving new customers. In 2016, we invested in projects like substations to serve new industrial customers, particularly in Arkansas and Louisiana and we're on schedule to deliver the Lake Charles Transmission Project in $160 million investments supporting industrial growth in the region by June of 2018. Finally, our transmission grid is critical for system reliability and efficiency. In 2016, Entergy Texas completed three major projects to comply with NERC reliability standards and reduce congestion in its service territory. We added three new 230 kV lines, as well as a new 230 kV substation which will not only enhance reliability and efficiency but also reduce costs to customers. And there are four large transmission projects underway in Entergy Mississippi which will increase the reliability of the electric systems in Vicksburg, Natchez and Madison areas and provide opportunities for those regions to grow and develop. We continue to work with MISO on future transmission projects. We received final approval in early December from the MISO board for MTEP 2016. MISO approved all 48 of our projects which were remaining for final consideration, totaling roughly $480 million of transmission investment to serve our customers over the next few years. Beyond these traditional generation and transmission investments, we're also looking at the future by modernizing our grid to incorporate technologies to improve efficiency and reliability. In 2016, we started to lay the foundation for our integrated energy network. We have begun the process for our advanced meter infrastructure, the gateway technology that will allow us to be more responsive to emerging issues, reduce outage restoration times and improve system reliability. This technology will also provide timely information to our customers so they can better understand and control their usage. We have now made filings with our regulators in four jurisdictions for approval to implement advanced metering and we expect to file in Texas our final jurisdiction in 2017. We anticipate beginning meter deployment in 2019. Investment in this technology, along with other grid technologies such as meter data management, outage and distribution management and communication network infrastructure are a key focus for us in 2017 and for several years beyond. To that end, we've created a dedicated team to provide constant focus on evaluating and integrating new technologies into our operating model. These include distributed generation, utility and community scale solar, microgrids and battery storage. In 2016, we completed and initiated a number of projects to explore the use of some of these evolving technologies. Our success with all of the utility initiatives I have just mentioned has been facilitated by the work we've done with our regulators to implement progressive regulatory mechanisms. We have come a long way in the past two years. We now have three jurisdictions utilizing Formula Rate Plans with Entergy Mississippi utilizing forward-looking features and Entergy Arkansas having adopted a full forward test year. In December, the Arkansas Public Service Commission approved our first forward test year FRP filing with new rates in effect last month. In Texas, we're now utilizing two writers for more timely recovery of distribution and transmission investments. We have reached a settlement agreement in our most recent transmission cost recovery factor filing and are awaiting final approval from the Commission. Where available, aggressive regulatory frameworks will facilitate investments that enhance the efficiency and reliability of our system to benefit our customers, provide access to capital at a reasonable cost our customers and facilitate infrastructure investment that supports economic development and creates jobs in our regions. We will continue to work with our regulators and others to improve existing constructs to ensure that we have the financial flexibility to execute on capital investments in response to our customers' needs. Our objective in concert with our regulators and other key stakeholders is to assure the access, affordability, reliability and sustainability of the services we provide. Many of you have heard about last week's tornadoes that struck multiple areas across Louisiana, including a confirmed F-3 tornado that touched down in New Orleans East. Supporting our customers and communities in times of need is central to our mission as a Company. Our crews work tirelessly to restore power to thousands of our customers and many of our employees volunteered their time to support recovery efforts. The success of our utility business is dependent on making sure that the communities we serve are thriving. As part of our five-year initiative supporting job-training opportunities, we have begun making grants to promote economic growth and workforce development across our service territory. Through economic development activities such as these, Entergy has contributed to the creations of tens of thousands of new jobs in our region since 2005. We're pleased to have been recognized through several awards in 2016 for our efforts in corporate stewardship and community development. For example, our major upgrade to transmission service in New Orleans was named as a top 10 finalist for Construction Project of the Year by Platts Global Energy Awards, recognizing innovation, leadership and superior performance. Site Selection Magazine named us one of the top 10 utilities in economic development for our integral role in capital investment and job creation in our service territory. And for the 15th consecutive year, we were named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for performance in corporate citizenship and philanthropy, environmental performance, biodiversity and climate strategy. Before I wrap up my remarks this morning, I would like to thank Bill Mohl, who is retiring at the end of this month after more than 35 years in the industry. Throughout his career at Entergy, Bill has led major initiatives which have been key to enabling us to achieve our objectives. His leadership, business perspective and high professional and personal standards are characteristics which have made him an important member of our senior leadership team. More importantly, we will miss having his trusted counsel and friendship as we accomplish the objectives he has helped to shape. We wish him all the best as he moves into this next chapter in his life. As I said at the outset, this year was a pivotal year for our Company, a year in which we fundamentally repositioned our business on a path of steady predictable earnings by growing our core business with our utility, parent and other adjusted earnings increasing by more than 40% year over year and completing our plan to exit the merchant power business and transition to a pure play utility. 2016 was an ambitious year when our results and achievements have made us a stronger company and have set us up for success in the years to come. And now I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo and good morning, everyone. As Leo mentioned, 2016 was a pivotal year for Entergy. We continue to execute on repositioning our Company towards a steady, predictable, earnings and dividend growth trajectory. Today I will discuss how our core utility, parent and other adjusted EPS grew by over 40% in 2016 and I will provide an overview of our guidance for 2017. I will also provide our perspective on EWC going forward and potential tax reform. Now let's jump into 2016. I will start with the key takeaways from fourth quarter consolidated results on slide 5. On the left, Entergy's as reported loss of $9.88 included special items totaling $10.19 related to the decision to sell or close each of EWC's nuclear plants. The majority of that was for previously disclosed impairment charges for Indian Point and Palisades. On an operational view, our consolidated earnings were $0.31 per share in 2016. This compares to $1.58 a year ago. Remember that 2015 results included significant income tax benefits, largely from the business combination of the two Louisiana operating companies. Turning to utility, parent and other on slide 6, operational earnings-per-share decreased $1.07 quarter over quarter. 2015 income tax items net of customer sharing were $1.15 -- excuse me, $1.57. Conversely, weather was favorable in 2016. Adjusted EPS normalized for tax items and weather improved year over year. This was partially due to rate actions to recover investments that benefit customers and improve returns. Specific drivers include Entergy Arkansas's rate case, Union Power Station acquisition, Entergy Mississippi's Formula Rate Plan and Entergy Texas transmission cost recovery writer. Results also included lower write-offs and reserves related to regulatory proceedings. We reported an $0.08 charge in the fourth quarter of 2016 related to the Waterford 3 steam generator replacement project which I noted last quarter is something we were monitoring. Billed retail sales on a weather adjusted view increased 0.8%, driven by residential and commercial segments. Industrial sales were slightly positive with expected refining outages offsetting continued growth from new and expansion customers. UPO earnings also reflected higher nonfuel O&M from the aforementioned Union acquisition and nuclear. Turning to EWC's fourth quarter results summarized on slide 7, an operational loss of $0.04 in the most recent quarter was lower than earnings of $0.16 a year ago. Net revenue from nuclear plant declined on lower price and volume. FitzPatrick's generation volume was lower because of its ramp down before its refueling outage. Decommissioning expense was higher due partly to the establishment of decommissioning liabilities for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick as a result of our agreement with NIPA to transfer the decommissioning trucks and liabilities to Entergy. On the positive side, DOE litigation awards reduced EWC expenses approximately $0.10 in the quarter. Slide 8 shows operating cash flow in the quarter was approximately $750 million. This quarter was lower than last year, due primarily to deferred fuel timing at the utility. Now I will quickly go through the full-year results summarized on slide 9. Consolidated operation earnings for 2016 were $7.11 per share, higher than the $6 reported in 2015. It was also above our guidance midpoint and better than our expectations in November. Drivers to the change versus our expectations included cost management of utility which we noted as an opportunity last quarter, favorable weather and the DOE awards at EWC. The year-over-year growth in operational EPS was driven by growth in core utility earnings. Both years included income tax items, but the earnings benefit was $0.25 higher in 2016. As shown on slide 10, utility, parent and other adjusted EPS was $4.38 in 2016, slightly higher than the $4.35 guidance midpoint. The approximately 40% increase compared to $3.08 at 2015 was due largely to higher net revenue from the same rate action mentioned in the quarterly drivers, as well as industrial sales growth and lower nonfuel O&M. Slide 11 summarizes EWC operational earnings which increased year over year to $2.01 per share in 2016 from $1.03 per share. Income tax items and reduced operating expenses from 2015 impairments were the main drivers. Expense reductions associated with DOE litigation awards also contributed. 2016 results also reflected lower nuclear revenue from lower average prices and capacity factors. Full-year 2016 operating cash flow shown on slide 12 was just under $3 billion in 2016, around $300 million lower than the prior year, again due largely to timing and the recovery of fuel and purchase power costs and lower EWC net revenue. Now that we have wrapped up 2016 results, let's look forward. I'll start with a framework for our EWC expectations shown on slide 13. As Leo discussed, we now have plans for an orderly winddown of the nuclear assets within EWC, but we plan to have nuclear plant operations through 2021. As such, EWC does not meet GAAP criteria to account for the business as a discontinued operation. We will continue to report the results of the business consistent with our practice for the past few years. We will classify severance and retention expenses, as well as impairments, including capital, fuel and refueling outage costs and special items and we will exclude them from operational earnings. Our 2017 guidance and operational adjusted EBITDA outlook is reported using this framework. That said, we acknowledge the changing risk profile of our business. Therefore, we're providing additional disclosures to help you better understand the financial expectations as we exit the merchant power business. First, we're providing a five-year operational EBITDA outlook, as well as estimated special items. Taken together, these discloses should give you an approximation of the cash position of the business over this time period, excluding any potential amount for top off of nuclear decommissioning trust. Our current NDT top-off estimates are per limitary, as well as commercially sensitive to pursue additional VY-like transactions. They are included in our long term planning. In addition, we're pursuing other opportunities at EWC that could result in an incremental $100 million to $200 million of cash over the next five years. Second, we're providing you with a view on what remains after the end of merchant nuclear operations in 2021, namely decommissioning expense and trust income for our decommissioned nuclear assets. A few small, thoughtful assets and the Cooper contract. Turning to slide 14, we're initiating 2017 consolidated operational EPS guidance of $4.75 to $5.35 per share with a midpoint of $5.05. You'll notice that this range is narrower than previous years to reflect the change in risk profile of EWC. As of last year, the possibility exists for significant tax items at EWC in 2017 as early as the second quarter. If they do materialize, it could be valued roughly in the range of the EWC tax items recorded last year. Of course, there is also a possibility for tax reform which I will discuss in a minute which could affect the magnitude of those items. But despite the fact that resolution is only a few months away, there is still too much uncertainty to put this potential item into our guidance at this time. We're also issuing our utility, parent and other adjusted EPS guidance range of $4.25 to $4.55 per share with a $4.40 midpoint, consistent with our outlook at EEI. Both our operational and adjusted guidance assume normal weather and the current statutory income tax rate. Our $4.40 midpoint expectation in 2017 is up slightly year over year. Rate actions and sales growth are expected to offset higher nonfuel O&M and depreciation expenses. Growth from rate actions is largely attributable to rates already in effect, while projected retail sales growth in 2017 is about 1.4%, in line with our expectations at EEI. This increase includes approximately 3% industrial growth and less than a quarter of a percent increase for residential and commercial sales. Our industrial sales growth in 2017 continues to be driven by new and expansion projects. Sales to existing petroleum refiners are expected to decline year over year due to anticipated customer outages in the first half of 2017. We're projecting nonfuel O&M to be about $2.6 billion which represents a $0.45 per share increase over 2016, due primarily to higher nuclear spending. Pension and OPEC costs are expected to be slightly higher than 2016, reflecting a 4.39% discount rate. EWC's guidance midpoint is $0.65 per share. Our guidance assumptions isolate FitzPatrick which we assume is sold in the first half of this year. Average energy and capacity revenue is just over $50 per megawatt hour based on year-end prices. Another driver is decommissioning expense, partially due to a full year of decommissioning expense for Indian Point 3, as well as the liability adjustments for Indian Point and Palisades in the fourth quarter of 2016. Projected year-over-year decline due to EWC income tax expense is due to the income tax item recorded in the second quarter of 2016 and assumes no income tax benefits in 2017. Although, as I said, there could be some. Slide 15 summarizes our utility, parent and other financial outlooks which is unchanged from EEI. Our outlook reflects continuation of our strategy to grow the utility through investment that benefits customers and recovery through our normal ratemaking mechanisms. Our cash and credit metrics are summarized on slide 16. The year-end results are all within our targeted ranges. In addition, S&P recently changed Entergy and operating company outlooks to positive, while Moody's placed Entergy under review for upgrade. These actions are the result of our efforts to change our business risk profile to focus on our core utility business. As Leo said, we got a lot done in 2016 and we will continue those efforts through 2017. Now I would like to outline our current thinking on potential tax reform. Similar to what our peers have noted, given the early stage of discussions, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions. However, overall, while EWC and the parent could see an earnings impact, cash impacts there should be minimal. At the utility, we believe that impacts on investors are manageable while customers could see a benefit. As many have already discussed, there are a variety of potential outcomes, some positive and some negative depending on the result of reform efforts. We provided a framework on slide 17 for the near term effect of the major components. To be clear, this high-level view is illustrative for certain potential components and does not take into account all the complexities of how the various issues would work together. Under both high-level proposals, the House blueprint and the administration's plan, customers would have lower rates driven by the lower corporate tax rate. How much of a benefit depends on the new tax rate, how access ADIT is managed and how other items gain or lose status as deductions. If the tax rate were lowered to 20%, that would create about $2.6 billion in excess ADIT and roughly $700 million of that would be unprotected as defined under the 1986 tax act. And 100% expensing of the capital scenario in isolation would reduce rate base. But with our NOL positions, we would expect our rate base outlook to remain relatively unchanged. If interest were no longer deductible, revenue requirements would increase for customers, but we would expect no change in earnings. We also have deferred tax assets at the utility, as well as at EWC for that matter which are outside of ratemaking. These are currently valued using a 35% federal tax rate. If the corporate tax rate declines, the value of these deferred tax assets would be correspondingly lower. For example, if the tax rate were to move to 20%, this would result in a one-time reduction to those assets of approximately $580 million. About $180 million of that at the utility. However, the taxes due on future earnings would also be lower. So the net cash impact from the revaluation of these tax assets would be zero. Our EWC and parent and other segments are expected to have as reported losses in the future and a lower tax rate would provide a lower tax yield from those losses. Loss of interest deductibility would further impact the parent holding company. The magnitude would depend on whether this change would affect only interest on new debt, existing debt or net interest. Although there will be earnings impacts in these segments, we still expect to be in an NOL position for the foreseeable future. So our cash flow expectations should not be materially affected. But obviously the details matter and potential financial implications for Entergy and our customers would depend on exactly what is enacted. Our objective is to continue to work with our peers at EEI and other stakeholders to reach a final construct which is equitable, continue to closely monitor this issue and we will provide more specifics when we can. But now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Stephen Byrd:
I wanted to go through the tax reform updates that you provided. For the reduction income tax rate from -- to 20% from 35%, is there a sense of the magnitude of the EPS impact from that? I'm thinking really more for parent and other, not as much for EWC. But is there an approximation that we should be thinking about in terms of the magnitude there?
Leo Denault:
Sure. Just from the tax rate change in isolation, it is probably $0.10 to $0.15 if you went from 35% to 20%. But, again, as I mentioned, we would still have the NOL in place. So we wouldn't expect any real cash impact near term for that.
Stephen Byrd:
Understood, understood. And then just as a follow-up in terms of thinking about EWC and its cash flow over time, would you mind just giving us your latest thoughts on what is the likely cash flow profile for that business through this period of time overall?
Leo Denault:
Stephen, our expectation through 2021 is that we would be able to get back to about flat from a cash flow perspective and you can see where the EBITDA is. And net of all the specialized -- and that includes all of the -- the special items include all of impairment expectations and the capital expenses and everything else. It doesn't include the ND team which I mentioned is sensitive which would take us a little further negative. But we have opportunities operationally and in some of our balance sheet items like working through the working capital and other things to bring us back to negative. And if we're successful, we can get a little higher than that.
Stephen Byrd:
Understood. So you would be neutral by 2021 and any guidance in terms of the cash flow position prior to 2021?
Leo Denault:
I'm sorry. Say that again, Stephen?
Stephen Byrd:
So it sounds like you are on track to be neutral by 2021. But prior to 2021, is there any guidance in terms of the cash flow position for EWC during 2017 through 2020?
Leo Denault:
2017 through 2020? I think this year will probably be probably a negative cash flow year because we have three refueling outages in the business and as we move forward, it would be a little bit better than that. And then as we get toward -- we will have expenses associated with severance and retention that we incur as each plant shuts down. I think most of that is detailed in the back in the appendix.
Operator:
The next question is from Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is open.
Praful Mehta:
So a question firstly on the utility group and with the Trump growth and infrastructure plan, there seems to be lots of talk on the spend and one benefit could be your service territory. So I wanted to understand given you haven't really changed your utility group profile, if you expect to see anything and if you do, how will that translate to utility growth?
Leo Denault:
Well, I will start and then I will let Theo or Rod jump in. But our growth profile right now, particularly over the term that we give the outlook through 2019, is pretty set as it relates to the modernization of our infrastructure across all segments of the business, whether it is generation, transmission or distribution. And recall that a lot of what we're doing on the generation and transmission side is both catching up to a short position plus modernizing aging and less efficient infrastructure on both sides. So changes in growth profile that would be caused by anything that's coming up with Trump would probably not happen fast enough to have any kind of impact on our growth strategy as it stands right now. If we were to start to see things happen that -- particularly in the energy sector that started to provide a stimulus for growth where we started to see our existing customers expand or new customers show up, that would really be more of a continuation of the existing story. We've got the 3% industrial growth that we had in 2016 that we're looking at again in 2017. That just might continue that path, but that most likely would be in projects that would show outside of the 2019 timeframe.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Thank you. The next question I had was on just the decommissioning. On slide 49, you lay out the decommissioning status and just, for example, the Vermont Yankee trust assets are higher than the liability, but the sale of the asset is basically at no cost or no price. So I am trying to figure out how do you think about decommissioning funded status relative to your strategy to sell these assets to somebody else to decommission? Shouldn't there be some value in the decommissioning trust relative to the liability?
Drew Marsh:
Well, that is true and I can just talk to the balance sheet items and what is going on there. I will let Bill talk to the commercial element that I think is associated with your question. The trust -- the liabilities and the trust -- well, let me say the liabilities are accreting over time. I'm not sure I understand if there's a question in there about the liabilities. But they are accreting over time and we're seeing some expense associated with that. The trust assets -- and our seed minimums are all met. The trust assets are growing at about -- we're assuming the growth is around 6.25% over time. By the way, there is a rule change in 2018 about how much income we may recognize because we moved to mark-to-market on the equity portion of our trust. But I think that we're anticipating and our current plan is profitable that we would put some money into the decommissioning trust. We talked about that. There is some we're expecting to put in for both Palisades and Indian Point, but the Pilgrim trust is pretty well funded at this point, as you can see in that table. It's at $960 million. So I will turn it over to Bill to allow him to talk a little bit about the commercial implications of where the trusts are and how we might disposition them.
Bill Mohl:
Yes, I mean essentially -- if you take the VY deal, the way it was looked at is you've got the -- obviously we've got our projected liabilities and you would compare that to what the NDT is. What we're looking at is folks who have the capability to do this on a much more aggressive schedule and a much more efficient schedule. So while there could be a small top-off with something like VY, that has all been taken into consideration in the negotiation of the commercial deal. If you look at what we're looking at in terms of the transaction with Pilgrim and Palisades, you're looking at one which is overfunded, one which they would look at as being underfunded, but they have the ability to look at that on a combination basis and that's why we packaged those together to do some -- do preliminary due diligence to look at doing a very similar transaction.
Operator:
The next question is from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Michael Lapides:
Couple of questions. First of all, Leo, you commented briefly about opportunities in terms of rightsizing the corporate organization. Can you give us a little bit of detail about that in terms of how big of an opportunity from a cost saves prospective and kind of a timeline that -- when -- how long do you think it would take you to achieve and when do you think you'd be at a more normal run rate?
Leo Denault:
And I guess we're at a normal run rate right now and if you think about it, Michael, we're actually in the -- and I was talking that section of my script around the nuclear corporate organizations, as well as the corporate organization as it relates to overhead inside EWC. We're -- as we have said here over the course of the last several months, we're running somewhat of a lean shop strategy. So we've got that going for us to begin with as we start to ramp up to get more towards industry benchmarks at the same point in time the EWC is shutting down. The whole point there is we made the decision to shut down Vermont Yankee in 2014. We started looking at the issue in terms of rightsizing the organization then with an eye towards recognizing that a lot of this stuff has been in the works for a long time. From 2014 to 2021, we had a seven-year period where the plants will sequentially go away and we have already started working on that organizational size. The question comes up from time to time about the overhead as if it's an issue. It is just not. That was the point I was trying to make.
Michael Lapides:
Okay. Super helpful. One, if you don't mind one quick follow-up. At what point -- like the deal with the state of New York regarding the retirement of Indian Point and the planned retirement is 2020, 2021, but there's the potential the plant could live out to 2024, 2025. At what point would you know? How does the decision-making process happen in terms of the state decides or some combination of other and how early do you need to know? Like at some point, refueling decisions or other similar decisions have to get made if the state decides to play it and wants to operate beyond 2020.
Bill Mohl:
Yes, Michael. This is Bill. So, really, the responsibility for the resource need will fall with the New York ISO. So what you need to be watching for is they will do an updated load and resource study probably the second half of this year where they will start to incorporate the shutdown of Indian Point, as well as any other additional resources that may be coming online. So that will start to paint the picture of what 2021 looks like. And so that will look at overall capacity needs, as well as specific reliability needs in terms of system security. And then that will be updated on an annualized basis. What we're going to need to be watching for -- and the state will be watching for -- is that we will have to likely make a decision sometime in the second half of 2018 if we want to extend the operations of that unit. And then we would have to enter into negotiations with New York State because, remember, that is a mutual option. We both have to agree, so obviously they have to recognize the need for reliability and we have to ensure that we fully recover all of our costs.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. So, in other words, post 2020, if there is in operation, it is likely under some form of PPA or some other agreement that probably looks, smells and acts a little bit like an RMR because it is actually needed for reliability purposes?
Bill Mohl:
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Operator:
The next question is from Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
Steve Fleishman:
Just didn't hear much of an update on the nuclear improvement program. Could you just maybe talk about how that is progressing? Any update on the cost levels that you gave before those? Should we just assume those are the same? And just how do you plan to update us on how that is going, kind of going in the future?
Leo Denault:
Steve, I would say that right now there is no update on the costs. You should assume that they are what we have outlined in originally and continue in the numbers today. As far as updates, right now the nuclear strategic plan is all wrapped up in our expenditures. They are in all of the guidance that you have got right now. We're beginning to see improvements in the operations of the facilities. So I think it would just be on a regular basis and probably more by exception than anything else as far as what we would be updating you on. As far as where it sits in the regulatory process, as Drew mentioned, everything that we've got going on at the moment is just running through the normal regulatory processes that we've already got in place, particularly given the fact that we've put some pretty good mechanisms in place over the course of the last several years to adjust things on a regular basis. And, as you know, we're in the process of reviewing some of those costs that were in the 2017 -- or the 2016 filed Formula Rate Plan. There is no procedure in Arkansas. There is no procedural schedule for that at the moment. We would anticipate that that will get done if not before, at least within the same context as when we make the next filing of the FRP in Arkansas.
Steve Fleishman:
That last point is that you are referring to the small prudence thing that was opened up on the last -- on your settlement on the filing there?
Leo Denault:
Really what that is the fact of the matter is the process is a brand-new process, the Formula Rate Plan with the forward-looking test year. And so we're just going through the process and the Commission just wants to make sure they got it right, that's all.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. But, operationally, do you feel that the nuclear performance improvements are going on plan? Ignoring cost, just operationally. Okay.
Leo Denault:
Both. Both. Not ignoring costs. Everything is on plan.
Steve Fleishman:
Everything is on plan. Okay. One other question. Just to clarify, I know you give the three-year utility guidance, but the 5% to 7% that you mentioned at the beginning of the call and I think you said something about that being some years above, some years below, what are you now using as the base for that 5% to 7%?
Drew Marsh:
Well, we're still -- this is true. We're still thinking about, I guess either place you could base it off of where we're for 2016 or if you went back to an adjusted view of 2015, it would be a little bit higher than that. But either way, I think our objective is to try and get in that range each year, although at times it will be a little lumpier than most. So I think it doesn't really matter, Steve, where you would start from is our objective, but we should be able to get in there over time.
Steve Fleishman:
Right. Because obviously 2016 -- 2017 is below, but then I think 2019 is well above based on your guidance. So that's what you mean by the back and forth. That's kind of --
Leo Denault:
That's right. That's right. If you recall, last year before we put the nuclear costs in, we were expecting to be more steady in that. And now we've got the nuclear costs in. But as time moves forward, we would expect to get recovery of those costs and we would get back on track to our original plan. So that's why 2019 is still where we would put it, I guess, a year ago. And the other, 2017 and 2018 moved down slightly, but we expect to get back on track.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. One last thing, Leo. I think you are on the EEI tax committee -- the tax reform committee. Just maybe any just more color on how we should think about tax reform given the discussions that you have had and just where it might go?
Leo Denault:
Well, I mean I think, as Drew mentioned and I think everybody else in the industry has probably mentioned, it's pretty early in the process as it relates to what's going on in the dynamics. Then I think what will be the most determinative over time are the interplays of all these different items, not only how they impact our industry, but others as well. But I would say that the dialogue that the industry has had with folks at the White House and on the Hill has been constructive. I think the history the industry has in terms of the way our rate regulated regimes work is understood by a large number of folks. And so I think that we're in a position where we're talking to the right people. We're having a lot of dialogue. Everybody's doing it with a pretty aligned point of view and we hope that things constructive come about because of it. And, again, the nature of our business being rate regulated certainly does provide some nuances that are important to us. It may not be important to other industries, but that has been provided for in the past when there's been tax law changes. And, also, the fact that we're rate regulated gives us some ability to make sure that we have rational regulation around the way the law turns out, just like we do today in terms of normalization practices and things like that.
Operator:
The next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Your line is open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Just wanted to follow up a little bit on some of the last questions here. Can you talk a little bit about some of the costs associated with EWC and how that might get allocated out in the future vis-a-vis the regulatory business? It might somewhat dovetail with your talk about spreading down costs overall, but just wanted to understand how that process plays out. Then I've got a follow-up.
Leo Denault:
Well, the way the process falls out is we have corporate organizations that allocate costs to EWC. Again, a seven-year period over which plants go away one at a time to be able to manage that process. We have already begun managing it on Vermont Yankee which is over -- we have already gone through the process of shutting down Vermont Yankee. We have already managed it as it relates to the Rhode Island plant which we have already sold. We have already managed it as it relates to the wind assets which we have already sold. We will manage it as it relates to Fitzpatrick which will be sold this year. We will manage it as it relates to Palisades which will shut down in 2018 and Pilgrim in 2019 and then in 2020 and 2021. It is just -- it's a process that has to be managed as it relates to what those costs are. But to right-size the organization over a seven-year period is something that we will be able to manage. So I guess, Julien, it's just not an issue of significance that I would say.
Drew Marsh:
I can throw in some modeling elements, too. This is Drew. From a modeling perspective, when we started we had about $35 million per plant of overheads. And we've had direct costs for each plan. I don't have the percentages in front of me right now for each plant going back to Vermont Yankee. But each one of those is going to peel off as those plants are shut down. And I think there may be about 40% or so left that is indirect costs and those are the ones that we will have to work down over time that Leo is talking about and we've got a really good headstart. So I think at the end of the day, what we're going to end up with is the costs that are reasonable and necessary to operate the business going forward. And that should make sure that we have reliable and safe operations of our nuclear plant. So I think that's the -- from a modeling perspective, those are the things that you would look at as it winds down over time.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
But just to follow up here just quickly, you talked about the non-nuclear assets and Cooper contract being generally earnings neutral. But just outside of that on a go forward basis, 2021 onwards, you're talking about ramping down the costs. There should be no other costs outside of decommissioning and NDT that need -- that are ongoing. The remainder is either cut and/or allocated out and largely there is no other cost EPS that you are going to [indiscernible] the business.
Leo Denault:
That's correct. And in the slide in the front, we talk about the NDT earnings and the decommissioning expense that is on slide 13. And you see initially, there's a pretty big gap between the decommissioning expense and the NDT earnings. I think one thing that is important to know there is, for the earnings part of that, we're assuming that we're realizing only about 45% of 6.25% of the earnings in 2017. And so it is effectively showing you a 3% return on your NDT earnings. The rest of it is going straight to the balance sheet. And then in 2018, we will have an accounting change which would cause us to mark-to-market much more of the equity portion of the trust. And so our return will go up substantially, not from 6.25%. It's going to stay there, but we will just acknowledge more of that in the income statement which will close that gap. And then over time, if we're successful, of course, in doing more VY-like type transactions, that should shrink as well.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Sorry. Just a quick follow-up on Arkansas Nuclear One, what is the timeline for filing for and/or process to just get recovery on the regulated expense there? Just a quick one.
Leo Denault:
I think as it relates to -- there is no filing around Arkansas Nuclear One. There is a Formula Rate Plan filing that we had, the one that is already in place. There is the review that is going on where there is no procedural scheduled for yet and then we will just make another Formula Rate Plan filing. Is that what you're asking about, the recovery?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Yes, I was presuming it was part of the FRP, but I wasn't 100% sure.
Leo Denault:
Yes, yes. It was part of the FRP as it relates to the rates that are in effect today and that's where we're going through the process where the Commission wanted to go back and review some more information on those costs. There is no procedural schedule around that at the moment, but then there will be another FRP filing this summer. And so there will be more costs associated with every -- the whole business, including ANO, at that point in time. So we would anticipate that the one that is out there today will either get a procedural schedule before that time or it will get wrapped up at the same point in time. That's the next step --
Operator:
The next question is from Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Hey, Leo. Actually I wanted to clarify just on the question you were just talking about. Firstly, are those costs likely to get recovered in 2017 under the 16 FRP if they wrap it up sooner or are they sort of -- I think they set them aside, so they wanted more information, but would it be retroactive to the beginning of the year if decided on a more timely basis than next year's filing?
Leo Denault:
They are in rates now.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. So the question is whether they stay in or you are collecting it today?
Leo Denault:
Correct. They are just reviewing them. They didn't set them aside out of the pricing. They are all being recovered today.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. Okay. Thank you for that. And secondly, I know you gave a number on what you thought the potential utility or parent and other exposure to tax reform at a lower tax rate would be. If you layered in losing interest deductibility as well, in that kind of scenario, would you guys still see yourselves in the 5% to 7% range? Does it move you in the range? What's the -- how should we think about that kind of incremental scenario?
Drew Marsh:
Jonathan, this is Drew. Clearly we have a fairly narrow range out there for utility, parent and other. And if you were to layer on the change in tax rate and the interest expense, that -- assuming that was the scenario you ended up with, it would probably move you close to the bottom of that range. It's too early to tell about what we decide to do with the ranges at this point. But if you just were to take those two things in isolation, that would probably bring it to the bottom of the range. But it's not clear yet that we would move the range or change our guidance or anything at this point.
Operator:
Thank you and at this time I would like to turn the call back over to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Latoya and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we would remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our annual report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC on March 1 and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing and provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056, confirmation ID 52887956. The telephone replay will be available until February 22 and this concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP of IR Leo Denault - Chairman & CEO Andrew Marsh - EVP & CFO William Mohl - President, Entergy Wholesale Commodity Theodore Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations Chris Bakken - EVP of Nuclear Operations
Analysts:
Greg Gordon - Evercore ISI Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Praful Mehta - Citigroup Brian Chin - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Steven Fleishman - Wolfe Research
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy's Third Quarter Earnings Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Later we'll conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. I’d now like to introduce your host for today's conference, Mr. David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead.
David Borde:
Thank you, Liz. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow-up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information and reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David and good morning, everyone. Today, we are announcing another solid quarter with operational earnings per share of $2.31. Adjusted earnings of $1.98 for our core utility parent and other business were substantially higher than last year and in line with our growth expectations. We remain on track to meet this year's guidance for utility parent and other adjusted earnings per share. As our results show we continue to execute on our strategy and meet our objectives both at the utility and EWC. At the beginning of year, we set out our to do list as shown on Slide 3 and with three quarters of 2016 now behind us, I am happy to say that we successfully completed most of those tax. Each of these accomplishments supports our objective of steady and predictable growth at the utility while managing risk and reducing our EWC footprint. At the utility we continue to make needed investments, which will modernize our system and enhance its efficiency and reliability for benefit of our customers. We have a number of generation projects in front of us which will meet this purpose. First the St. Charles Power Station is a 980 megawatt CCGT to be constructed and placed into service in Montz Louisiana by June of 2019. The Administrative Law Judge recommended supporting the certification of this project in July and we are waiting a final regulatory decision from the Louisiana Public Service Commission. The commission has faced some scheduling challenges and it's been difficult for the full commission to take up major items for vote. However we anticipate that the commission will be able to make a decision on this project before the end of the year. On October 7, Entergy Texas made its filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas seeking the certification to construct the Montgomery County Power Station. This 993 megawatt highly efficient combined cycle plant will provide reliable power at significantly reduced energy costs. The plant will produce an expected $1.7 billion in net benefits to our Texas customers. In addition the plant will use state-of-the-art emission control technology to lower air emissions and construction anticipated to begin in 2019 will provide more than 2,800 direct jobs in Texas and nearly $1 billion in economic activity for the local economy. In June, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the New Orleans City Council seeking approval to construct the New Orleans Power Station. 226 megawatt CET will provide a modern cost-effective local resource to enhance reliability and operational flexibility, mitigate market risks and aid in restoration efforts following major weather events. The construction of this plant will produce hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits for the state and local economy. We are currently working with the city council to set a procedural schedule and we expect to make filings with the Louisiana Commission to begin the regulatory approval process for the Lake Charles CCGT later this year. This also will be a highly efficient plant that will support the growing customer base in the Lake Charles area. Additionally we estimate the plant will provide around $1.4 billion in savings to customers over its life time. Our transmission grid is equally vital for the operation of our system and ongoing investments are required for compliance, reliability and efficiency. We continually make upgrades and additions to the grid to enhance our level of service and make room for growth. At the end of June, we completed Phase 2 of our client [indiscernible] voltage support project in Arkansas constructing a new 230 kV substation and transmission line. In July, we also finished the installation of a 230 kV auto transformer and a 230 kV substation to better serve our customers in Texas. And some of our transmission investment decisions are made through the annual MISO transmission and expansion planning process also known as MTEP. We are nearing the end of the MTEP planning process for 2016. Currently we have 48 projects totaling roughly $480 million under consideration. The MISO Board will make its selections and get final approval to projects in December. On September 15, we submitted about $700 million of proposed projects for MTEP '17 and we will work with MISO on the selection process for those proposals over the course of the next year. For the last several years, we've been executing on these and other traditional generation and transmission projects. We've also begun to outline the investments, which will lay the foundation for an integrated energy network. To that end on September 19, Entergy Arkansas was the first of our jurisdictions to make regulatory filings seeking approval from his commission for advanced metering and implementation. These were followed by filings from Entergy New Orleans on October 18. In each filing, we requested that our regulators find the deployment of the advanced metering infrastructure to be in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover its investment through its forward-looking FRP. Entergy New Orleans has requested approval to implement a phased-in customer charge. Deployment of this infrastructure including advanced meters is expected to bring total net benefits of approximately $260 million to our customers in Arkansas and New Orleans. In addition to improved outage restoration, enhanced customer service and tools to better manage energy usage. Contingent on approval by the Arkansas Commission in the New Orleans City Council, meter deployment would begin in 2019. Ahead of meter deployment, we're focused on constructing and integrating the back office systems that support this technology and make it smart and meter data management system the new outage management system and distribution management system as well as designing and installing the infrastructure for our communications network. The advanced meters are a big step forward and the advantages they provide to our customers as well as the follow-on technologies and services they enable, represent the future of our company and our industry. I would like take a moment now to extend our sympathy, the family and friends of Clyde Holloway, the Louisiana Public Service Commission Chair who recently passed away. Commissioner Holloway was consistently fair, dedicated to serving the public interest and true to his convictions. We appreciate his many years of public service. Last Friday the Governor of Louisiana appointed Charlie DeWitt, former speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives to fill the remaining months of Commissioner Holloway's term. We look forward to working with Commissioner DeWitt. As you know we spent the last few years working with our regulators, Commissioner Holloway and others for improvements in our regulatory constructs. These constructs are now facilitating our investments in the utility infrastructure. For example, this quarter Entergy Arkansas reached a settlement in its first FRP filing with the forward test year. We've requested any potential rate adjustments to be in effect on December 30. Entergy Mississippi completed its FRP filing with a stipulated settlement for a $19.4 million rate increase. New rates were effective in July 2016. Entergy Texas filed for a $19 million annual increase to its transmission cost recovery factor rider in September, reflecting $210 million in incremental transmission investment since it's last base rate filing. Entergy Texas also presented its view on alternative ratemaking mechanisms to the Public Utility Commission in Texas through a filing made in August. This filing was in response to the Texas legislature's request for the commission to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding appropriate reforms to the rate making process. In its comments, Entergy Texas asserted that a formula rate plan with a forward test year is an mechanism to reduce regulatory lag. This mechanism will provide utilities with an opportunity to earn their authorized returns and is also beneficial to the utility's credit ratings providing access to capital at lower cost to customers and facilitating the infrastructure investment to support economic development in the creation of jobs in Texas. The Commission will consider the filing along with the recommendations from others and provide its final rate making report to the legislature in January. And our FERC Regulated System Agreement came to an end on September 1 after more than 50 years of existence. This agreement has been a source of litigation between Entergy and various retail regulators for years and it's eliminations moves that risk -- remove that risk and allows us to focus more specifically on the priorities and policies of local regulators. You've also heard us talk about the importance of controlling bills for our customers. Our rates continue to be among the lowest in the country and these low rates are one of the factors that make our region attractive for industrial development. We've said there are a number of levers available to keep overall customer bills reasonable. In one such example last month, $55 million of Mississippi storm restoration bonds for Hurricane Katrina were fully paid off and we were able to remove that charge from our customer's bills. These are the first storm securitization bonds to roll off bills and more will follow for our customers in Louisiana in 2018 and Texas in 2021. Shifting to our Nuclear Operations, we recognize the importance of nuclear power as part of the national energy landscape and the significant benefits our clients bring to our stakeholders. Nuclear power is a source of low-cost steady reliable base load power. It provides fuel diversity to our generation portfolio and reduces fuel price volatility. It minimizes our environmental footprint by creating virtually no emission. Each plan anchors its surrounding community with steady good paying jobs, the significant property tax base and other ancillary economic benefits. And last but not least, we believe the plants are necessary to ensure the continued reliability of our electric grid. We must preserve the benefits our clients provide and ensure that our operations are in line with evolving nuclear industry standards for operational excellence. This requires that we look at what investment is needed to ensure safe and reliable operations in the near-term as well as what it will take to prepare plants to operate to the end of their expected operating lines. As a result, going forward the cost to operator plants will be higher. We'll be reinvesting to preserve these valuable resources for our customers, communities, employees and owners, as an important part of our utility strategy. Our financial plan now includes the investments we believe are needed to meet our goals for nuclear operations as well as mitigating actions and rate treatment. Drew will discuss our revised earnings outlook and other outlook information is remarks. Turning briefly to EWC, operational earnings for the quarter were essentially flat for the same quarter of last year. Like many merchant generators, we face market challenges including very low commodity prices. These challenges are apparent and revised EWC EBITDA outlooks we provided today and further validate the progress we continue to make on our strategy to reduce our merchant footprint. On August 9, we announced our agreement to sell the bond. We recent recently received early termination of the HSR waiting period and we continue to work through the required regulatory approvals with the NRC, FERC and the New York Public Service Commission. We are targeting the second quarter of 2017 to close the transaction. We also continue to proceed along two parallel paths, for the plants refueling and potential sale and the possibility of permanent shutdown and decommissioning. Once again, I'd like to thank our FitzPatrick and Foley's who continue to operate the plant safely and reliably throughout this transition. We also entered into agreements this quarter to sell our EWC wind assets in Iowa and Texas and expect to close on that transaction in the fourth quarter of this year. We will continue to be disciplined in our assessment of every remaining asset in our EWC portfolio to execute on our strategy to reduce our emerging footprint. Many of you have heard about the mid August rain storms in South Louisiana and its broad devastation to so many of our customers as well as our employee. These historic rains dropped an estimated seven trillion gallons of water in one week, damaging roughly 60,000 homes and businesses and causing outages to more than 32,000 of our electric customers. Our crews work tirelessly to restore power quickly and safely to customers. After the water receded, hundreds of Entergy employees from four states, friends and family members, all logged over 10,000 hours of volunteer service helping to clean flooded homes. In addition they collected needed tools and supplies and provided meals to those in the area coming together admirably to support each other and the affected community. To that end, Entergy contribute $525,000 to local nonprofit organizations to help them respond to the storm. I would also like to acknowledge those who were recently affected and suffered losses in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Along with many of our peer utilities, Entergy provided over 400 workers to assist with restoration efforts. We were eager to respond to this call for help as others have done for us many times in the past. In many ways events such as these are an important reminder of who we serve and what we do best. Supporting the communities where our customers employees live has always been a part of who we are at Entergy in one of the many ways we power life. In recognition of efforts such as these as well as our other sustainable business practices, Entergy has been named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for a 15th consecutive year. We are top scores in the areas of corporate citizenship and philanthropy, climate strategy, biodiversity and water related risks. The index confirms that we are focused on the right things and successfully providing value to each of our four stakeholders. Site Selection magazine named Entergy as one of the Nation's top 10 utilities in economic development in 2015. This is the night year in a row that we've been named to the list, recognizing our integral role that resulted in nearly $10 billion of capital investment in the creation of over 4,800 jobs in our service territory. We know that economic development is important for our customers across the region and it's also good for business and we'll continue to work with our state agencies and local communities to promote growth across our service territory. In summary this was another solid quarter. Both our consolidated operational earnings and our adjusted earnings for core business were substantially higher than last year and in line with our growth expectations. Our solid results to date demonstrate our ability to continue to execute on our strategy. With that backdrop, I'll also note that our financial outlook now reflect our prudent decision to position the nuclear fleet for sustained operational excellence, along with other nonfuel O&M adjustments such as increased benefit expenses due to the prolonged low interest rate environment and the industry-wide reality of flattening consumption for residential and commercial customers. Despite the near-term effects, the incorporation of these items and our are financial outlooks strengthens our competence and our ability to deliver on our long-term goals as reflected in our unchanged 2019 outlook. As we look down the road to 2019 and beyond, we continue to see the benefits of the progress and accomplishments we've made over the past 24 months to execute on our objective of steady predictable growth on utility parent and other earnings and corporate dividends. We look forward to talking with you some more about our plans and our outlooks at EEI next months and with that, I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo and good morning, everyone. In addition to reviewing the quarterly results, I'll take some time today to talk about our longer term outlook. We know that you're all anticipating an update on our nuclear investments and it's financial effects, it's time to give you key information in advance of EEI to help you better prepare for those meetings I'll start with the key takeaways from our third quarter results on Slide 4, beginning with the consolidated results in the top left corner. As reported earnings included special items related to EWC nuclear plant that we've identified to close or sell. Last year results included significant impairment for the FitzPatrick and Pilgrim plants. On an operational view, our consolidated earnings for $2.31 per share in the current period that compares to $1.90 a share year ago. The increase was due to growth in our core utility parent and other business shown in the top right corner. Utility parent and other adjusted earnings increased more than 25% above last year, which I'll discuss shortly. Just a reminder our adjusted view normalizes for special items, the estimated effects of weather and income taxes. Looking at the bottom left corner, EWC operational results were essentially flat. Operational earnings per share for utility parent and other increased $0.40 quarter over quarter shown on Slide 5. Looking at the Orange bars on an adjusted view, utility parent and other results increased $0.42. This growth reflects rate actions to recover productive investments to benefit customers and improves returns. Specific drivers include Entergy Arkansas' rate case, the Union Power Station acquisition, Entergy Mississippi's recent formula rate plan and Entergy Texas new transmission cost recovery writer. Build retail sales for the quarter were lower than a year ago. We continue to see weakness in both residential and commercial sales. Industrial sales were also lower even considering the continued growth for new and expansion customers. This is consistent with our comments last quarter. Despite the lower sales volume, industrial revenue was up, excluding right effects because of the demand for the bill and the new customers. For the full year, we anticipate industrial growth to be in line with our original guidance assumption of approximately 2.9% and we expect industrial growth to continue into next year at around the same level. Also contributing to the UPO, earnings increase was nonfuel O&M, which declined. Lower pension and other postretirement benefit expenses were the largest driver. Turning to EWC's third quarter results, summarized on Slide 6, operational earnings were 19% in the current quarter, compared to $0.18 a year ago. Effects from 2015 impairments were partly offset by lower energy prices. Decommissioning expense was also higher due to the establishment of decommissioning liabilities for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick as a result of our agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust and liabilities to Entergy. Slide 7 shows operating cash flow was once again around $1 billion, consistent with the same quarter last year. Our 2016 earnings guidance is summarized on Slide 8. As you can see, we are affirming our 2016 guidance, the consolidated operational EPS and utility parent and other adjusted EPS. For the consolidated operational view, positive weather in the third quarter is being more than offset by lower EWC revenue and higher decommissioning expense for the NYPA trust transfer transaction. We also expect a slightly higher effective tax rate. Overall we currently expect consolidated operational results will be within the bottom half of the range. For utility parent and other, we still expect adjusted earnings for the year at around the midpoint of our guidance range. That said, there are a few things that we're keeping an eye on. As you know, we have the Waterford 3 Steam Generator Replacement project before the Louisiana Commission and that issue is not yet fully resolved. Grande Golf is also in an extended outage and we will continue to monitor this potential implication. On the positive side, we recognize that our nonfuel O&M is favorable to our plan through the third quarter and we'll continue to monitor our spending for opportunities in the fourth quarter and just under two weeks at EEI we will discuss our strategy and longer-term view. However I would like to take a minute to talk about our financial outlook starting with the utility parent and other adjusted EPS on Slide nine. At Analyst Day, we knew that we would have significant incremental spending to ensure the longer-term sustainability of our nuclear plants. Since then, we have spent the last few months going through the process that Chris Bakken outlined to help us understand the magnitude of the investment needed to position our fleet for sustained operational excellence. The low interest rate environment and its effect on our pension and postretirement benefit expenses was also discussed at Analyst Day. More recently, residential and commercial sales have been lower than our expectations and we now expect a lower growth rate. Our goal was to fully mitigate these effects by identifying opportunities to operate our business more efficiently, reprioritizing projects among the business function and utilizing regulatory mechanisms available to us as needed. Considering all of this, we now expect our utility parent and other adjusted earnings to be lower in 2017 and 2018. However we are still on track for greater than 5% three-year growth based on the midpoint of our adjusted 2019 outlook versus our 2016 guidance. Slide 10 illustrates the major changes from our original utility parent and other outlook to our current expectation. The primary drivers for our changes are the aforementioned higher nuclear cost, lower pension discount rate and lower retail sales that are expected to be about $0.75in 2017. Partially offset by mitigations, we've identified over the past several months, which total about $0.25 in 2017 and increased net revenue from rate actions and other items, which will help about $0.20 next year. Regarding mitigations, we've worked hard over the past several months to identify opportunities. For example on the last call, we talked about interest expense reductions from economic re-financings. We've also issued new debt rate at rates lower than we planned. In addition, we've identified O&M savings from various employee led initiative throughout the company, driving improvement in sourcing, benefits, insurance, outage operational and other costs over the next few years. Our outlook now reflects recovery of our prudent spending, net of mitigations through our normal rate making mechanisms. On Slide 11, EWC operational adjusted EBITDA outlook also reflects lower expectations. The summary of what's changed is provided on Slide 12. Like utility parent and other, net revenue and nonfuel O&M are the two key drivers for the changes at EWC. Revenue estimates declined due to lower forward prices and reduced volume from revised assumptions on outages, including at any point more conservatively plan additional time for potential replacement of affable. As noted on Slide 13, we'll have additional details at the EEI Financial Conference when we'll continue the discussion of our business strategy, including our nuclear investments, longer term outlook and 2017 drivers. As have been our practice, we anticipate that we will provide earnings guidance for 2017 and our detailed three-year capital plan on our fourth quarter earnings call. We realized that we covered a lot of new information today. We've also included some information on our nuclear investments and our preliminary three-year capital plan in the appendix of our webcast presentation. We'll be listening to your question today and over the next week and will provide information that you need to understand and analyze these changes at EEI. We look forward to moving ahead with the strategies to create value for our owners, our customers, our employees and the communities we serve. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer your question.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
Thank you. Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Greg.
Greg Gordon:
I'm just wondering as we look at the magnitude of the rate actions that you think you're going to be able to recover over the next several years associated with the increase in nuclear spending, how we think about the prudence of those -- that spend and the recovery? Can you explain us what your benchmarking looks like in terms of your current spending on those plants and what the increase in spend then with efforts you relative to other nuclear operations across the country and how you are going to show that those recoveries are necessary and prudent for customers as opposed to being a function of some level of mismanagement historically that should be borne by the shareholder?
Leo Denault:
Greg, that's a good question because as you know customer bills, customer rates is an extremely important factor in our business and something that we spent a lot of time to maintain. As you know we already have some of the lowest rates in the country, 20% to 25% and below the national average and as far as the expenditures go, if they weren’t prudence expenditures to make we would make them. Between our mitigation actions as well as the other items that are well announced like [indiscernible] securitizations that I mentioned in Mississippi $55 million in 2018, we have roughly $1 billion of securitization bonds rolling out of the Louisiana jurisdictions and that in utilizing our normal regulatory processes. We do believe that all the prudently incurred expenditures will be recovered and also keep in mind here that when we look at the jurisdictions that are most impacted by the nuclear spend namely honestly Arkansas and Louisiana where the plants reside. You put everything together not just the spend that we got the tradition here, but everything and over the period that we're talking about, we wouldn't expect the customer rates to increase by much more than 1% including everything so far less than the rate of inflation annually. And so the impact here we're trying to manage as much as we can all the expenditures will be prudently incurred. We're putting all of our operations in line with what the industry is. As you know, every plant in the country is different, but that's certainly something that we've kept in my. We've outlined this plan in terms of amount, in terms of timing, in terms of what we need to do to balance the equation, not only for the operational side of things but for our customers. And again we would envision we come out the backside of this by the time we get to 2019 with still having some of the most competitive rates in the country.
Greg Gordon:
Okay. Thanks. One follow-up as I've looked at the numbers and just rough math at this point for EWC, net of the reduction in EBITDA as a function of the increased operating costs, but also the increase CapEx, am I right that it looks like you're actually cash flow negative over the next several years at EWC or are there some -- is there some mitigation happening here that will allow you to maintain at least the neutral value proposition there as you unwind that business.
Andrew Marsh:
Greg, this is Drew and we haven't ever discussed specifically but you can do the math like we can and so we as Leo mentioned in his remarks, we continue to remain vigilant and disciplined on our approach to reducing the footprint in that business and so I think that you could count us to continue to maintain that posture.
Greg Gordon:
But to the extent that the business is cash flow negative, how would you fund that?
Andrew Marsh:
To the extent that it is at any given period it's going to be mostly from the parent and you look at this overall forecast. including the changes at EWC, the incremental investment at the utility, we have a parent debt level that could go up about 150 basis points from where we were originally targeting it, which was slightly above our target range and our target range is 18% to 20% and we were talking about a forecast the got us around the neighborhood of 21% that we were working on. Obviously this and as I said maybe another 150 basis points to that and so that's not going in the right direction and that if we financed everything with parent debt and so we're thinking about other options around how do we manage it starting with the business itself and can we continue to find ways to be more efficient.
Greg Gordon:
Okay. Thank you, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
This sounds again on the mitigating rate actions that Greg was asking about, can you give us a little bit of a sense of where the trajectory there is coming from, which jurisdictions, which formula, which will be actual rate cases just so we can get a sense of what we should be tracking just to see that offset come in.
Leo Denault:
Well I'll start and then Theo can follow-up Greg, Jonathan sorry about that. We're not planning on using any special regulatory mechanisms at this point in time, everything would just float through the normal mechanisms. So for example Arkansas will flow today FRP, Louisiana will flow the FRP in the near-term but we do have some reset capability by the time we get out to 2019. Those are the major implications in terms of where the plants reside and again from -- yes asked about the trajectory and if you look at the plan as we've laid out now and not just that spend but everything together, in those jurisdictions we're talking about a trajectory of about that we wouldn't expect to be more than 1% a year from a rate standpoint and remember it's not only our mitigating actions that Drew outlined that are on the slides in your deck, things like the securitizations rolling off the low growth that we have, the continuation of the investments that we're making. As I outlined, all those investments related to the new power plants etcetera, we envision that those are going to provide production cost benefits as they're more efficient etcetera. So all that works together to keep that trajectory still in line with one of the best in the industry. I don't know Theo if you want to add to that.
Theodore Bunting:
Jonathan, this is Theo. Just a couple of other points, the other plant clearly over making investment is Grande Golf which is owned by Siri and like your PPA back to for the operating companies. That plan is subject to FERC formula rate cost of service base rate. Also in Louisiana just additional clarification, we've got an opportunity for FRP reset and '18 timeframe and we would expect that reset to occur just that rate changes would happen within the 2018 calendar year. So you see the full impact of that in 2019. Also in Arkansas, the forward-looking test year FRP with forward-looking features also has a true-up mechanisms associated with it. So if in fact our forecasted test year is different than actual, we have the opportunity to come back and implement rate changes to true that up to the actual costs within the context of that particular test year
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. Thank you. That's it. And on the management task on the mitigation to the expense line where you have it at $0.25 already in '17 and they are holding more or less at that level through the period, how much of that have you have already identified and/or implemented?
Andrew Marsh:
Hi, this is Drew, and pretty much all of it we've already identified and implemented. So a lot of the $0.10 of the attendance of the $0.25 this year are in '17 would be associated with interest expense and so that's all the financings that we've done this year would contribute to that engine. After that the other $0.15 are various elements from the laundry list of things that I read off that have already been put into place.
Jonathan Arnold:
Great. Thank you. You made some comments about dividend growth and talked about giving us more of an update at EEI and last year I think you had the dividend increase right at the end of October. You're coming up to the -- can you give us some thoughts about how we -- how does this dampening of the trajectory in the short term feed into your thinking around dividend and this obviously it seems to be the timing of the airway you illustrated.
Leo Denault:
That's another good question Jonathan, obviously the dividend is a Board of Directors decision that they’ll make in due course. You're right on timing. Traditionally the fall is when we make that determination. As far as, what this has done to our trajectory again, the earnings trajectory here through 2019 is pretty similar to where we were before, it's the same number by 2019. We still see growth in '17 and '18. So while obviously it's a consideration through our mitigation actions, the rate levels that we have, the regulatory constructs that we have and the work of a lot of really talented people here at Entergy, we still see the growth outlook that we've been on for that utility parent and other earnings that supports the dividend growth. So our objective to continue to grow dividend is still out there, it's still something that we take very seriously and predictable growth in earnings in the dividend that's our objective.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Thank you, Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Stephen Byrd:
Hi. Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Stephen.
Stephen Byrd:
Wanted to focus on Slide 10 in the revised retail sales growth, could you just lay out what's your revised growth rate is and what the sensitivity is, you have a appendix slide that shows the sensitivity in near-term to 1% changes. I just wanted to confirm sensitivity, the changes in low growth assumptions in the out years.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, this is Drew. So you're referencing the slide in the back. Was there in anything particular Stephen that you wanted to discuss that's 35 I think that's slide 42.
Stephen Byrd:
Sure yes I guess so on Slide 10 what's the revised retail sales growth percentage for residential and commercial and what was the 1% movement in that assumption? I think the appendix should imply $0.11 for commercial and residential commodity. I just wanted to confirm that.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah I think that's still fairly correct Stephen. So we saw two or three quarters of this year were down about six tenths of a percent versus the 1% or so just below 1% expectation for this year. And so we have a different starting point going into next year than what we are anticipating that's the first thing. And then the second thing is the growth rate going forward and we've brought that down as I mentioned in my remarks, but I think it will be probably closer to about 0.5% rather than almost 1%.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay. Understood and just shifting gears to the sale of nuclear assets to Exelon. I know there are several conditions that were listed in the release in terms of approval by federal and state agencies. There was recently a lawsuit filed in court opposing the credits provided in New York in the event that in course the credits were overturned, what would be the impact to the sale of those assets.
Leo Denault:
Stephen it really on the timing of the court action. So our point of view is that is unique in that it places a value on carbon free attribute of the units. So we feel pretty strongly that we will survive that legal challenge, but it really would depend at what point in the transaction that occurred. So right now we're anticipating approval by the PSC on November 17, approval of the contracts November 23 and then NRC approvals to follow and closing of the transaction in the second quarter of next year.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay. And if the Zacks were overturned before second quarter of next year would that trigger cancellation of the transaction.
Leo Denault:
Well certainly it could be a consideration there and than it really depends on who's taking responsibility for that and so the contract had some commercial terms which deal with that specific issue, so it really becomes more of an issue of can you close and who has liability for the investments in the refueling etcetera.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Michael Lapides:
Hey guys, couple of easy ones. First does your utility parent and another guidance incorporate any external equity or equity like security issuances over the next few years.
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. It does not incorporate anything like that.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Second on the EWC side, when you look at Palisades and in Indian point and kind of the guidance of increased costs how do these plants look from a cost structure relative to what you would consider their benchmark peers.
Chris Bakken:
This is Chris Bakken. The Indian point of cost structure is reflective of the market it operates in which is the high labor costs but spending we believe is appropriate for the remaining life of the plant. In terms of Palisades, I would say it's consistent with the industry and again we're making prudent investment in the plants given the remaining lifecycle of the plant.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Last thing back to the regulated type, can you put John some numbers around the size and scale of the AMI program filings in Arkansas and New Orleans and how should we think about what size and scale through 2019 or 2020 or so you anticipate in some of the other jurisdictions?
Theodore Bunting:
Michael this is Theo. I don't have the specific numbers in front of me in terms of Arkansas versus New Orleans. I know when we talked about this, initially we talked about on a system basis the investment being $900 million or so. When you think about it as it related to the again the entire system in terms of timing as you can see as you go through the filings you will see that there were some costs we're asking to differ that will get fully incurred prior to the full functionality of the meters themselves. And we believe that's consistent with the matching of that cost with the benefit that you'll see that will get implemented as a result of the implementation of the meters themselves. There is also I think as you recognized as Drew mentioned some asset investments that's made in advance of meter deployment basically to develop the backbone to support the meter deployment. And our view is that asset investment is consistent with what we've seen from kind of a timing perspective and the necessity to get the employees in order to allow the efficient use of the meters themselves once they are fully deployed and to recognized benefits of it. We also believe that infrastructure is useful for other systems as well. So I think our perspective is the cost is consistent with what we've seen in implementations across the country and will be supported and supportive of the benefits that Leo mentioned as we think about the implementation overall. We have to get the specificity for you in terms of years, but we don't view that investment to be significant investment at risk in advance of the meter deployment.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you, guys. Much appreciated.
Andrew Marsh:
And if I just add I think in the forecast period in the $900 that Theo was discussing, it's a couple hundred million in the forecast period. Most of its beyond '19 when the significant portion of the meter deployment really kicks in.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you, Drew. Much appreciated.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Your line is now open.
Praful Mehta:
Thanks so much. Hey guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Praful Mehta:
So the first question was more strategic which is there seems to be a lot of defense right now, which is both in EWC where the focus is just the reduce the strength and size and even on the utility side, things like retail sales growth isn’t coming out where you guys expected. So I am trying to figure out from a offense perspective or future growth how are you looking at what are the dimensions that you can push and grow going forward coming out from the defensive kind of view right now.
Leo Denault:
We don't view ourselves in a defensive view at all Praful. So we are on offense here. We had a significant amount of investment that I outlined that goes into the generation and transmission footprint of our regulated utility. That has not changed and we continue to make those modernizing investments that will lower production cost, provide significant benefits to our customers, improve the reliability, reduce our environmental footprint. And that which is a continuing to grow service territory, particularly as it relates to what we see on the industrial side, all while we maintain some of the lowest rates in the country. In addition to that what we just in response to the question from Michael around AMI, AMI is the first step and we've just now started to make regulatory filings but first we'll get the back office and the backbone of the system to make it smart, we don't want to deploy the meters until mill actually have something to do for us. So we're putting all of that in place in advance of actually beginning to deploy the meters in 2019. There are other technologies that we will deploy on the system then that we're looking at today in terms of asset management technologies and other things that will go from that point and forward that will provide even greater benefit savings helping us to manage the load for our customers and provide that needed investment that will provide us an earnings opportunity but at the same point in time it will help us help customers manage their bills through the ability to manage how much they use, when they use it etcetera. So that for us is again total offense and extremely, extremely exciting for us as we look to the future. When we look at EWC, our objective has not changed. I1t's always been to separate that business from the utility and we continue to execute on that. We sold wind assets or in the process of selling those. We sold the Rise plant last year. We made decisions and unfortunate as they are to shut down Pilgrim shutdown of Vermont Yankee and we're going to continue on that path albeit with a different price deck that we see continues to erode, but we're still working as diligently as we can and I think a proof of that is in our discipline around first making the decision at Fitzpatrick to cease operations there, but at the same time never giving up and never wavering from the idea that we might come up with something better that resulted in the creation of actually working with Exelon in the state to come up with the sale of that plant, the continuation of its economic benefit and reliability benefit to the State of New York and certainly to employees and the communities. That plus is a defense at all. It's all offense. Like everyone else we're in merchant market and gas prices have been low particularly in the Northeast and we've got to manage around that, but it doesn't change what we're doing or how hard we're working and what we think we can accomplish there and we've accomplished a lot and we would anticipate over the course of the next couple years we'll continue to accomplish a lot. So all that said, we are pretty excited about what we have the opportunity to accomplish here and again just going through all that we've just talked about with the sustainability of the nuclear fleet, the investment in AMI, the investment in generation business, the investment in transmission going through the normal regulatory constructs that we have today and still maintaining our 2019 outlook, sounds like offense to me. But strategically that's where we're headed, the same place we were headed before and we just updated some of the information for you that's all.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Fair enough Leo. Thank you. And on Slide 16 just a more detailed question, the increased CapEx around EWC you also made the point about the remaining useful life of considering the remaining useful life of assets. Just wanted to understand how you're thinking remaining useful life for both Indian point and Palisades? Is there any change in view of we understand the relicensing, but apart from that, is there any change in view around that, given the CapEx spend?
Leo Denault:
There is not a change in view around that Praful other than what we always do as we continue to evaluate those facilities, but right now there is no change in point of view around those plants. Palisades nearly we got the contract through 2022 and then we got the ability to see what we think the MISO market goes at that point in time. And Indian point, continues to be very, very valuable asset. I think the ISO just came out with their study showing that it was required for reliability in the region. So it continues to be needed in that region. So there's really no change in outlook for those assets at this point. That said, we continue to be disciplined in how we look at these on a regular basis and will look at them, we're always refining our point of view about them, that's all.
Praful Mehta:
Fair enough. Thanks Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Praful. Operator Our next question comes from the line of Brian Chin with Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Brian Chin:
Hi. Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Brian.
Brian Chin:
I wanted to go back to an earlier question about the court challenge to the zero omissions credits proposal. If that challenge is successful and the court overturns I think you made reference to it's possible under certain conditions that it might impact the sale. You mean to say that those conditions are spelled out and there is one party who might be at fault at that, can you just give a little bit more clarity on what exactly you meant?
Leo Denault:
It's difficult to predict what the impact of it could be without understanding what the specific ruling is, but we have put terms in the commercial agreement that tried to separate those risk. I really can't tell you what the eventual outcome of that would be. Typically we don't discuss litigation especially for future litigation, but we have tried to address and mitigate those risk in our sale agreement with Exelon.
Brian Chin:
Got it. Okay.
Leo Denault:
Brian one thing that I'll add too is the way we're working through this process we're going down the parallel paths. We're confident that we'll close the transaction that we in the end game but certainly the way it's structured worst case for us we get back to the position we we're in beforehand and that is we have to make the decision to shut down the plant around the same time we are planning on it.
Brian Chin:
Got it. Appreciate it. Thanks a lot. That's all I got.
Leo Denault:
All right. Thanks.
Operator:
And our last question comes from the line of Steven Fleishman with Wolfe. Your line is now open.
Steven Fleishman:
Hi. Good morning. Just had a simple question could you just be clear what is not working right in the Merck nuclear program right now that you're spending so much money?
Leo Denault:
First and foremost the plants are safe Steve, what we wouldn't run them. I would say that the challenges that we face stem from a desire to run a lean operation and that lien operation meant to benefit our customers, we're getting the right balance between operational excellence and the cost structure. What we found obviously we had a couple of situations with clients going to call for what we found is that we potentially didn't get the balance as right as we want. And so to get ourselves up to the standards that we hold ourselves to and to the standards of the industry, we've got to change our strategy around how we operate the plants. As you know, we made organizational changes last year. It was six months ago we brought Chris and Chris's been responsible for developing with that strategy is. We've changed not only who it is but where reports where is it used reported to the COO, it now reports directly to me and so Chris and his team along with his discussions with people in the industry and with our regulators etcetera have devised this change in strategy to get ourselves up to where we need to be to meet our own standards and operational excellence standards of the of the industry.
Steven Fleishman:
And would there be some filing at the NRC that goes through the full plan or is it going to be like plant by plant?
Leo Denault:
There is no filing, we're just -- the only really filings will be when we include these in a retail regulatory these costs just like the cost of the new CCGT's and CT and AMI, these plans are vital to the reliability of the system. They provide over 30% of the energy used on our system. They are large base load zero emitting resource that's very valuable. They are anchors to the community in terms of tax base and jobs and community support. So these are very vital asset. They limit fuel volatility when you look at what could and has happened in the natural gas markets and reliance on natural gas of us and others. So they're very, very vital. They fit right in with the strategy that we've got everywhere else whether it's investing in CCGT's that reduce production costs and improve their emissions or whether it's looking at something in the gas and ground investment that would limit fuel volatility. So these assets fit right into our strategy, right into the need for our communities or customers and we just again have to change the strategy from that lien operations into one more focused a little bit more on operational excellence side of it and then we'll get right back on track. And again as I mentioned earlier we're going to use any special regulatory mechanisms and no special filings with the NRC. It's just us working through this process and getting right.
Steven Fleishman:
And as their spending, part of that it sounds like higher ongoing stamping, part of this next three years is the way to split out between spending to fix the program where you want it to be versus spending that's just ongoing higher levels or ongoing higher levels.
Leo Denault:
The way to look at it and obviously you got to remember too Steve, capital dollars are lumpy in these big plants and things like that, but the way we're looking at it is what's the take to run these plant and Chris's task has been to put together a plan what does it take to run the plant on an all in basis. And so we're doing that certainly getting ourselves out of column four and things like that are going to be important and those are costs that will go away but for the most part all that we've asked them to do was come up with capital plan required to put us in the operational excellence category that we want to be in this is it and we've included it all it. The plan we're going to use the regular regulatory mechanisms to recover it and as we mentioned earlier between our mitigating actions, between other things that are happening in the company like securitization roll-off through loan growth that we have in investments that we're making that lower cost, the impact on our customers going to be minimized as much of it can.
Steven Fleishman:
And just one last thing Grande Golf can you just talk about what the outage is related to?
Chris Bakken:
This is Chris again. First and foremost the Grande Golf is safe to operate, however reflecting on some of our equipment in human performance over the last several months that didn't meet our standards of excellence. So we've taken a decision to take the end of service. Systematically understand the performance shortfalls to excellence. We've training programs and some maintenance plans to correct that. It's well understood and we're in the process now of working through those issues and expect to have the unit back in service early part of next year.
Steven Fleishman:
Okay. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
And that concludes today's question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Thank you, Liz and thank you all for participating this morning. Before we close we remind you to refer to our release and website for safe harbor and Regulation G compliance statements, our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on November 9 and provides more detail and disclosures about financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056 confirmation ID 85417477 and the telephone replay will be available until November 1. And this concludes our call. Thank you all very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This concludes the program and you may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Executives:
Andrew Marsh - CFO and EVP David Borde - VP of IR William Mohl - President, Entergy Wholesale Commodity Leo Denault - Chairman & CEO Theodore Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations
Analysts:
Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank Shahriar Pourreza - Guggenheim Securities, LLC Steven Fleishman - Wolfe Research LLC Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Research Division Praful Mehta - Citigroup Inc. Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Entergy Corporation's Second Quarter 2016 Earnings Release and Teleconference. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I’d now like to turn the conference over to David Borde, Vice President, Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than one question and one follow up. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Management will also discuss non-GAAP financial information. Reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures are included in today's press release and slide presentation, both of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. And now I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. By any measure, this was a solid quarter. Strong growth in our core business, absent any impact of taxes or weather was coupled with significant accomplishment. We spent the first half of 2016 working to execute on our strategy and the results we are reporting today are a reflection of that work. We've made progress towards meeting our objective of steady predictable growth at the Utility, while reducing our EWC footprint. We delivered solid results through the first half of the year. Our Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings increased 35% this quarter versus last year and are in line with our growth expectations for our core business. Most importantly, we continue to set up the business to achieve our longer term targets. Our extensive 2016 to-do list on slide three is a road map of the execution of our strategy, and it's a good way to illustrate some of what we've accomplished. At the Utility, we received a favorable ALJ recommendation for the St. Charles Power Station. The result of the Entergy Louisiana request for proposal was announced with the self-build alternative and one long-term power purchase agreement selected. The self-build alternative was also selected in the Entergy Texas request for proposal. Entergy New Orleans filed for approval for a new gas-fired combustion turbine. Entergy Mississippi received a revenue increased under its first formula rate plan filing with forward-looking features. Entergy Louisiana made its 2015 test year formula rate plan filing. Entergy Arkansas made its first forward test year formula rate plan filing. Entergy Texas received approval on its transmission cost recovery Factor Rider. We received a confirmatory action letter from the NRC for ANO, and the letter is consistent with our expectation and we saw over 7% industrial growth versus last year. At EWC, we entered into negotiations for the sale of our FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant. Finally, we’ve met with many of you on our Analyst Day in June, where we highlighted our progress towards effectively shifting our investment profile to a pure-play utility. We're achieving this shift by continuing to invest in the Utility for the benefit of our customers, while maintaining reasonable rates. One of these investments is the St. Charles Power Station project, which received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Law Judge in July. We expect the certification decision from the LPSC in August. We're encouraged with the ALJ's recommendation that the project serves the public convenience and necessity; it is in the public interest. The ALJ further recommends that Entergy Louisiana's decision to commence construction is prudent, and the selection of the project is consistent with the terms of the LPSC's market-based mechanisms order. We also continue to make progress for our plants for CCGT in Texas. In April, the RFP process resulted in the selection of the self-build alternative, and in the third quarter, we will begin the necessary filings for regulatory approval. We are on a similar path in Louisiana with the RFP process also resulted in the selection of the self-build alternative, and we expect to make the necessary regulatory filings in the third quarter. That same RFP result in the selection of a long-term power purchase agreement for an existing CCGT resource, and we also plan to seek approval of the PPA from the LPSC. Entergy New Orleans has filed an application with the New Orleans City Council seeking approval to build New Orleans’ PowerStation, the natural gas-fired combustion turbine plant at the existing Michoud site. This request follows the early June deactivations of our 1960's era of Michoud units 2 and 3. These units are a prime example of the aging infrastructure in our service territory. The decision to deactivate these units was based on economics, maintenance and operational considerations. A new plant will provide a long-term local resource that can meet the city's particular resource needs at the lowest reasonable cost to customers. We've requested strategic council approval by January 31, 2017. If approved as requested, the new plant is expected to be placed in service in the second half of 2019. These investments will provide more cost-effective, reliable and efficient generating resources for our customers. By building these plants, we will reduce the average age of our fleet and improve the heat rate in key areas of our system. For example, by 2025, in the low-tab region, we will have reduced the age of our fleet by approximately 19 years. Also when we meet south region, we will have reduced the age of our fleet by 18 years. And with new units operating at heat rates of less than 7,000, the efficiency of our fossil generation portfolio will be improved by roughly 800 BTUs years per TWH fleet-wide by 2025. Additionally, the new CCGT units will on average produce 41% fewer carbon dioxide emissions than our Legacy gas units. In addition to addressing our aging infrastructure, we also need to control fuel volatility in our customer's builds. Our nuclear assets are critical to this objective, as they provide valuable fuel diversity to our Utility fleet. The low volatility of nuclear fuel price effectively access a hedge against the high volatility of natural gas prices. Beyond fuel diversity, our nuclear assets also provide other significant benefits, as large scale virtually emissions-free resources, these assets minimize our environmental footprint around high-capacity factors and provide stable base load generation. Nuclear generation also offers a host of economic benefits and contributes to the financial health of the communities, in which these assets sit, including thousands of good-paying jobs, tax benefits to local state and federal governments and billions of dollars in economic output. Investing in the long-term sustainability of our existing nuclear assets to preserve these benefits for our four stakeholders is an important part of our utility strategy. We've drafted the framework for our nuclear sustainability plan that will preserve these benefits and that framework is now under external peer review. We're working on firming up the cost estimates and steps for implementation. We are currently on track with our commitment to provide you with more specifics at EEI this November. We also have a path forward at Arkansas Nuclear One. The NRC issued its confirmatory action letter shortly after our Analyst Day and adopted our proposed comprehensive recovery plan. The letter confirmed that the plan we developed will lead us to sustained performance improvement. We will work diligently to complete the agreed upon actions listed in the letter to the satisfaction of the NRC. We believe we will be able to demonstrate to the NRC our ability to exit Column IV as early as late 2017. However, our goal is not to simply exit Column IV, but to return to sustained operational excellence and to be considered one of the industry's strongest performers. We're rounding other generation portfolio with renewable and energy initiatives I talked about last quarter. Entergy New Orleans, solar generation project with battery storage technology was placed in-service in June. Entergy Arkansas's power purchase agreement will support construction. We have an 81-megawatt solar energy generating facility, which is expected to be completed in 2018. Entergy Mississippi's three new solar installations are online and capable of generating 500 KWH. And we have three renewable requests for proposals outstanding at Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans. In the Arkansas and New Orleans RFPs, bidders will have an opportunity to provide acquisition proposals, and New Orleans proposal also includes a self-build option. Proposals are due in August for the Arkansas and Louisiana RFPs and in October, for New Orleans’ RFP. Final selections will be made in December of 2016, February of 2017 and April of 2017 for Louisiana, Arkansas and New Orleans respectively. In addition to our generation supply plan, we’re also executing on our transmission investment plan. In Arkansas, we placed in-service a new 23 mile, 230 kV line and completed a new 500 kV substation to serve Big River Steel. These two projects represent over $100 million of investment. In Mississippi, we completed a new distribution substation and kicked off two new projects for another new substation and 115 kV line additions and upgrades. These new projects are expected to be in-service in 2017, in total, nearly $75 million of investment. And in Texas, we placed three major projects in-service between May and July, which totaled roughly $140 million in investment. These are just a few examples of major transmission projects that facilitate improved system reliability, compliance with NERC standards, enhanced economic development, all we do is transmission congestion. And all of these factors can ultimately contribute to a lower cost of service for our customers. At Analyst Day, we focused on investing in new technology to migrate towards a flexible, reliable and innovative integrated energy network. We're beginning the first phases of this process with advanced meters that changed the way we manage our distribution system, reducing operating costs and providing savings for customers. Since Analyst Day, we finalized our vendor and technology partners and have initiated the design phase of our project. Regulatory filings are expected to begin in September with the first filing to be made before the Louisiana Public Service Commission. Filings in other jurisdictions will follow. Advanced metering is a foundational technology that supports other technologies to reduce costs and provide customers greater control and options over their energy usage. We've initiated a great engineering study to assess the best path forward, incorporating these technologies and then integrate it to energy network for each of the operating companies. We will provide more information in due course. These investments in technology and infrastructure deliver the same benefits as our more traditional investment in generation and transmission, namely a more efficient electric system with enhanced electric reliability and reduced environmental footprint and reduced cost to serve our customers. Over the past couple of years, we've improved our regulatory constructs to give us the ability to make investments that support economic development, create jobs, improve reliability in our systems and reduce our environmental impact. With many of those constricts now in place, we've moved into a rhythm of filing annual formula rate plans. Entergy Mississippi received an order approving a revenue increase for its first FRP filing with forward-looking features and rate adjustments were implemented at the end of June. Entergy Louisiana made its 2015 test year FRP filing at the end of May. And last month, Entergy Arkansas made its first FRP filing with a forward test year. And at Entergy Texas, we've been working on the implementation of the transmission cost recovery factor. We received approval on this rider in late June and recovery of transmission spend through this rider will relate back to April 14th. I'll take a moment now to talk briefly about EWC, starting with an update on Pilgrim, which is currently preparing for its NRC inspection. Many of the same team members who put together the comprehensive recovery plan for ANO are working on the plan for Pilgrim. We expect to be ready for the NRC to conduct its inspection this fall with the confirmatory action letter potentially to be issued in the spring. And finally, in mid-July, we announced that we are in discussion with Exelon on the sale of our FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant. The opportunity to change the future FitzPatrick has a significant positive impact on our employees and the surrounding communities, and we're willing to consider any viable option to keeping the plant to open. In that spirit, we applaud The New York PSC's decision to adopt the Clean Energy Standard Program. It is a critical component of a potential transaction. We are reviewing the order to confirm it addresses the issues we'd hoped, but at this point, we are very encouraged. As negotiations for a sale continue, we continue to proceed along two parallel paths, preparing for the plant’s permanent shutdown and decommissioning under the current plan while also preparing for a possible refueling in continued operation in the event of the sale. We are hopeful that negotiations can be completed this month. Regardless of the outcome, our focus continues to be on the safe and reliable operation of the plant for as long as it continues to operate. We will also do our best to support our employees in the community throughout this transition, whether that leads to a sale to a new owner or the safe shutdown and decommissioning of the plant. I'd like to thank our hundreds of employees at FitzPatrick, who continue to do their best work every day to run the plant safely and reliably amid the uncertainty of the plant’s future and the additional burden of preparing for two possible paths forward. They continued to show a first rate level of professionalism, dedication and hard work throughout this time of transition. What I've said so far you can see that we've accomplished a lot to achieve our objectives, and our employees continue to do so by meeting our obligations to the communities we serve. These communities are home to both our customers and our employees, along with our owners represent our four key stakeholders. When we buy serving all four of our stakeholders are we truly successful. In just the last few weeks, we've received recognition from three different organizations for a civic-minded approach to doing business. First, I'm proud to say that Entergy Corporation was recently named to the Civic 50, an initiative of points of light, honoring the 50 most community-minded companies in the nation. Being named to the Civic 50 acknowledges the number of ways our employees power life for all of our stakeholders. Our team members not only provide reliable and affordable electric power and gas to customers, but also actively support strategic initiatives that support improved educational and employment opportunities, boost economic development and protect the environment. It’s also been awarded the Pro Patria Award from the Employer Support of the Garden Reserve Louisiana Committee for promoting supportive work environments for members of the National Guard and Reserve. And finally, our legal department was recently named the Recipient of 2016 Pro Bono Partner Award from the Pro Bono Institute. This national award recognizes innovative team approaches to pro bono work involving in-house legal departments. In a partnership with the Louisiana Civil Justice Center and the Orleans Parish Civil District Court, our lawyers helped to establish and staffed the self-help Resource Center. We are pleased that with the assistance of our law department, the Self-Help Resource Center has to date been able to serve more than 10,000 vulnerable citizens who otherwise would not have access to legal assistance. Each of these awards shows that we view our company as part of a broader community. In its recent study conducted by Market Strategies International, Entergy was designated a Most Trusted Brand in 2016, ranking first among electric utilities. Our employees work hard every day to earn the trust of our customers in our border communities. I'd also like to acknowledge the nearly 3,200 workers who helped with our recent storm restoration efforts. Severe storms, lighting and high winds left 170,000 customers in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi without power, roughly 800 of our own Entergy employees partnered with 2,500 linemen, vegetation workers and support personnel of 15 states. Power was restored to more than 90% of the affected customers in less than three days. Times like these are when our people truly shine. These and other actions we take every day are the way that we power life. In summary, this was a very solid quarter. Our financial results with our adjusted utility parent and other earning increasing 35% versus last year and our accomplishments toward implementing our investment plan to benefit customers and our continued strategic actions at EWC provide a clear path toward our objectives. Our results for the first half of 2016 have demonstrated our ability to continue to execute on our strategy. And so with our objectives for strategy firmly in place, we continue down this path to pursue steady predictable growth of the Utility, while reducing the EWC footprint. For the second half of 2016, we look forward to continuing to deliver solid results for each of our four stakeholders. With that, I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. I'll start with the key takeaways on slide four. Quickly pointing to the top right corner for our core business, Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings for the quarter came in strong, 35% above last year and in line with what we expected. As you may recall, our adjusted view removes special items, weather and tax effects. Our full-year view of Utility, Parent & Other adjusted earnings remains on target with our original guidance. Looking at the bottom left corner, EWC operational results were essentially flat after normalizing income taxes. Turning to details beginning on slide five, the blue bars show our consolidated operational earnings, which were $3.11 per share in the current period. This compares to $0.83 a year ago. This quarter's results were higher than last year due to a few factors, most significant of which was income taxes, which increased earnings about $2 per share net of customers sharing. While these tax items are beneficial and we previously discussed their potential, they were not included in our original guidance due to their uncertainty. In the current period, as reported results included special items related to EWC nuclear plants that we've identified to close, these special items include a portion of the proceeds we received during the quarter for DOE litigation as we talked about at Analyst Day in June, as well as severance and retention costs and capital spending, which were expensed because the plants are impaired. Operational earnings per share for Utility, Parent & Other increased $0.92 quarter-over-quarter, shown on slide six. Looking at the orange bars, on an adjusted view, excluding the effects of weather and income tax items, Utility, Parent & Other results increased $0.31. This growth reflects rate actions to recover productive investment that benefit customers and improves returns. Specific drivers include the Union Power Station acquisition and Entergy Arkansas rate case. Also contributing to the earnings increase was a non-fuel O&M expense, which declined on lower fossil spending and decreased compensation and benefits expense. Utility, Parent & Other's increased and as reported income included $0.68 for income taxes, net of approximately $0.06 for additional customer sharing reflected in that revenue. During the quarter, we’ve resolved tax matters within the 2010, 2011 audit. As a result, we recognize tax items totaling approximately $135 million. Though these tax items come up after other businesses purposes, they are important to us because they provide real benefits. For example, tax sharing has reduced customer bills more than $300 million over the past 14 years. Turning to EWC's second quarter results, summarized on slide seven, operational earnings were $1.34 in the current quarter compared to a slight loss a year ago. A $238 million reduction in income tax expense from the tax collection accounted for virtually all of EWC's earnings this quarter. Excluding this item, EWC's earnings would have been $0.01, slightly higher than last year. Effects from 2015 impairments and lower non-fuel O&M expense were largely offset by lower prices and volume for EWC's nuclear fleet. Slide eight shows operating cash flow this quarter of $719 million, slightly lower than the same quarter in 2015. Our 2016 earnings guidance is summarized on slide nine. As you can see, we are affirming our original guidance for Utility, Parent & Other and adjusted EPS of $4.20 to $4.50, with expectations still around the middle of the guidance range. As we mentioned at Analyst Day, we’ve improved incremental nuclear spending for this year, we expect to mitigate those costs with a number of items across the business. This is reflected in our affirmation of 2016 guidance today. We are also updating our consolidated Entergy operational guidance range of $6.60 to $7.40 for the $7 per share midpoint. This update is due largely to the income tax items recorded in the second quarter. Absent those tax items and consistent with our previous discussions, we’d expect to be around the bottom of the original guidance range due primarily to the unfavorable weather, the extended outage of Indian Point 2, and lower market prices. To be clear, we do not expect additional significant income taxes for the remainder of this year. I'll also note that while industrial sales growth has been strong at 6.7% for the first half of the year, we expect that to taper off in the second half of 2016, particularly from our biggest segment, Refiners, as they ran very well in the third and fourth quarters of last year, and they're expected to have a number of maintenance outages this fall. In addition, you may recall that high product inventory levels and a strong dollar contributed to a temporary negative industrial growth in the second quarter of last year. Similar macro factors and supply/demand rebalancing in oil markets may present challenges for US refiners in the fall. As a reminder, fixed demand charges represent about 50% of our industrial revenue and to an extent we see volatility in sales from existing large industrial customers, the revenue impact should be small. Beyond the fall, we continue to see new and expanding customer growth for the next few years. Moving to the longer term view, Slide 10 shows our adjusted Utility, Parent & Other outlook for 2017 through 2019, which is unchanged. I'll reiterate that our current outlook reflects pension discount rate assumptions from earlier in the year, which were 4.75% at 2017, 5% in '18 and 5.25% in '19. As a point of reference, our recent forward test year FRP filing for Entergy Arkansas assumed a 4.25% pension discount rate in 2017. If you looked at the market today, that rate would be closer to 4% or perhaps even lower. Also, 2017, 2018 and 2019 do not currently include the effects of the Nuclear Sustainability Plan or expected mitigations in rate treatment. As Leo said, investing in the long-term sustainability of our existing nuclear assets to preserve the benefit of nuclear for our stakeholders is an important part of the Utility strategy. We are working to identify the cost mitigations, but to the extent we are not completely successful, by the time we get to 2019, we will have gone through a rate proceeding in each of the affected jurisdictions, and we believe that these prudently incurred costs and expected mitigations should be reflected in rates. As such, our long-term earnings plan, 2019 and beyond, should not be significantly affected by the Nuclear Sustainability Plan. As we committed at Analyst Day, we will provide a full update, including all of these items at EEI later this year. Slide 11 provides EWC's EBITDA outlook assuming market prices as of the end of the quarter. Our current estimates reflect market prices as of June 30. And as you know, prices have come down a bit since then. Before I close, I'd like to highlight two items. Last week, Moody's Investor Services changed Entergy Mississippi's rating outlook to positive from stable. Moody's specifically noted EMI successful implementation of its formula rate plan with forward-looking features. Moody's views the FRP as a significant credit positive since it provide a dependable and clear framework for timely operating cost recovery. Also during the quarter, we completed several re-financings, issuing $840 million of operating company debt and average coupon of 3.1%. The majority of the issuances were economic re-financings, which replaced about $660 million to debt with an average rate of 6.1%, creating annual interest savings of about $20 million pretax. These interest savings will help offset the effect of the potentially lower-than-planned pension discount rate. As Leo mentioned, results through the first half of the year have been solid and in line with our growth expectations for our core Utility, Parent & Other business. That said, we know we still have work to do to achieve our longer-term aspirations, and we will continue to work toward that end. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Shahriar Pourreza of Guggenheim Securities.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Hey, good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Shah.
Shahriar Pourreza:
So, this may be a little bit semantics, but I thought at the Analyst Day you highlighted that expectation for '16 should sort of be at the midpoint to top end of expectations when you're accounting for tax benefits, especially when you think about today's results and relatively warm July, and you still expect to come in sort of at the midpoint. So is there something that's coming in weaker-than-expected since the Analyst Day?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew, Shah. I think at Analyst Day, we tried to guide towards the bottom end of our original guidance range absent the taxes, and I think if you add the tax back, you'll find that - as I guess if you take it out the new guidance range, you'll find we're kind of backed down at the bottom of our original guidance range is where we've been talking about for a little bit of time now. With the taxes, I think at Analyst Day, we tried to say that there were a number of things in the hopper that could take us to the top of the range or potentially even over the range, which is, I think the way we described it. But I think that's outside of those things, I think we're still about in the same area that we were describing at Analyst Day.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Okay. Got it. Super helpful. And then just lastly on the sustainability plan, it's great that you have a schedule - you sort of have a framework there and you're on schedule to provide kind of numbers at EEI, but since there's a framework there, is there anything that you can just provide directionally or sort of are the expectations still within the hundreds of millions of cost that you discussed at the Analyst Day briefly?
Leo Denault:
Yeah, Shah, this is Leo. We're not really going to give more detail about that. As I mentioned, we've got a framework. We really got the outline of the plan really well in hand. Chris and his team have been working it, it passed their peer review check as he’d mentioned in his outline at our Analyst Day, and we're on track to be able to provide you the numbers as well as what we think the impact is going to be based on our mitigations strategies and regulatory recovery, et cetera.
Shahriar Pourreza:
Got it. Thanks. Congrats on the solid results.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys. Want to dive a little further into the Nuclear Sustainability program, and the only reason why I ask is when we talk to other companies, a lot of other companies - and in fact, the Nuclear Energy Institute at its annual briefing, spent a lot of time on this as well talking about being able to take cost out of the Nuclear business, meaning to keep the reliability levels elevated in the 90%, 91% range, but to be able to reduce cost, and that seems to be an industry-wide effort. It seems your disclosure over the last six to nine months is actually in the opposite direction in terms of the cost structure. And can you just talk a little bit about what makes Entergy different than the rest of effectively the US nuclear industry in that regard? Do you view this as a temporary issue? Do you view this as a multi-year, three to five, five to seven year issue? And what got you to this point relative to where it seems like the industry trade group is talking about?
Leo Denault:
Yeah, Michael, I'll just briefly - again, I'm not going to get into sustainability plan until the way to give you the details of it, and that will be later in the year in the EEI, and we are participating with the industry in all of those analyses of the nuclear promise, et cetera. And so, all of that will be part of our thinking when we look at the plan, but the - with situation we have with a couple of units in Column 4, our operations haven't been up to our expectations, and so we're working to make sure that we put in place a plan that sustains the ability for us, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, to once again be considered one of the top performers in the industry. And that's really where we are trying to get to is move from where we are to top performer, but we are also obviously participating with all the industry-wide efforts, nuclear promise as you mentioned, and other things as well.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Do you feel this is as more capital intensive or is this more kind of operating cost intensive?
Andrew Marsh:
Michael, as we said at Analyst Day, it will be somewhat above, but again, I'm going to defer giving any details until we get to November.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Okay. Last thing, can you just - I want to make sure, Drew, I understood your comments when kind of going through some of the puts and takes on multi-year guidance. Pension, a headwind, I think that's a headwind for everybody in the industry that didn't have a pension tracker, the nuclear sustainability program a headwind, the tailwind is offsetting these are obviously your above average expected demand growth levels and the move to more formula rate plans and kind of more formulaic revenue increase programs. Anything I'm leaving out in those three or four items kind of puts and takes?
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, I think we are aggressively looking for ways to offset some of these costs with the other things in the business. I mentioned interest rates helping offset some of the pension costs, right. That's a bit of a double-edged sword, but we are looking high and low within the business to find other offsets, and there's little bits and pieces here and there that are going to help us out. Insurances is helping us out a little bit this year and we think it will help us some going forward. There are other O&M areas that we're looking at. Depreciation’s been a bit helpful this year. So, I think there's just a number of things that are out there that we're trying to turn over every rock right now to make sure we mitigate as much of the expected headwinds as you're describing them as possible. And that's our objective, to make sure that we get to appoint in the fall where we can update you and try to maintain those same guidance ranges. And then, as I mentioned, and you were alluding to, we do have rate actions over the next few years planned that we think we'll get it back to a point where we can be a step beyond track for 2019 and beyond.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you, Drew. Much appreciate it.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank, you may begin.
Jonathan Arnold:
Good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just a quick one, can you remind us what the sort of critical timelines are on the FitzPatrick decision, the shot versus sale? And maybe if there is - is there a fat path now that you have the CEC, which is stay open and not sell?
Leo Denault:
Well, let me just get to the last one. I don't know that there's a stay open and not sell option necessarily, but the other two are certainly what we're working for. The last thing we need to do is create a third path for people have to start working down, but Bill, why don’t you go ahead and talk about where was it.
William Mohl:
Sure. So, Jonathan, obviously, yesterday's order was a step in the right direction as it related to the CES and putting a value on this ex in New York, so between now and the end of the month, we need to be able to successfully negotiate a deal with Exelon, so a commercial arrangement, and then there obviously are a number of regulatory approvals that will have to take place in order to have assurances that the transaction will move forward, largely those our state-driven. If in the event that all those regulatory approvals are met, then we would proceed down the path with Exelon and then the plant would be refueled in January. If we're unable to reach commercial agreements with Exelon or we're not able to achieve those regulatory approvals, we'll begin the regular decommissioning process and stay on the same path that we have previously been on. But as Leo pointed out, we are - there are no plans to continue to run the plant under Entergy ownership as we've made a commitment to reduce the size of the EWC footprint and that would not be consistent with that strategy.
Jonathan Arnold:
So, January refuel helping to reach an agreement by the end of August, that you need some approvals in the interim, is there a date sort of somewhere in the middle there which - by which you really need those approvals that's sooner than January?
William Mohl:
Yeah, Jonathan, that's something that’s still in flux right now, so we're working through that and I really can't comment on the details.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, great. Thank you for the extra color. And then secondly, shall I ask on the EWC, you said this was a tax election, can you give a little more color as to what you've elected and what that cash impact is best to say - what does it meant for earnings?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, Jonathan, it's a restructuring for tax purposes and it builds off of work that we've done over the past 15 years in the tax area. And it's going to be part of the 2016 audit cycle, but based on private letter rulings that we received in the past, legal opinions that we received, audit settlements that we've made, we believe that this is the appropriate way to go about accounting for the restructuring that we have, and we’ll work through that with the IRS over the next few years.
Jonathan Arnold:
And can you comment on the cash timing?
Andrew Marsh:
The cash timing, as you know, we have low-cash taxes right now, and we would expect to keep those. We've talked about a 10% kind of targeted cash tax rate from here on out, but from here on through our current forecasting period, we would expect that to be about the same.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Jonathan.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley, you may begin.
Stephen Byrd:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Stephen.
Stephen Byrd:
I want to talk about the power-demand outlook for residential and commercial that we've been seeing some fairly low numbers there, some negative numbers. In your view, what are some of the drivers, both negative and positive that you're looking at that could cause either surprise to the upside or the downside? What sort of the prospects for those changing to be more supportive, more positive? Any big drivers that you see or is it really hard to extrapolate just from a couple of quarters?
Theodore Bunting:
Stephen, this is Theo. I think your last comment is probably [indiscernible] extrapolate from just the last couple of quarters. I mean clearly, as we’ve talked about on other calls, as other utilities also - we see the effects of energy efficiency, both at the state level and through different federal law guidelines having impacts. And we feel like our usage per customer starting - it's been on a decline again, I think consistent with what we've seen with the industry. We've started to see some flattening out relative to that. And I think also you have the macroeconomic impacts from a demand perspective, and I think as you go forward, the macroeconomic impacts clearly would be the first that you’d point to in terms of positives as you could change that. If you look through our region and you look at our gross state product forecast, we saw a kind of a downward trend over the past year or so. We see that starting to pick back up and clearly that materialize, you could see some positive impacts as it relates to that, but we'll continue to see impacts around energy efficiency as we go forward. And as we get further through the year, especially the third quarter, because it's one of our largest quarters from a sales perspective, I think we'll have a better perspective and point of view around what we think the longer term trend will take us.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay, understood. And then wanted to shift to Indian Point and just check on the status on the newer PUC investigation into the automatic shut down there, would it be possible to get an update in terms of where that stands and what the next steps are in that investigation?
William Mohl:
Yes, Stephen, this is Bill. That investigation continues, really have nothing new to report. We have fully cooperated with the state, but I'm not aware of any specific milestones associated with that investigation.
Stephen Byrd:
Understood. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.
Steve Fleishman:
Hi, good morning. Hi, Leo. Just at a high level, any thought process on how the New York ruling might affect your views on Indian Point? And maybe way out of the box, any thought on chances that something like this could happen in Massachusetts with Pilgrim?
Leo Denault:
Well, certainly, there's no push for something like this in Massachusetts at the moment. The - as far as it relates to what's going on with Indian Point, as we understand it, the way the proposal has shifted, it went from excluding Indian Point to potentially including it. Meet certain criteria with the next couple of years, so we view that as positive. We don't think that clean air should be discriminatory about where it shows up in the state, so certainly, that could, down the road, cut off the bat tales as it might be in terms of pricing related to Indian Point, given the criteria that the plant be financially challenged, et cetera, to qualify for the program. But other than that, it's really too early to say what it might be for the Indian Point. And again, there's really no push for something similar in Massachusetts that I'm aware of.
Steve Fleishman:
One other question with this role. My recollection is that you guys actually challenged a contract with the Dunkirk plant in New York that might argue have some similarities to this rule. So I'm curious how you differentiate the legal support for this will versus that Dunkirk plant?
Leo Denault:
Steven, in general, we think it's different because this order places a value on the attribute associated with zero emissions at the generation as opposed to more of a contact for differences that was associated with Dunkirk litigation.
Steve Fleishman:
Okay. And then another question just on the kind of - and Leo, you laid out a lot of different programs you're doing, could you just remind kind of any of the things that you're talking about that may not already be in your current capital plans supporting the growth for 2019?
Leo Denault:
Yes, Steven. And they're certainly not everything that we would have - that we would likely identify associated with integrated energy network. There is probably more out there associated with that. It think we referenced toward the backend or beyond that time horizon we've been talking at Analyst Day. We mentioned the 6 billion to 8 billion number at that point in time, but that, obviously, goes out beyond the period we're talking here now. Also in the world of gas price volatility, et cetera, where there's nothing in there for anything, we might do the hedge that if you were to include investments in the like and the potential for where we come out and some of the renewable RFPs, et cetera. So when you get to the back-end and certainly and beyond it, there's a significant amount of other things that we're investigating that could be part of the capital program in addition to what we need. And again, as we've mentioned before, we've got a pretty solid generation and transmission capital program. And we’re doing that from a position, as we've mentioned before, be in short generation and across the system. And we would continue to anticipate that, that would be short across the system as we go forward in these capital investments create a significant amount of benefits to our customers and as it relates to reduced congestion, lower production cost, lower emissions, you name it, particularly given the age of our fleet, these things are really, really beneficial to our customers.
Steve Fleishman:
Great. One last quick one on the pension discount rate, my recollection from the Analyst Day was that a 50-basis-point move is like a $0.14 a share sensitivity. Is that still correct? Do I hear it right?
Andrew Marsh:
I think our rule of thumb is $0.06 for every 25 basis points for Entergy overall. And so it's, I guess, $0.12 for 50 basis points. And then about 3/4 of that is Utility. The other quarter is EWC.
Steve Fleishman:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Praful Mehta with Citi Mac.
Praful Mehta:
A big question again on FitzPatrick. And in terms of how we should think about the sales price, given the price of the nuclear credit is pretty clear and for insurers, how are you kind of looking at what is the adequate consideration you should be getting from for the sale? Is it the value of the MTV of those cash flow? Is there something else? Is there another threshold you're looking at in terms of the recovery of additional cost? Any kind of benchmarks we should be thinking about there?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, Praful, as you might guess right now, that's between us and Exelon. And I appreciate the question. There's just no way I can comment.
Praful Mehta:
All right. Fair enough. Okay. So, I guess on the tax impact that you had at EWC, I just wanted to understand, is there any reason why it's not included like from a one-time versus an operating earnings basis? Is there something we should be thinking about that item, the $1.33? Why it's not included from a one-time operating income perspective?
Theodore Bunting:
Well, I mean, we pointed out and tried to make it very clear where the number is and what the impact is, but taxes are something that we work on every day just like every other line item in the income statement. So we consider taxes to be an operational item. Now having said that, particularly in Utility where we are targeting steady predictable growth, we want to make sure it's very clear where the tax are falling out, so we're providing an adjusted number for you. But we do think taxes are part of operational earnings, and we would never call them out as a special items.
Praful Mehta:
Okay. And then just quickly on Indian Point, in terms of asset life today as we think about valuing Indian Point, is there any different view today you have, given what's happening in New York in terms of how you would view the asset life of Indian Point?
Leo Denault:
Well, we've always viewed that we're on a path towards relicensing of the plant. I think what we - with what we've seen in New York, I would mentioned that with the CES does, if that goes through as planned, it certainly provides a backstop for - against lower prices while during the course of the program. So it's not nearly necessarily what the life of it issue is as much as maybe probability distribution of prices that it would receive.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Good morning.
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So perhaps to follow-up on the last series of questions, if you will, for Indian Point, is there a potential here to eventually transact - does this call it backstop against lower prices, make it more of a transactable asset or what do you see as the strategic fit of Indian Point given the added visibility or certainty provided by potential here?
Leo Denault:
From a strategic point standpoint, Julian, we're still - as I mentioned in my remarks and we mentioned at Analyst Day and we've been mentioning for several years now, our views is that the business should be separate. And we've been proceeding down that path for the last several years. The only thing that changes from time to time is the methodology we would use. So for example, we look at New England and something like from [indiscernible], for example, separation came about because prices didn't support the economics of the plant, and we were forced into shutting it down to the extent that something becomes transactable as part of that separation, certainly that's a preferable route as it was with the Rhode Island State Energy Center when we sold that and if we're successful to sell Fitzpatrick. So I'll say it again, it does impact, I would guess, the probability distribution of prices it might receive. We still believe that we're going to get the plant relicensed, so that we'd indicate a long life of the plant. And then the other aspect it was always - has always been part of transacting, which was part of the benefit with regulatory approvals that we would require to get something done. All those are the same. We're just incrementally changing the dynamic as we proceed down the licensing pathway to be successful or if something like this occurs where, again, it changes the downside price risk.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. And just to be clear about this, the CapEx that's contemplated or that you're preparing for EEI, does the development in New York changed at all, either with respect to FitzPatrick and or refilling and/or Indian Point to be clear?
Leo Denault:
Those would be part of the mix when we look at what we're going to do, but again, we're not going to save that more detail until we get there.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. All right, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates, you may begin.
Paul Patterson:
I just want to sort of follow up a little bit on [indiscernible] question. I wasn't completely clear on what was the driver of the tax benefit at EWC? Was there a revaluation of some sort or recognition of the liability? Just what is it that triggered this tax benefit?
Andrew Marsh:
Ultimately ends up being a stop up in basis form for some of our nuclear assets and liabilities that are sitting at EWC, Paul.
Paul Patterson:
A step up in tax basis?
Andrew Marsh:
Yes.
Paul Patterson:
And that's driven by what?
Andrew Marsh:
It's driven by the restructuring in the transaction, again, recognized through the transaction. It was recognized - I think from a tax perspective, it's deemed to be transferred when you make that reelection that we're talking about.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. So it's associated with FitzPatrick, is that?
Andrew Marsh:
I do think we've said where it's associated.
Paul Patterson:
Thanks so much on the rest of my questions. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. I would like to turn the call over to David Borde for closing remarks.
David Borde:
Shannon, and thanks for all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC on August 9 and provides more detail and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that the events that occurred prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056. Confirmation ID 85416349, and the telephone replay will be available until August 9, and this concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thanks for your participation, and have a wonderful day.
Executives:
David Borde - VP, Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and CEO Andrew Marsh - CFO Bill Mohl - President, Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Analysts:
Roselynn Armstrong - Barclays Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Praful Mehta - Citigroup Brian Chin - Merrill Lynch Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Unidentified Analyst - Firm
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2016 Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's program, David Borde, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
David Borde:
Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault, and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review the results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. On today’s call, management will make forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company’s SEC filings.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. This quarter was a good start to another important year for Entergy. We accomplished what we set out to do by successfully executing on our to-do list. We closed the acquisition of the Union Power Station, finalized our Arkansas rate case, received a final order in our distribution cost recovery factor filing in Texas, held our first FRP with forward-looking features in Mississippi, completed the A&O in our SEA inspection, received confirmation from the New York ISO that the shutdown of FitzPatrick will not affect reliability in the region, saw over 6% industrial sales growth versus last year, and today, we are reporting first quarter operational earnings per share of $1.35 above what we expected. Well, that's a good start. You're also aware that it's early in the year and we face challenges ahead. But we are confident that we can manage these and deliver on our earnings commitments for the year as well as our adjusted utility, parent and other long-term outlook. Our results for this quarter or the outcome of the strategy we have been pursuing for some time to create sustainable value for all of our stakeholders in 2016 and beyond. At the utility, investing to benefit customers, while maintaining competitive rates with ready access to capital in timely and predictable investment recovery, which provides the financial flexibility we need to make these investments. And at EWC continuing to reduce our footprint to limit exposure from assets not supported by the market. We've already materially reduced our size, risk and volatility through the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center and shutdown of Vermont Yankee. This trend will only accelerate as Pilgrim and FitzPatrick come offline. We will continue to emphasize safe operations, regulatory compliance and commercial diligence at all sites. If you turn your attention to our to-do list on slide three. On March 3rd, we closed the acquisition of the Union Power Station. This acquisition has built an important driver in achieving 2016 earnings expectation and also one more important step in our broader plan to modernize our fleet and provide lower cost reliable generation for our customers. Recovery of the cost of this investment in Arkansas, Louisiana and New Orleans effectively began simultaneously with the transactions closed. Thanks to a collaborative agreement between our team, our regulators and other participants who recognize the benefits of this investment for our customers. Another important component of our supply plan is building the St. Charles Power Station. The hearing at the LPSC began April 18th and is expected to conclude today. Thus, we expect that the LPSC will be able to take up the certification decision in August. This is an important investment to serve our customers in Louisiana and as an example of the infrastructure development that we are undertaking to position the utility for the future. Beyond generation, we also continue to make significant progress in providing benefits to our customers through our transmission investments. We officially kicked off Entergy Louisiana’s Lake Charles Transmission project with a wire cutting ceremony in March. Once completed, this $159 million project will support continue reliability and service to our rapidly growing area and our service directory. On the regulatory front, we've also made progress towards better aligning the timing of our investments with the needs of our customers going forward. This will improve access to the capital needed to make the investments required to enhance reliability and capability of our system and provide lower cost, more environmentally friendly sources of generation for the benefit of our customers. This ultimately supports economic development in our service territory, which strengthens communities, creates jobs and brings more financial stability to the regions we support. This quarter, we filed our concluded several major proceedings. First, we received the final order in our Arkansas rate case and rate adjustments became effective on February 24th. We'll make our first rate plan filing in July under the new framework using the future test year, which will bring more predictability and strength in Entergy Arkansas' financial profile. This new regulatory structure as a result of collaboration among the broad group of stakeholders, it will help us be a stronger partner to attract jobs and economic expansion to Arkansas. Last month, Moody’s acknowledged this view with an upgrade to Entergy Arkansas long-term rating. Entergy Mississippi has also begun to utilize its new formula rate plan with forward-looking features made its first filing on March 15th. The filing reflects an anticipated earned ROE for the 2016 test year that is below the FRP bandwidth indicating a $32.6 million rate increase to a point within the FRP bandwidth that reflects a 9.96% earned ROE. A final order on that filing is expected before the end of the second quarter with the resulting rate adjustments to become effective around mid-year. In mid-February, the administrative law judge issued a proposal for decision with the Public Utility Commission of Texas on our transmission cost recovery filing based on the proposal for decision, we estimate $10 million to $11 million annual recovery on transmission spend incremental to base rates. Use of this writer, along with the distribution cost writer, we have been utilizing since January of 2016 will bring us greater financial flexibility to support the needs of our customers in Texas. The Louisiana Commission also recently opened two generic dockets on income tax and corporate structure questions. The dockets were initiated in response to specific commissioner concerns regarding the CLECO transactions and the implications of that transaction structure on Texas in rate making. While the dockets are generic and in fact, all LPSC jurisdiction of utilities, we believe that the scope of the documents will be narrowly focused on those types of structures that give rise to the dockets and not on broader policy issues like tax normalization, where tax related matters previously approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. Furthermore, we've worked constructively and transparently with the LPSC on tax related matters. The LPSC is permitted with our tax positions, which have resulted in significant benefits to our customers. The commission has two items regarding the CLECO transactions on its business and executive session agenda on April 28th, and we are hopeful they will take that opportunity to clarify the scope of these dockets. We do not expect significant effects for ELL as a result of these dockets. Finally, we carefully monitor the effects of investments in rate actions on our customers' bills, which today remain on average 20% to 25% below the national average. In fact, our average residential rates remain below $0.10 per kilowatt hour. Looking forward, we continue to explore solutions that will meet our customer's changing expectations in the evolving landscape of the utility industry. By introducing new technologies and renewable energy resources, we can build a grid that is cleaner, more resilient and affordable and provides innovative opportunities in the way we interact and generate power for the benefit of all of our customers. We are active on the renewables front with solar pilot programs underway in Mississippi, New Orleans and Arkansas. Entergy Mississippi has completed three solar installations in three different locations, each capable of generating 500 kilowatts. Entergy New Orleans has begun construction of the one megawatt solar generation project with state-of-the-art battery storage technology. And Entergy Arkansas has entered into a power purchase agreement to facilitate construction of an 81 megawatt solar generating facility, which could be online as early as 2018. These are the first steps towards assessing feasibility of utility scale solar generation, a resource that provides one way to help meet our voluntary commitment to stabilize our carbon dioxide emissions and reduce our environmental footprint. At the same time in 2015, our existing generating fleet continue to produce electricity at one of the lowest carbon dioxide emission rates in the United States. We are building on these pilot programs and we've initiated three new requests for proposals for renewable side generation resources to help meet long-term resource planning objectives in our service territory. These RFPs are seeking up to 200 megawatts of capacity for Louisiana, 100 megawatts for Arkansas and 20 megawatts for New Orleans. Beyond pilot programs, we've also created a commercial development and innovation team dedicated to evaluating and integrating other new technologies in our operating model. That team focuses on addressing customer needs and expectations through product and service innovation, technology deployment and alternative service models and also research and development, enabling technologies that enhance the distribution grid and provide higher servicing and reliability for all of our customers. For example, as I mentioned last quarter, we are moving forward with the process to install advanced meters in our distribution system. At our Analyst day in June, we'll give you more details around the next steps for deployment of advanced meters and similar to our approach for our supply plan back in 2014, we'll provide the initial strokes around the broader plans for other potential grid modernization efforts to be followed with more details overtime. I'll take a moment now to talk about initiatives to improve our nuclear operations. First of all, our plants are safe. If they weren't they would not be running. This past year, the performance of our nuclear fleet as a whole was not in line with our standards. Operational excellence is integral to our business model in a core competency, we must maintain to maximize value for all of our stakeholders. We have made it a top priority in 2016 to strengthen the culture of operational excellence throughout our organization. I'd like to extend my thanks to Tim Mitchell, who started this, down this path as our interim Chief Nuclear Officer and welcome Chris Bakken, who has officially joined us as Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, reporting directly to me, Chris will now lead these efforts in the nuclear organization. In January, as part of a comprehensive fleet-wide performance improvement plan, we formed a corporate event response team with industry assessments around best practices and increased engagement with all stakeholders. We are evaluating nuclear operations across our fleet from top to bottom and we continue to evaluate the need for process changes at each individual plant. And it's not just about column four, our main long-term objective is sustained operational excellence across our fleet. This could result in incremental nuclear spending and we are working hard to mitigate any financial implications. At A&O, NRC completed its supplemental inspection and announced those results at a public meeting earlier this month. The NRC is confident that the problems have been identified and a comprehensive plan is being implemented to correct them. The NRC is expected to issue a confirmatory action letter in the next several weeks and we plan to give you an update at Analyst Day. Finally, it’s important to emphasize that the NRC did recognize that the plan is safe to continue power operations and that the actions taken to-date have further improved the margin of safety not only at A&O, but at all of our other nuclear facilities. Pilgrim is also working toward process improvements and the NRC will complete a supplementary inspection of that plant that will focus on the corrective action program weaknesses that resulted in entry into column IV and the safety culture assessment. We will inform the NRC when we are ready for that inspection, which we expect to be in the second-half of this year. Also after careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the plant’s operations, we intend to refuel the plant in spring of 2017 and run the plant safety to its current capacity market commitments with the ISO New England until the plant shutdown date of May 31st, 2019. At any point, we are committed to resolving performance deficiencies and ensuring recovery and plant performance. We performed in completed comprehensive inspections during our planed refueling outage at unit 2. We detected additional work involving [indiscernible], which were fully addressed before restarting the plant. Subject to the completion of engineering analysis, we expect to be done with the additional work and have the plant back online around late June. Finally, we remained focused on safely operating the FitzPatrick plant through January 27th, 2017 followed by a safe shutdown and eventual decommissioning of the facility. The decisions to shut down assets are very difficult. We are proud of our employees who remain focused on safe operations and finishing strong. I'll reiterate our commitment to support them and the communities affected by the difficult decisions we've made for these plants. Speaking of the communities we serve, we recognize that we play an important role as a corporate citizen in every region, where we operate and our core values resonate in the ways we support our communities. Improving education and economic opportunities for customers in our communities is one way we demonstrate our commitment. It's part of a five-year, $5 million initiative to support workforce development training, we made a $250,000 grant jobs for America’s graduates. This program equips at risk SKUs with the skills needed to transition successfully to careers or college addressing critical workforce needs, closing skills gaps and creating a competitive advantage for local communities. The benefits of program like this one are long-lasting, providing opportunities for those who might not otherwise have some and helping to raise the standard of living for a family for generations to come. We've also made a two year, $450,000 grant to the Red Cross to support disaster response in our communities. Recent floods damaged nearly 13,000 homes in Louisiana and damage is still being assessed from this month's flood in Texas. Highlighting the importance of a fast response in times of disaster. To our partnership with Red Cross, Entergy has able to direct funds to communities following storms or other disasters as they are needed, allowing help to be provided more quickly to those in need. I am also proud of our initiatives, which help us maintain a diverse and engaged workforce. Veterans and active reserve make valuable contributions to our company and recognition of our efforts to support National Guard and reserve members; we have been selected as a finalist for the 2016 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. We are pleased to be considered for this honor and we appreciate the sacrifices these employees and their families make in their service to our country as well as the unique skills and experiences that they bring to Entergy. These are just some of the efforts that got us ranked, top quartile and corporate responsibility magazines, annual list of the 100 best corporate citizens. This is the 7th time we've been included on this list, which recognizes company’s taking sustainable responsible actions in areas such as employee relations, philanthropy and community support, environment and climate change. Nowhere these quality is more important apparent and when our employees go above and beyond to serve our customers during their most difficult times. Many of you may have seen or read about the significant flooding in our service territory this quarter. Though our system which stood the conditions quite well, our employees were also diligent in safely restoring powers to those that needed it, repair and damage infrastructure and even saving lives. I am excited by all that we've done so far in 2016 to execute on our strategy. This quarter was a good start to the year. The major undertakings, we've completed will help drive our 2016 results. We're also aware of the challenges ahead and more works needs to be done to deliver on our commitments for the year. Everything we do is designed to support our objective to create value for each of our four stakeholders. We strive to deliver top quartile returns for our owners, provide top quartile satisfaction for our customers to achieve top quartile organizational health scores and top decile safety performance for our employees and maintain an active role in supporting our communities by achieving top decile performance for corporate social responsibility. With these objectives in minds, we remain focused on the strategy we've developed to achieve those objectives that will grow the utility by investing the benefit customers while maintaining competitive rates with ready access to capital in timely and predictable investment recovery, providing the financial strength and flexibility we need to make those investments and continue to reduce the EWC footprint, while ensuring safe operations, regulatory compliance and commercial due diligence for our assets. We're off to a good start and we'll continue to execute through the remainder of the year on the plans that we've laid out. With that, I'll turn the call over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. Good morning, everyone. As Leo mentioned, this is a good start to the year. I'll get straight to the results for the quarter. Turning to slide four, our operational earnings excluding special items were $1.35 per share higher than the expected. This compares to $1.68 the year ago. This quarter's results varied from last year due to the effect of weather and a 2015 income tax item at utility, parent and other and lower wholesale power prices at EWC. These declines were partially offset by growth in the utility business. In both periods, as reported results included special items related to EWC nuclear plants as we've identified the close. These special items are for severance and retention costs as well as capital spending, which is being expensed. Burning the utility, parent and other results on slide five, operational earnings per share decreased $0.13 quarter-over-quarter. However, the adjusted view on slide six, which excludes the effects of weather and income tax items increased $0.19. The growth in our base business as a result of our efforts in the last year to execute on our strategy to make productive investment to benefit customers and proved returns at our operating companies. Consistent with that strategy, Entergy Arkansas rate case is an important driver for the quarterly results. Rate adjustment were in fact of starting February 24 and included recovery for the Union Power Station acquisition. In addition, the final order allowed for deferral that sticks into previously expensed Fukushima and flood barrier compliance cost, which we collected over 10 years. Combined, these items contributed about $0.15 in this quarter's earnings. A second driver of note was improved efforts to manage non-appeal O&M expense, which decreased $0.07 after excluding the deferral I just noted. The scope for lavish spending and benefit costs, including pension were lower, while nuclear spending increased. This quarter, we also recorded a charge of approximately $0.05 associated with FERC orders in the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceedings, which came out last Thursday. The charge represents the portion at EAI's estimated liability that would be attributable to its wholesale business and is not recoverable. This is a complex and technical case to continue on as a FERC and its ultimate outcome is uncertain. We provide additional details in our Form 10-Q. Turning to sales, we also saw earnings contribution from over 6% industrial sales growth. Slide seven provides a breakdown of the increase. About 70% of this quarter's increase came from new and expansion customers across several sectors as they continue to ramp and come online. Higher sales to existing customers were driven by petroleum refiners as fewer and shorter outages drove industrial sales growth in the quarter. This is expected to continue into 2Q. Growth in new and expansion customers are also expected to continue through the rest of the year. However, given how strong refiners ran in the second half of last year and expected outages and changes in operational levels later this year, we expect industrial growth to be weighted towards the first half of 2016. Turning to EWC's first quarter results, summarized on slide eight. Operational earnings were $0.51 in the current quarter, $0.20 lower than the prior year. The single most significant factor was lower wholesale prices. The nuclear fleet average price was down more than $8 per megawatt hour or 13%. In addition, realized earnings on decommissioning trust declined due to last year's pre-balancing activity for BY trust, which resulted in higher interest income in 2015. On the other hand, the effect last year's impairment reduced fuel, nuclear refueling outage and depreciation expenses, which benefited earnings approximately $0.16 this quarter. Slide nine shows operating cash flow for this quarter of $533 million, about $80 million lower than the same quarter in 2015. The largest driver was reduced net revenue at EWC. Our 2016 earnings guidance is summarized on slide 10. As of today, we see adjusted utility, parent and other earnings at our guidance midpoint. Recall, this excludes the effect of any weather or tax items. For our consolidated guidance, we must also consider negative weather to-date, EWC price decline since year-end and the extended outage of Indian [ph] point unit two. For IP2, we have not yet completed our engineering analysis, but based on information to-date, our preliminary estimate is that the extended outage will reduce earnings by approximately $0.20. This is primarily from loss revenue, that also includes higher refueling outage costs, which we currently estimate to be around $20 million. The higher outage cost will be amortized over the life of the outage for the bulk of the earnings effect in 2017. Looking at the balance of the year, there are additional risks and opportunities that could apply to both utility, parent and another as well as Entergy overall. As Leo mentioned, we have the potential for higher nuclear spending, as we execute on our nuclear performance improvement plans. And as always there are potential risks to our sales forecast, we also see opportunities to mitigate these challenges or provide upside, starting with management of our spending some of which began in the first quarter. In addition, as we mentioned in our last quarterly call, there is potential for income tax items, possibly as early as second quarter of this year. Considering all these factors, we are affirming our guidance for the year. Moving to the longer-term view, slide 11 shows our adjusted utility, parent and another outlook, which is unchanged. Some of the challenges and opportunities that we've noted for '16 exist on an ongoing basis, and added uncertainty for, with an added uncertainty for pension expenses. But also with the added benefits of efficient regulatory mechanisms. Our strategy to realize these results remains the same, as we focus on making productive investment to benefit customers, while maintaining competitive rates, with timely and predictable investment recovery. Slide 12 provides EWC's EBITDA outlook, assuming market prices as of March 31st. One thing to note is the root cause analysis being in point two both issues could prompt an accelerated inspection scheduled for unit 3 at Indian [ph] point. This is not reflective in our current estimates and we plan to provide more information once our analysis is complete. Before closing, I'd like to give you a little more detail on our Analyst Day on June 9th in New York City in Midtown. We’ll talk about what's next for Entergy and the utility growth opportunities before us. We’ll also provide some longer-term five-year views and more detailed on our nuclear performance improvement plans. Our extended management team including our new Chief Nuclear Officer, Chris Bakken will be there to give you an opportunity to talk with them about their areas of responsibility, I look forward to seeing you there, and now the Entergy team is available to answer your question.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from the line of Roselynn Armstrong from Barclays. Your question please.
Roselynn Armstrong:
Hi, could you go back to the Indian [ph] point two discussions and just clarify, is the additional $0.20 of on outage related expenses or is that included in the 420 to 450 of utility, parent and other adjusted earnings or is that outside of it and then separately could you talk a little bit about where you are in that process have you identified the number of bolts that need to be replaced, this equipment onsite, when will the replacement begin et cetera. However, you can add.
Andrew Marsh:
Okay. Good morning, Roselynn. This is Drew. I’ll take the first part of the question and then I'll turn it over to Bill, so first part of the question was, it's a $0.20 of IP2 included in the affirmation of the outlook. In the overall consolidated number, it is included and we do believe there are things that will get us back into the range. For utility, parent and other of course that's separate from EWC. So, we wouldn't include IP2 within that.
Roselynn Armstrong:
Right. Fair enough. Okay.
Andrew Marsh:
It is included in the overall guidance range.
Roselynn Armstrong:
Okay. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Yes, as it relates to the number of bolts and the timing of the return of the unit, we're still in the process of completing the engineering as to the specific number of bolts. However, we do have the equipment onsite and are in fact, replacing bolts as we speak. That was a little long lead time item. But we are in the process of doing that right now and obviously are working very closely with the NRC. So we get concurrence on our analysis and final repairs.
Roselynn Armstrong:
Okay. Thank you.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your question please.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys. One follow-up in Indian [ph] point and then over to the regulated side. On the Indian [ph] point on the IP2 issues is the bulk of that an issue that impact second quarter 2016 in terms of that $0.20 or does this drag throughout 2016 and even into 2017.
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew again. So it's going to be the bulk of it in the second quarter, because most of it as I said and my remarks was net revenue and we are not expecting that plant to come on toward until near the end of June. So that's basically the entire quarter is going to be loss from net revenue perspective. The refueling outage expenses are going to move across the new fuel cycle and it's a little shorter than it typically is. It's usually I guess 23 months or so and it's now going to be probably a 20 months. So it's - I don't know seven or so cents associated with that most of that maybe $0.05 will show up in 70 into the amortization. So, maybe a penny this year and maybe a penny in '18.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you. And overall on the regulated side, you've talked a little bit about smart meters. You've talked a little down and it's been a while since you've done so about natural gas reserves and rate bases. Outside of adding new generation to the fleet, can you talk a little bit about what other items could have the biggest impact over the next three to five years to potential rate base growth and just kind of walk us through high level, where you see the greatest opportunities that may not actually be in your current CapEx forecast.
Leo Denault:
Michael, that's - I guess I was giving you a little bit of a teaser of what we wanted to talk a little bit about at Analyst day. So if I let Theo go off on that now I'll take away that surprise. But the fact of the matter is we are in the process of evaluating a lot of that right now. Certainly getting the meter technology on to the system is the first step along with all the back office systems in meter data management systems and likely go with that. So that's in the near term that's what we are talking about. Some of these two - extended out beyond that 2018 timeframe that we're talking about.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thanks, Leo. Much appreciate it.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Michael.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Deutsche Bank. Your question please.
Jonathan Arnold:
Good morning, guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Jon.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just curious if you could talk a little to what it was that drove the quarter so much higher than the 1/10 you were speaking to on the - I guess the Q4 call, it sounds like weather continued to be wild, were you not counting on the Arkansas decision perhaps or just trying to understand what surprised you in that sort of back half of the quarter.
Andrew Marsh:
Okay. Thanks Jonathan. This is Drew. So there were a couple of things that broke our way in the quarter and some of things that were determined and some of the things were timing. So in EWC there was some mark-to-market and elements that they came in about $0.04 of that and then about $0.03 of volume as we actually ran better in the quarter before the outages, the planned outages took over. So, we actually were about $0.07, $0.08 ahead at EWC versus our previous expectation. The balance of it that was the utility some of it was - are the bulk of the O&M savings that we saw above expectation. We're in the fossil area as we came through the outage fees and then we actually did much better than we have historically and then the balance of it as you referenced, there was some conservatism built into the Arkansas rate case. So that was justified right at the very end, we did lose 5 million of comp, but that’s spread out differently than we built the conservatism into our case. Some of those Fukushima and floor barrier cost were not part of our expectations for the quarter, but we're able to stay in, in that final order and then some timing elements were for the period between February 24th and April 1st went in our favor, but they ran our overall expectations. So that’s more of a timing shift between periods. So that’s really the bulk of those items and so hopefully that helps close the gap for you a little bit.
Jonathan Arnold:
That's really helpful. Thank you. And could I just had similar vein, the - you made a comment about I think you were hinting that there could be some tax items as early as the second quarter and you made that comment in the context of having maintain guidance. Are you maintaining guidance, because of that item or you see that more as an upside?
Andrew Marsh:
I think, it’s a big piece of how we're able to maintain guidance on Entergy overall. As you know on the utility side, our adjusted utility, parent and other, it doesn’t include taxes or weather. And so for that part of the business, we're solidly saying we're right at the midpoint, but when we go back to the overall consolidated business, we have the big one-time outage at IP2. We have the negative weather and then of course the prices of EWC. Those put us down there or below the bottom of our range, but with the expectation that we would get some benefit out of taxes. Possibly I said as early as next quarter, we think we're going to get back into the range, so it’s too early to make that call now.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, but those are the moving pieces that's directionally. Thank you.
Operator:
And your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd from Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Stephen.
Stephen Byrd:
I wanted to get your view on the commercial and residential low growth numbers that we saw after the quarter. They were weather adjusted fairly weak, is this something that’s just sort of a quarterly fluctuations or are there driver that you see there any color you can provide on that?
Leo Denault:
Sure Stephen. This is Leo, I think when we think about those two particular classes, we continue to see impacts from energy efficiency as we've talked about on previous calls both kind of federal type programs as well some of our local energy efficiency programs that we see in our jurisdiction. In terms of what we expected, I mean given some of the economic data that we utilize and to try and forecast sales, we did see some economic weakening in the first quarter and somewhat expected that. So while I do agree it was fairly low for the first quarter, it was a little bit below our expectations, but it wasn’t necessarily a big surprise to us and as we go forward throughout the year, we expect to see that to come back as we look at gross stake products and regions that we serve particularly Louisiana and Texas, we see that’s starting to kind of fill out and began to trend upward and we think that will help move those growth rate by more typical level but again energy efficiency will continue to have an impact on our residential and commercial sectors.
Stephen Byrd:
Understood. And can you remind me as you thought about guidance for '16 and where you're headed, what your expectations are for full year low growth or commercial and residential?
Leo Denault:
I think as we go forward, we have - we continue to monitor various variables and inputs relative to that and we'll talk more about at our Analyst Day. But clearly what we saw in our first quarter we are going to continue to monitor what we expect for the remainder of the year make adjustments as necessary, but what I'll also say is given where we are as it relates to sales growth we brought, we did consider that and our reaffirming of our guidance. And so, we feel like we'll continue to evaluate it. But I feel like we will still as it affects us going forward will not take a side of our guidance range at this point.
Stephen Byrd:
Understood. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta from Citigroup. Your question, please.
Praful Mehta:
Thank you. Hi guys. On the strategic side, given your transition now to become more utility pure play, clearly are right now, M&A opportunities in this space on the utility side there are utilities coming out of bankruptcy potentially. How are you seeing strategically where Entergy should be going an area that you think from an M&A perspective as strategic direction perspective, you would like to go more broadly.
Leo Denault:
Thanks Praful. The main thing to keep in mind is the same three criteria that exists today that have always existed. Anything we do would need to be consistent with the internal plan that we have right now. And as you know we have a lot of organic growth that is happening because of the modernization of our infrastructure in both transmission and generation and then some of the things that we've talked about as it relates to new technologies that we can deploy whether it's the solar RFPs et cetera that I've talked about or the advanced metering or what's become next. So we've got a significant organic growth opportunity and working through the investment plan the financing plan and the regulatory structure of around that to make it beneficial to our customers first and for most of our undermined. So anything we do would have to be consistent with that objective or with that strategy, so that's the first screen we go through it's what would help as if now whether it's cash flow balance sheet other growth opportunities technological synergies et cetera. Secondly, we would want it to be translatable something that we know we can have a really chance of getting done both through counterparty engagement price that make sense to us on whatever side of the table we would sit out and regulatory execution. And three it cannot distract us from doing number one. we don't want to have a couple of years of not doing the growth organic growth that we have today while we try to do something that supposed to help us to get that done. So those three criteria continue. And the way we look at it. As you know we evaluate this kind of thing on a regular ongoing basis as it comes up, we'll obviously let you know. But we still look at it at that way there is nothing to change in regard to that.
Praful Mehta:
Fair enough. Thanks Leo. And secondly just on EWC, I saw that you brought down your guidance or the EBITDA for EWC in 2018. Is that more commodity curves or is there something else that's driving it? And secondly as more plants retire due our expected O&M per megawatt hour to go up given there is now less synergy given you have smaller fleet. And is there any impact of that flowing into the reduced EBITDA guidance for '18?
Andrew Marsh:
Well, I'll take I guess I'll try to answer it and then Bill can cover with any color. So it is primarily energy driven profitable. There are some capacity elements actually pushing back against that a little bit. Our capacity price expectations are little higher in '17 and '18 in New York. But it's primarily energy price drive. And I don't think there is any big changes in O&M or do like energy spend a little bit on this because that does not a whole lot when we talk about '18. And then the second question was?
Bill Mohl:
Yeah on the overhead, we've been looking at that very closely. So we are implementing a plan to decrease the associated overhead consistent with the downsizing of EWC. And I couldn't tell you at this point in time exactly where that stands in terms of what may and how that maybe split. Because we run as a fleet, but I can assure that we've been looking at that very closely and setting up a plan, where we will reduce those costs overtime commensurate with the downsizing of the fleet in the North East.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Thank you. And just to clarify Drew the underlying gas price that's driving 2018 EBITDA, have you put that out or do you know what that is?
Andrew Marsh:
I mean I think it's consistent with whatever the market is. So I don't know a little bit below 3 bucks.
Bill Mohl:
A little bit below 3 bucks, correct.
Praful Mehta:
Got you. Thank you, guys.
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah, we use mark-to-market on those EBITDA [indiscernible] as of March 31st.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Chin from Merrill Lynch. Your question please.
Brian Chin:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Brian.
Brian Chin:
Just a follow-up to your answer to Jon Arnold’s question. I think you said that part of the beat for the quarter was based on some conservatism that was built into the numbers from the Entergy Arkansas recent decision. Just remind me or say one more time what was that amount and when did that benefit weaken in the quarter?
Andrew Marsh:
Okay, so the effective date of the order was February 24, and Bill went into effect on April 1st. So we had modeled it so that we would start collecting the revenues on April 1st, but the accounting ultimately allowed us to accrue it during the first quarter. So I think there was a little bit of timing switch there, that was may be $0.05 then I am sorry.
Brian Chin:
That was $0.05 from the order date till the end of the quarter is that right?
Andrew Marsh:
Yeah. And then the other big piece was the $0.06 of the regulatory assets that we got from Fukushima and flood barrier pieces and that is kind of a one-time deal that is the breakout.
Brian Chin:
Understood. And then going back to that $0.05 for Arkansas should we assume a similar run rate of conservatism if we pro rata that out that is embedded in the remaining quarters of 2016?
Andrew Marsh:
No, I think we were expecting to collect that over the remaining quarters. So I don’t think there is going to be any extra opportunity there from the rate case on an annual basis.
Brian Chin:
Got you. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Andrew Marsh:
No I was trying to see if that answers your question, sound like it did.
Brian Chin:
Yes, it did. And then, I guess in your prepared remarks you made reference to the Louisiana commissions next meeting I guess on April 28th here and the thought is to narrow the scope of the dockets, could you just give a little bit more color on what’s your expectations of how they are going to narrow that scope there?
Andrew Marsh:
I think Leo pretty much summed it up in his opening comments, I think it was clear based on what is seeing forward as relates to the docket the question refers to exactly what the commission's intent was and the stated we have a perspective as to what we believe - that’s where hopefully that’s where we will see it go when they do hopefully bring it up again on the 28th.
Brian Chin:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Brian.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from UBS. Your question please.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hi, good morning.
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So just wanted to follow a little bit up on some of the last questions here, as you transition your portfolio back towards a more regulated outlook, can you comment a bit on the opportunity eventually buy yourself out of some of the existing contracts for instance Palisades if that has been an opportunity you’ve export or you have conversations with them?
Leo Denault:
You do have - the objective we have as I stated in my remarks around strategies to reduce footprint of EWC and we have done that rise Vermont Yankee and told FitzPatrick to follow and the plants that aren't supported by the market or that are and no longer fit the portfolio. As far as the operating plants just lump I think Indian [ph] point and Palisades in together, you certainly can currently today they are not in the same situation necessarily is the other plants as far as being cash flows positive if they are not operating versus cash flows positive if they are, remember when we made those positions around those faculties we worked at three different things. One, what is the NPV of the facilities that may get positive, two, what is the near-term cash flows burn rate positive or negative and three, how does it change the risk profile of the company I think we achieved our objectives with all of those including the rise sale around that and we continue to evaluate the other plants in this similar manner. The difference being obviously the PPA supports the cost structured, Palisades and the market supports the cost structure at Indian [ph] point. As far as any kind of opportunities that we will have around those facilities outside of the decisions we've already made. I can't really comment and wouldn't comment on that. Just because once we start down that path our strategy or our policy has just not comment on those sort of things. But like I said we are looking at those in the same way from an MPD cash flow and risk stand point. What our options with those facilities and we will pick the one that we believe creates the best value for us stakeholders and again as the MPD positive to run versus whatever alternatively become that will be a major driver. Cash flow positive or negative particularly in the near terms. One of those alternative or to run the plan and third it's the there's a change to risk profile and obviously our GU is big, making that footprint smaller doesn't prove the risk profile of the company and then last thing we always need to look at it's the execution opportunity is a company, similar to what I discussed on the question around M&A. These are lot of things we could do, we had to make sure anything we do is executable both with the counter party. Our own point of view and through the regulatory process.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Great, thank you. As a follow-up to the prior question here. So a little explicit. Are you guys expecting to participate and submit a self-build option into the renewable RFP upstanding in Louisiana.
Leo Denault:
That we can't comment on that, one way of the other way really at this point.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Okay. But mid perhaps generically would you be open to participating in generation opportunities outside of gas?
Leo Denault:
We already, as I mentioned we are building the 1 megawatt plant with battery storage here in New Orleans, we dealt to three facilities in Mississippi. We are not building the plan our consult. But we are having excluded by our contract for the power out of that. So we already participate in that arena and we would continue to look at those sorts of things going forward because we think that's again as I said my prepared remarks that's a way for us to continue at resiliency away for us to continue to add good service to our customer, high reliability, more a beneficial environmental foot print. It's largely to get cost, right, because we do value the fact that our pricing is lower than majority of the rest of the companies United States won't stay there.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Great. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of David Passé [ph] from Wolfe Research. Your question please.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hey, good morning. Just a couple of quick ones. Why did your 2017 EWC EBITDA outlook remain unchanged around $510 million what were the drivers of that?
Andrew Marsh:
The big driver is we've seen an uplift in LHB pricing. So approximately couple of hours KW month that's probably about a $48 million impact on positive side, so that's offset some of the commodity energy pricing and energy price decrease we've seen.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. That's a big one. Okay and then just on MI and great month. Are those plans already in here, were those already in here weight based outlook that you gave us.
Leo Denault:
Some of the cost associated with the metering is in there.
Unidentified Analyst:
But the bulk of it is outside there? Outside your '16 '18 plan?
Leo Denault:
Correct.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. Great. And then just on the nuclear spending. How can we think about what ongoing nuke spend will be going forward at the utility segment or at EWC or just both, how should we think about that?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew and I'll just say that's going to be a big topic at the Analyst Day here in a few weeks and we are trying to give you some framework around that. But we are still getting our hands around, our performance improvement plan and of course as you know (Chris) has just been here for a couple of weeks. So he is getting his hands around as well. But I think the important thing for us is that at the same time we are doing now. We're also looking for opportunities to mitigate that in the business. And some of them you've already seen show up. Things like insurance rebase or lower interest costs, because the interest rate environment and then we have some O&M opportunities that we found that with and the first quarter like the powerful outage management something like that. So there are opportunities that we have identified to begin with the offset that. Obviously we're now done looking for those. But at this point we see if we can manage those costs within the framework of the expectations that we have look at and outlooks right now.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. All right. And your full year impacts for the A&O and Pilgrim still the same, in other words I think $50 million for A&O and $30 million for Pilgrim.
Andrew Marsh:
They are currently the same. We just got the report the initial report I guess on A&O. And we're looking as we have mentioned for the letter from the NRC. Once we get that we'll have a better idea if there any incremental risk associated with A&O. And Pilgrim's inspection we expect it to be sometimes in the second half of this year. And we'll have better information then. So as if now those costs are the same in fact.
Unidentified Analyst:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Shayla Theresa [ph] from Guggenheim Partners. Your question please.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hey guys, question is answered. Thanks so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question for today due to time comes from the line Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Your question please.
Paul Patterson:
Hi. How you're doing?
Andrew Marsh:
Good morning, Paul.
Paul Patterson:
Just everything is pretty much being asked and answered. But just I'm sorry if I missed this. But you mentioned the generic stuff in Louisiana and so which you think might be unfold in the air. Do you have any picture at this point on what might be happening in Texas with sort of a similar issue? Or is just too early?
Andrew Marsh:
Encore and the REIT assessments?
Paul Patterson:
Right as I guess that you're doing a little bit more generically as well, right?
Andrew Marsh:
Paul I mean at this point we may have to get back with you in follow-up. But I don't I'm not sure it's been move forward enough for us to get a I think the perspective as to how it impact that. But I mean that I don't we don't see that having a major impact on us at this point. But again we will follow up with you if in fact that just different. But again it's just fairly generic and so we get more specificity relative to that. We don't necessarily see it having an impact on that.
Paul Patterson:
Okay great and then just in terms of the FitzPatrick. There are constant discussions about New York coming with some of plans of rescue the news what have you. And I know that you guys have basically been indicating this one of that that it's really too far along. But again you keep I hearing that the governor is hopeful that it's going to be able to keep it up. And is there sort of a point of no return at all in terms of cost that already with respect to FitzPatrick or how should we think about that where we can we keep on hearing that? He wants to do something for the nuclear plant.
Leo Denault:
So for the first thing I would say Paul is that obviously we - standpoint closely of FitzPatrick the right thing to do and we would have loved further to have been a way around that, if the economics could have been different and we've for example we've been promoting a clean energy standard in New York that would include nuclear plants for several years. And the reason obviously that we do that is wanted the right thing to do from a public policy standpoint and it certainly the right thing to do from an environmental standpoint from an energy price standpoint for the markets reliability the whole nine yards, And we've been promoting it for a number of years because obviously these things must take their course in the regulatory arena and then in the legislative or legislative or if the courts and obviously you can always expect there to be intervention into anything that comes up and these things just take a long time to develop. And so right now there is no nothing in place, we don't know if there was something in place what it would be, we don’t know if we knew how restructured what it would provide, we don’t know if what it provides it would be enough to support the economics plant. And we don’t know that the timing of it could ever be done before, we had to make the decision to ahead and refuel which then recommend to several hundred million dollars of losses so, we are out of time. It is not that we against any of those proposals in terms of on their face other than I would say that obviously we believe there is clean energy standards in New York that includes nuclear, it should include all of the nuclear plants. And we commend for the efforts because we think that is the right thing to do and we would have been proposing it for the last couple of years but I mean you hit the nail on head on this point of no return aspect it is not in place, we don’t know what it is? We don’t know what it will provide? We don’t know what the economics would be for it run its course again we get to the point we're unfortunately we likely out of time. So anything that says we are opposed to clean energy standard in the like we are not we have fully those all along again we do thing that should incorporate all the plants in the state. We would be - all plants in the country actually to be consistent but right now there is nothing in place that we could look at, that would provide us the opportunity to change our decision.
Paul Patterson:
Okay, thank you very much.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And this does conclude the question-and-answer session of today’s program. I’d like to hand the program back to David Borde for any further remarks.
David Borde:
Great, thank you. And thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our quarterly report on Form 10-K is due to the SEC by May 10th and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence and conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056, confirmation ID 85413992. The telephone replay will be available until May 3rd. And this concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President, Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer Bill Mohl - President, Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Analysts:
Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Praful Mehta - Citigroup Charles Fishman - Morningstar
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Teleconference. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Paula Waters, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please begin.
Paula Waters:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company’s SEC filings. And now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Paula and good morning everyone. Today, we are reporting fourth quarter operational earnings per share of $1.58, consistent with the guidance we gave you last quarter. It was a good quarter overall, although developments related to resolving lingering risks and uncertainties resulted in a few non-recurring expenses. Namely, we had two regulatory charges in utility related to longstanding matters and we reported two additional asset impairments, reflecting the changes in strategic direction for the EWC business. With those things now mostly behind us, we have initiated 2016 guidance with the midpoint in line with our expectations. We also affirmed our 2017 and 2018 utility, parent and other financial outlook. 2015 was a pivotal year for us. We accomplished much of what we set out to do, working in the interest of all four of our stakeholders. For our customers, we began making investments in our long-term capital plan to continue modernizing our infrastructure and maintain a reliable and efficient system. Meanwhile, we control the overall cost in our customer bills and obtain new legislation and regulatory actions. These accomplishments facilitate our ability to continue improving our service to customers. Our employees, we continue to purchase – to pursue our organizational health initiative soliciting feedback from our workforce and using it to strengthen our culture and enhance our organization. For our communities, we continued our focus on education putting particular emphasis on workforce development. We began a $5 million 5-year workforce development initiative in partnership with the communities we serve. The first round of grants will be announced soon. We also contributed approximately $3 million throughout 2015 in support of education to organizations such as Teach for America, STEM/NOVA, Jobs for Americans Graduates and City Gear, among others. Our employees echoed our commitment, giving more than 95,000 hours of their time to support education and other causes. Combined with our work in other areas like assistance to low income families, these contributions are accomplishing several objectives. We are creating economic activity when trained and educated people enter the workforce. We are creating valuable resources and a competitive advantage for our region helping to attract new businesses. Our efforts work for us as we need new skilled employees. And perhaps most importantly, our efforts provide an opportunity to those that might not otherwise have one, so that the cycle of poverty can be eliminated for a family for generations to come. For our owners, we successfully executed on our strategy designed to provide long-term growth and stability and therefore increased our dividend by 2.4%, the first increase in more than 5 years. We will continue working towards our objective of steady, predictable dividend growth. We also strengthened our credit profile as recognized by the major rating agencies, with several positive changes in the outlooks for our ratings, along with the rating upgrade for Entergy New Orleans by Moody’s. Nevertheless, in some ways, 2015 was a year of challenges and evolution. Our total shareholder return for 2015 was disappointing. However, our returns since September 30, have placed us second overall among our 20 utility peers. Your positive reaction to successes and other actions since the third quarter of 2015 validates the momentum we see as we move into 2016. At EWC, we took steps to reduce volatility and gain clarity on the future of the business. Closing Pilgrim and FitzPatrick was not the path we wanted to take. After pursuing many alternatives, they ultimately were the only options remaining for us. We know they are tough decisions for those involved and we are committed to supporting our employees who work at these plants and their communities throughout this difficult transition. I will take a moment now to expand more on some of our fourth quarter 2015 accomplishments beginning with the utility. I have mentioned the necessity to continue to modernize our infrastructure and maintain a reliable system. To this end, our purchase of Union Power Station has received the necessary retail regulatory approvals. One last approval was pending from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Upon closing, the purchase of this plant will provide lower cost, reliable generation to our customers for many years to come. 2015 also saw the start of a regulatory process for the St. Charles generation project, a 980-megawatt combined cycle gas turbine plant to be constructed in Montz, Louisiana. We have requested approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission to proceed with the construction of this new modern plant, which will provide economic and reliable power for many years. The targeted in-service date is June 2019. In addition to approval of more than $700 million of transmission investments in all four states of our service territory, as part of the Mid-Continent Independent System Operator, or MISO, MTEP15 process, we initiated one of the largest transmission projects in our history. This project includes two new substations, expansion of two existing substations and 25 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines around the Lake Charles Louisiana area. It will both enhance reliability for existing customers in that area as well as support new load in this growing region of Louisiana. The Louisiana Public Service Commission approved a Certificate of Public Need and Necessity at its business and executive session in December. We expect construction to begin in the first quarter of 2016. Our regulatory frameworks are now better aligned to facilitate future investments to enhance the efficiency and reliability of our system to benefit our customers. We are seeing the results of this improved framework and the settlement of our Arkansas rate case. The settlement reflects a net $133 million base rate increase and a 9.75% authorized return on equity effective at the end of February. It also sets the framework for the formula rate plan with the future test year in the coming years. The Arkansas Public Service Commission is expected to act on the settlement and issue an order later this month. With this new regulatory structure, we will have increased financial flexibility and ability to execute on capital investments in response to our customers’ needs. Affirming this view, Moody’s revised EAI’s outlook to positive in April following the adoption of the legislation, allowing for a forward test year FRP and the filing of the rate case to use the new FRP. Moreover, the new regulatory structure will help Entergy Arkansas support economic expansion, creating jobs for our customers in these communities and spreading fixed costs over more sales and helping to maintain the rate advantage. We will be able to provide similar benefits to our customers in Mississippi as Entergy Mississippi’s first FRP with forward-looking features was approved earlier in 2015. In addition, we have been partnering with Mississippi state officials to help bring 2,500 jobs to Hinds County through a $1.45 billion tire plant in our service territory. Mississippi lawmakers approved an incentive package for Continental Tires, one of the top five worldwide automotive suppliers to build a new facility near Clinton. This announcement further demonstrates how Mississippi is a premier location for automotive production as they join Nissan and Toyota in the state. In Texas, we are using some of the new rider mechanisms to provide similar financial flexibility and the ability to support the needs of our customers. We have reached a settlement for an incremental increase to our distribution investment rider of just over $5 million effective at the start of the year. The Public Utility Commission in Texas approved the settlement last week. We also are nearing completion of the regulatory view of our request for an incremental $13 million revenue requirement under a similar rider for transmission investment. We expect a proposal for decision later this month and the commission consideration in March. Finally, we reached a milestone on December 29 when we received the final approval from FERC to end the system agreement among Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Texas and Entergy New Orleans, the three operating companies that remain parties to the agreement. This is an important step towards simplifying our regulatory structure and reducing risk and uncertainty for us and our customers. It will allow us to put greater focus on the distinct opportunities that each of our retail regulatory jurisdictions as well as our core operations without the distractions from constant interregional litigation associated with this agreement. Along with our plans for capital investment, we are carefully monitoring the affect of these investments on our customer’s bills. Based on the most recent EAI data, our average rates are over 25% below the national average. Historically low natural gas prices also have helped lower customer bills and are offsetting some increases in base rates. As a result, our customers will continue to benefit from some of the lowest rates in the country while also benefiting from a more modern and efficient electric system. Looking back at EWC in the fourth quarter, we have worked towards resolution on the future of each of our plants, advancing our strategy to both provide capital to invest in other opportunities and to reduce risk and volatility from this part of our business. We closed on the sale of our 583 megawatt Rhode Island CCGT on December 17. This plant was a good investment for us, its sale now frees up resources we can use to support other opportunities. The New York ISO recently determined the retirement of FitzPatrick, when combined with several other facilities, will result in a resource adequacy shortfall in 2019. However, we expect there will be more cost effective solutions to fill this need. And ISO New England determined that there is no reliability need associated with the Pilgrim retirement in June of 2019. As a result, we will move forward with plans to close both plants. As we have said before, these difficult yet necessary steps or not what we wanted. On a positive note, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the license amendments for Palisades, reflecting updated guidance, inspection and analysis on the reactor vessel head embitterment. These amendments confirm that the plant needs the appropriate criteria to run till the end of its extended license and will not be forced into an early shutdown. At Indian Point, we continue to pursue license renewal in each of our plants to resolve the Coastal Zone Management Act and Clean Water Act requirements remains open. The NRC confirmed that our timely application for renewal enabled the continued operation of the Indian Point following the original expiration date of the unit’s license this past December. Additionally, the NRC issued a draft update to the Indian Point supplemental and Environmental impact Statement, which reaffirm the NRC’s previous conclusion that the environmental effects of Indian Point’s continued operation are not an obstacle to license renewal. And lastly, Vermont Yankee announced that it would be ready to begin the transfer of spent fuel into dry cast starting in 2017, 2 years earlier than originally planned. We are seeking approval from the Public Service Board for Certificate of Public Good, so we can begin construction of the storage pad to complete the safe transfer to dry storage. Now it’s time to look to the future. Last year’s strategic accomplishments have ultimately set us up to undertake an equally ambitious list for 2016. You can read the list on Slide 3. Several of the items listed are related to closing out the regulatory agenda we began in 2015 and using the tools we have to execute on our capital investment plan. These regulatory items include the now approved distribution rider and the pending transmission rider filings in Texas and making our first forward-looking formula rate plan filings in Arkansas and Mississippi, as well as the second combined Entergy Louisiana FRP filing using a 2015 test year. Also on our to-do list are steps which help continue to modernize and enhance our utility system. As I said earlier, we have requested approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission to proceed with the construction of the St. Charles power station. We will make selections in our request for proposals for Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas, long-term resources in the coming months. We will begin construction of the Lake Charles Transmission Project, as well as numerous other significant transmission projects. Lastly, we continue to move forward with the process for installing smart meters on our utility system. Smart meters are a foundational investment in the grid modernization opportunity I spoke about at EEI. These types of investments are another way for us to lower costs and improve service for our customers. Some benefits of it AMI include operational efficiencies, timely information provided to our customers so they can better understand and control their usage and faster outage restoration and improved system reliability for our customers. The next step involves further engaging our regulators and other stakeholders to discuss this investment and its associated benefits and we continue to evaluate other investments in the grid that can benefit our customers. The operating companies anticipate making regulatory filings where applicable for the smart meter investment between the third quarter of 2016 and the third quarter of 2017. A piece of the 3-year capital plan laid out in our slides today is earmarked for this initiative and we will share more with you over time on AMI as well as what might be next. At EWC, we continue to make plans and preparations for transitioning the FitzPatrick and Pilgrim nuclear plants to the decommissioning phase. At Pilgrim, we will make a decision by mid-year on whether to refuel the plant for another 2-year operating cycle. I would like to take a moment to personally thank the more than 1,200 employees at both our Pilgrim and FitzPatrick plants for staying focused on continued safe and secure operations. I want to acknowledge their professionalism, dedication and hard work throughout this time of transition. After all the underlying objective that supports all of the initiative on the to-do list, is the imperative to get the fundamentals right. Without that, nothing else works. That means continuing to deliver safe, reliable power and natural gas to our customers at the lowest reasonable cost. These actions, combined with our other ongoing initiatives, will contribute towards meeting our objectives in the interest of all four of our stakeholders. That is the execution of the journey we set out on 3 years ago. We have set clear objectives to create sustainable value for all of our stakeholders. For owners, deliver top quartile returns through steady and predictable utility and parent and other earnings growth and dividend growth while reducing risk, particularly in the volatile commodity exposed generation business. For our customers, deliver top quartile customer satisfaction through anticipating customer needs and exceeding their expectations while keeping rates reasonable. For employees, we are on the top quartile score for organizational health by providing a stable environment with a healthy culture that provides clear direction to our employees and attractive opportunities for career development. And for our communities, where all of us live, maintaining an active role in making things better. This includes helping to bring jobs through economic development, helping ensure we have a trained workforce available to fill those jobs, giving both our time and financial support and operating in a socially and environmentally responsible way. These objectives form the basis of our strategy investing in the utility to benefit customers while maintaining competitive rates with ready access to capital and timely and predicable investment recovery, providing the financial strength and flexibility we need to make these investments and reducing volatility from our merchant business and freeing up resources to invest in other opportunities. This strategy has given the plan for execution we laid out on the 2016 to-do list. From objectives to strategy, all the way through execution, we have made great progress. We have a clear vision for what we still must do. We have the tools in place to do it. We will talk more about this journey at our Analyst Day in June 9. Please mark your calendars now and we will have more details as the day gets closer. With that, I will turn the call over to Drew.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo and good morning everyone. Today, I will discuss fourth quarter and full year 2015 results, followed by our guidance for 2016 and our outlook to 2018. But before we get into details, the punch-line is that our results and expectations remain in line with all that we have discussed with you. Now, let’s jump into 2015. Results for the quarter are summarized on Slide 4 of our presentation. Operational earnings, excluding special items were $1.58 per share, up from $0.75 a year ago and in line with the expectations we shared last November. Most significant special items include EWC’s non-cash impairment of our Palisades unit and the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center. Operational earnings for the business increased due to tax items, partially offset by utility charges, warm weather and lower wholesale power prices. Looking at utility, parent and other results on Slide 5, operational earnings per share increased quarter-over-quarter. The main driver was income tax as a result of the business combination for the two Louisiana operating companies, which was completed in October. This item contributed $1.50 to fourth quarter earnings after reserves to share $107 million with customers. The customer sharing is reflected as a reduction in net revenue. Unfavorable weather partially offset the tax items. Slide 6 shows our adjusted view of utility, parent and other earnings, which excludes weather and normalizes for income tax items. The adjusted view was lower than the same period a year ago. However, as Leo mentioned, this quarter’s result included two charges totaling $0.35 per share. Considering those charges, the underlying business was in line with our November expectations. Volume increased for both residential, weather-adjusted sales and industrial sales. Our residential growth was 1.6% and sales to industrial customers increased 0.6%, as shown on Slide 7. We continue to see gains for new and expansion projects, adding approximately 300 gigawatt hours or 2.7% to our industrial sales this quarter. However, volume from existing industrial customers declined due primarily to weakness in the core alkali sector and an extended outage for a key customer, which we mentioned last quarter. Recently, we have also seen weakness in the metals and wood product sectors. On the positive side, sales to existing petroleum refining customers increased on higher production due to continued favorable market conditions. EWC fourth quarter results are summarized on Slide 8. Operational earnings were $0.16 in the current quarter, $0.23 lower than the fourth quarter of 2014. The most significant factor was lower wholesale prices. The nuclear fleet revenue was $44 per megawatt hour this quarter, down from $54 in 2014, excluding Vermont Yankee. Closure of VY contributed $0.05 to the decline. Conversely, the effects of last quarter’s impairments reduced fuel, non-fuel O&M and depreciation expenses, which helped earnings $0.14. Income tax variance of $0.13 also contributed to the offset. Slide 9 shows operating cash flow this quarter about $50 million lower than the same quarter in 2014. Biggest driver was reduced net revenue at EWC. Now, I will quickly go through full year results, summarized on Slide 10. Operational earnings for 2015 were $6 per share, up from $5.83 in 2014, once again in line with the expectations we shared last November. Higher earnings at utility, parent and other drove the increase. As shown on Slide 11, utility, parent and other operational earnings share results were $4.97 in 2015 compared to $3.64 in the prior year led primarily by the aforementioned income tax items. On Slide 12, adjusted utility, parent and other results came in at $3.08, excluding weather and normalizing for taxes lower than in 2014. As of the charges, the fourth quarter adjusted EPS would have been $3.43, which was also in line with our previous expectations. Slide 13 summarizes EWC operational earnings, which declined year-over-year to $1.03 per share in 2015 from $2.19. Lower prices were the largest driver, accounting for $1.06 of the decline. Another $0.20 was due to Vermont Yankee and the effects of the impairment provided a $0.14 offset. Full year operating cash flow shown on Slide 14 was just under $3.3 billion in 2015 around $600 million lower than the prior year, the most significant factors were about $300 million of Hurricane Isaac related securitization funds received in 2014 as well as revenue from our EWC business. Now, let me wrap up 2015 results. We are initiating 2016 operational earnings guidance. Details on our 2016 assumptions as well as sensitivities are provided in the appendix of our presentation. Consolidated operational earnings per share guidance is $4.95 to $5.75 per share with the midpoint of $5.35 on Slide 15. We are also issuing an adjusted utility, parent and other guidance range of $4.20 to $4.50 per share, with $4.35 midpoint, consistent with our communications since last summer. Recall that our adjusted measure reflects normal weather and statutory taxes. The possibility exists for significant tax items this year as early as the second quarter, but there is too much uncertainty to put those possibilities into the guidance at this time. Starting with the utility, parent and other adjusted view, we expect $1.27 per share growth. Rate actions and sales growth are the largest drivers as well as lower non-fuel O&M and the effect of the 2015 utility charges. Depreciation expense is also expected to increase by about $0.30, including Union. The Union acquisition is expected to contribute a little more than $0.20 to the bottom line in 2016. As you know, we have not closed that transaction yet and 2016 earnings would be reduced about $0.02 for every month of delay. The Arkansas settlement agreement as filed would help Entergy Arkansas move much closer to its allowed return levels. We expect the Arkansas Public Service Commission to issue a decision soon. Our industrial sales growth in 2016 continues to be driven by identified new and expansion projects in our service territory rather than our existing customer base. Approximately two-thirds of our new and expansion projects are already in service to continue to reach steady low levels in 2016 and the remaining third comes from projects that are scheduled to come into service this year, most of which are in the final stages of construction or early stages of testing. Nevertheless, these new projects continue to have timing and ramp rate risks, which could impact results. Our industrial sales are also exposed to market and commodity risks associated with the broader economy. As a result of these risks, our overall industrial growth expectation of 2016 is now at 2.9% and overall retail sales growth is at 1.9%. We see utility non-fuel O&M at about $2.5 billion or about $0.20 lower than 2015 due primarily to pension and OPEC costs, which are expected to decline about $0.29. This includes a slightly higher pension discount rate than we expected at EEI. The change in the discount rate offset higher ANO Column 4 expenses, now projected to be $50 million in 2016, about flat year-over-year. We also anticipate lower expenses for fossil and nuclear in 2016 as well as higher expenses for the Union plant operations. Turning to EWC, its guidance midpoint is $1 per share, about the same as the 2015 results. Lower energy and capacity prices are expected to largely offset the effects of impairments recorded in 2015. Effects from the 2015 impairments, which affect multiple line items, are $0.49 per share year-over-year. Our guidance, based on year end prices, assumes average energy and capacity revenue of $48 per megawatt hour. Despite our 86% hedge position, there is $0.25 per share downside sensitivity to a $10 per megawatt hour drop in prices. The prices have been lower by about $4 since the beginning of the year with the warm winter weather. EWC’s pension and OPEB expense will also decline about $0.10 year-over-year, offsetting higher Pilgrim Column 4 costs and inflation effects bring net non-fuel O&M to a little less than $0.10 lower, along with decommissioning trust earnings about $0.10 lower in 2016. Looking ahead to first quarter results, based on what we know today, we are expecting operational earnings generally in line with first quarter consensus of around $1.10 per share. This considers milder weather experienced so far this year, including $0.07 of negative effect already in January and we don’t currently anticipate any significant tax items in the first quarter. Moving to our longer term views, Slide 16 shows our utility, parent and other adjusted earnings per share outlook, which is unchanged since EEI. The foundation for our objective to achieve steady and predictable utility, parent and other growth is rate-based growth from the utility investment plan. The 2016 through 2018 capital plan is about $1.1 billion higher than the preliminary estimates provided at EEI, but primarily because the Union acquisition was delayed into 2016. As Leo discussed, our capital outlook is also supported by regulatory mechanisms, which provide increased financial flexibility to execute on capital plans and by longer term retail sales growth, which can help mitigate rate effects for our customers. We also see continued O&M improvement as the assumed pension discount rate increases slowly over time and ANO Column 4 spending rolls off. There could be some level of continued spending to maintain the ANO performance improvement upon Column 4 exit or additional cost as a result of the NRC’s inspection. We expect any prudently incurred incremental cost to be recoverable. The near-term changes to our sales growth for 2016 do not have an impact on our long-term 4% to 5% annual industrial growth expectations through 2018. We continue to see large industrial projects coming online to drive the growth. Overall, our annual retail sales growth is still expected to be in the range of 2% to 2.5%, which implies residential and commercial as slightly less than 1%. Finally, it is important to remember that our capital plan is driven more by our need to modernize our aging infrastructure and maintain reliability and less by our need to support load growth. As a result, our strategic objectives, investment thesis, dividend growth and resulting earnings outlook remain on track. Slide 17 provides our EWC outlook for EBITDA with separate estimates for the nuclear plants that are closed or planned to be closed. Current forecast is based on market prices as of year end. As I mentioned, market prices have declined since that time. One other thing that we closely monitor is our cash and credit position. Slide 18 summarizes our cash flow and credit metrics. Efforts focused on improving cash flow and the de-risking the business create both value and stability. Our goal is to remain solidly in the investment grade credit rating range for all our rated entities while we support the growth of the rest of the business. Now on the slide but certainly germane to the credit position is our pension liability. Despite a slight negative return on our pension assets in 2015, we were able to improve our funded status by about $250 million. Although many factors impact that number, reality is that we continue to take sustainable steps to manage our pension obligation in a methodical way. This includes program changes, liability management, efforts and investment of nearly $800 million over the past 2 years. Over the next 3 years, we expect to contribute over $1.1 billion to our pension trust, including almost $400 million in 2016. Before closing, I would like to acknowledge that David Borde is with us today on the earnings call. We recently announced that David will assume Paula Waters’ role as Vice President of Investor Relations in mid-March. You will have the opportunity to meet David on the road in the coming weeks. David’s background on Wall Street, both as a lawyer and an investment banker, makes him a strong fit for the Investor Relations role. He also worked as part of Entergy’s corporate development group before becoming a key team member supporting Theo and Utility strategy through his role as Director of Utility’s Finance Business Partners Group. David will continue to pursue the standard of excellence we have strived to achieve in our disclosure and our relations with all of you. At the same time, Paula is not going far. She has been given new responsibilities within utility where she will oversee top line growth strategies, including economic development and revenue forecasting in support of the five utility operating companies. We appreciate Paula’s remarkable tenure in Investor Relations as she has been instrumental and helping us clarify our discussions and strengthening our relationships with you, the analyst community. Thank you, Paula. And now, the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] The first question is from Dan Eggers of Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Dan Eggers:
Hi, good morning guys.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Dan Eggers:
If I could jump to the back of the slide you have updated CapEx numbers, the CapEx increased quite a bit from what you had at EEI, part of that’s probably union slippage, but can you just help us think about the rate base growth and the effect of bonus depreciation on the rate base growth net of the increasing CapEx?
Drew Marsh:
Dan, this is drew. And so we previously discussed that for the first couple of years, we already had an expectation for bonus depreciation baked into our financials. And so getting out to 2018, there is really not much impact on our overall rate based expectation, in fact it still remains right in the middle of our previous ranges that we provided, so really quite minimal impact on us overall through the guidance range or through the outlook range.
Dan Eggers:
And then what was the rest of the increase beyond union to fill on the ‘16 to ’18 CapEx?
Drew Marsh:
I think it was mostly just minor project adjustments. I do think that there is any major elements in there that would be worth calling out at this point, I don’t think.
Dan Eggers:
And I guess on load growth and kind of the expectations for that number to bounce back after maybe a little bit slower for ‘16 than expected, where do you rank your confidence in that reset in growth today versus say six months ago or at the last Analyst Day and what is the visibility to that underlying industrial gain?
Leo Denault:
Dan, this is the Leo. I think from our perspective, we would rank that confidence higher, a little higher than we had say few years ago at the analyst meeting, because primarily a lot of the projects have advanced relative to that point in time and also we have gotten a better line of sight on what’s really happening from an economic perspective as it relates to what you are seeing with commodity markets. As we talked about at EEI, as you look ‘15 through ‘18, basically 95% of that growth or what we call new and expansion projects were related to projects that were in advance stages. And we continued to see that to be the case. That’s not to say that we see some projects, smaller projects, maybe falloff as we have gone forward. And if you also recall at EEI, that 95%, about 70% was made up of basically a handful of large projects that were in advance stages and those projects were primarily in the steel and ethane cracker, we did have an LNG project. We also have projects in the ammonia area, as well as methanol. So it was spread across a lot of various segments. As we continue to get closer and as we move closer in time to the expected construction, data completion dates of these projects, clearly we get more visibility around where those projects are just by the sheer passage of time. I think the other thing that we have gotten more visibility around is what’s going on with our existing customers and got more granularity as to what’s happening in that particular area. We don’t really see much growth when we talk about the 4% to 5% coming from our existing customer base. But as we have talked about in the past, our existing customers are large industrial customers are on fixed rate – fixed demand charge type contracts and so while we may see any volumetric fluctuations, we really don’t see accompanying fluctuations in revenue when you talk about downside situations. So I think our confidence is higher. I mean clearly, as Drew said in his script, there are still existential factors that can affect what we are seeing. But we monitor this on a very regular basis and we need to try to get as much intelligence around this as we possibly can, both from a customer perspective as well as the macroeconomic perspective.
Dan Eggers:
So you are not seeing erosion in these existing customers because of an economic slowdown kind of on a global basis, so you are not expecting them to do worse, you would expect them to stay where they are is that effectively embedded in guidance?
Leo Denault:
I mean I would expect that there is always the risk they could do worse. But we have adjusted our expectation around that group based on what we see and what we know today. And we did adjust it downwards as compared to where we were a number of months ago.
Drew Marsh:
Dan this is Drew. And of course you have seen in the last couple of quarters, we have seen lower growth in the industrial sector, but the new and expanding customers have been growing in the industrial space about 3% and existing customers have been detracting from it about 2.5%. So we are expecting a little bit of that same thing in 2016.
Dan Eggers:
Okay, got it. Thank you, guys.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning Julien.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
So just a follow-up a little bit on Dan’s last question, if you will, can you comment on sort of the non-industrial trends I suppose, just if we try to look at the mix 60-40, I suppose it would imply something shifting there as well, but I will let you elaborate?
Leo Denault:
Julien, are you relating to just the ‘16 period or the same period Dan was referring to?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Actually, let’s stick with ‘16.
Leo Denault:
Okay. I think when we think about growth in kind of the non-industrial sector for ’16. First, I would start by saying if you look at the quarterly GSP across the Gulf South region, we see numbers probably anywhere from 2.5% to 4% in the ‘16, ‘17 timeframe. Also I think if you look at what we have experienced even in ‘15 for the companies within that region, we have residential sales growth ranging from 1.5% to about 3.5% on a weather adjusted basis. We had commercial sales growth basically in the 1% to 2% on a weather adjusted basis in that area. And so as we look forward, we see for example on the commercial side, major projects that happened in ‘15 that will have a full year effect in ‘16, that contribute to what we view as a fairly reasonable sales growth expectation on the commercial side. In the residential area, we do – are seeing pockets of what we call maybe the multiplier effect related to the industrial growth that we see again in that Gulf South, Gulf Coast regional area. And I would also say that one thing that we take advantage of in 2016 is another day of kilowatt hour sales that have some small impact on our expectation in 2016 as well. So, around 1%, which is where we are when you adjust, when you take out the total growth and the impact of industrial, again, macroeconomic effects, we see – or impacts we could see at the industrial level, we could see at the residential and commercial. But we have as I said in response to Dan’s question we have done a lot of work around updating our expectations relative to that. And at this point, we feel fairly comfortable with where we are.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Just to be clear that you are saying not much of a change on the non-industrial?
Leo Denault:
I would say you mean ‘15 over ‘16 in terms of not much of a change or that was just where we were thinking…
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Yes, exactly.
Leo Denault:
If you look at ‘15 weather-adjusted, I think residential was about 0.6%, commercial was about 0.4%. I think what we are seeing in ‘16 and our assumption is something closer to 1%.
Drew Marsh:
And that’s consistent with where we were at sort of EEI November timeframe. The residential commercial expectations haven’t changed much.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Got it. And just a quick clarification, if you can on the expectations for FitzPatrick and the retirement timeline, is there any scenario here that you could be looking at implementing a ZEC or whatever you want to call it, scheme, perhaps margin positive presumably?
Bill Mohl:
Julien, this is Bill. At this point in time, there is no clarity or certainty around what that program is and what the actual value associated with it would be. So, we have no plans as it relates to changing our focus on shutting down that plant on January 27. We do support the concept of a clean energy standard and I think that, that makes sense, but we really need to understand the details of it and assure that it is actually implemented.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith:
Excellent. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Julien.
Operator:
Thank you. And the next question is from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Your line is open.
Paul Patterson:
Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning.
Paul Patterson:
We are going to miss, Paula. But anyway, I just want to touch base on the Palisades impairment and how that impacts – well, the Palisades and I guess the other impairment in the wind and what have you and how that impacts 2016 guidance? If I heard you correctly, you said there was a $0.49 impact that I understand it’s sort of complicated, so I don’t want you to go through any laborious detail. But just in general, so if you could highlight what that is? Did I hear that correctly I guess, I mean…
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So, Paul, it’s Drew. A couple of things there. So I think that it’s spread across a couple of different categories when you think about these impairments. There is an impairment piece that’s in net revenue for fuel. There is an impairment piece, which is in O&M for refueling outage expenses and then there is an impairment piece which is in depreciation for the asset itself. And so, we have actually broken down for you in the back, in the appendix, on Slides 46 and 47, we give a lot of detail about the plants that are sort of ongoing and the plants that are planned to be closed or are closed and talk about where you can see those impairment effects for those three buckets.
Paul Patterson:
Those impacts – I mean, the impairment was done in the fourth quarter. Did those impacts – how do they go into 2017, I guess?
Drew Marsh:
Into 2017?
Paul Patterson:
Yes. I mean, are they continuing or how do you follow what I am saying it just seems like a large number?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. Well, I mean, it is. I mean if you think about all those plants that were impaired, they are still going to be operating in ‘16, so you are still going to see the effects of that stuff. Once you get into ‘17, as Bill said and we announced on January 27 we will be shutting down FitzPatrick, so you won’t see those same kind of effects as that starts to fall away. But Pilgrim and Palisades will still be there. So, you will still see those effects for those plants continue to go on. Now, once we refuel Pilgrim, I guess it will be a little bit different if we make that decision. And that would be I think those costs would be expensed if we go down that path. And so it will change things a little bit at that point, but you will still continue to see those impairment effects for those two assets, because they are still operating potentially beyond ‘17.
Paul Patterson:
I guess what I am wondering is with respect to Palisades, I mean, what caused this big write-off in the contracted plant? It wasn’t completely clear to me, is it just the lifespan has been changed or your market expectations after the contract has expired?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So, I think what changed there is the fact that we made decisions around the other single unit assets. So, Pilgrim, FitzPatrick and Vermont Yankee were all single unit assets. Palisades was the only remaining one out there, although it did have the contract. Because of our decisions for the other three, we had to again more closely assess the probabilities associated with the life expectancy of the Palisades unit. And when we did that, it failed the accounting test for the impairment. And we are continuing to operate the plant till 2022. The operational decision is different than the accounting decision. We will make a decision around Palisades when it’s appropriate to do that out in the future and that will depend on the circumstances that exist at that time, the market conditions at that time, etcetera. But from an accounting perspective, we are forced by our other actions to take a close look at the Palisades unit.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. And then just finally on the midpoint outlook, it’s a $0.40 range, just in terms of the term midpoint, how should we think about that? Is there some range outside of that that we should be thinking about or just elaborate a little bit on that terminology?
Drew Marsh:
This idea was something that we originated, the idea of a midpoint outlook back at Analyst Day in 2014. And our expectation at that point of time was that by the time we got out to that date, because it was pretty far out there that our midpoint expectation might shift around a little bit. And so what we tried to do is signal to everybody about where it would land. But when we get out to that point, we would give you the actual guidance and give you a midpoint for where that would be. So, I guess similar to ‘16, where we landed at $4.35, which was at the bottom of our range of potential midpoints. I guess there could be a little bit above or below the ranges that we are talking about. But so I guess the answer to your question directly, yes, there could be a little bit above or below in those out-years, but we are not at this point communicating anything differently than just the range that we have.
Leo Denault:
Paul, this is Leo. Just this may or may not be helpful, but what we expect is the midpoint of the guidance to fall within that range.
Paul Patterson:
Excellent. Thanks a lot.
Leo Denault:
Apparently, that was more helpful than any.
Operator:
And the next question is from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Stephen Byrd:
Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Steve.
Stephen Byrd:
I wanted to just add on to Paul’s question on thinking about Slide 47 and then also Slide 40. There are number of line items. But I guess in total, when we look at some of these nuclear plants that maybe shutting down at some point in the future, because I understand I guess you are including the revenues from power generated, but some of the expenses are not included in sort of adjusted earnings. On a total basis from these nuclear units, what’s the amount of expense that is effectively going to be excluded from adjusted earnings for these plants in say ‘16 or beyond?
Drew Marsh:
In ‘16, I think it’s about $50 million of capital that would fall into that category, and I think that’s on Slide 40. And then I think if there are any fuel expenses, if we would make that again, that decision to shutdown Pilgrim, there could be some additional expenses that ends up in that same category. But I think that’s what we will be talking about, Stephen, mainly.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay. So $50 million you said capital, would that be something that would be an expense but will be excluded from adjusted earnings or is that CapEx, I wasn’t clear on that?
Drew Marsh:
Well it is – it would otherwise be considered capital, but because of the situation where those plants are expected to shutdown, the accounting will force us to put that as an expense. So you will see it in the as reported as an expense, that $50 million in capital. We will break it out for you as a special item, so you can understand what that is. But that’s the way it would be portrayed I believe in the financial statement.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay. And what amount of fuel expense is being excluded from adjusted earnings?
Drew Marsh:
I don’t know that – have that number in front of me right now, so we will have to give that to you later Stephen.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay understood. And then on ANO in column four, I think you laid out pretty clearly the cost of I believe $50 million in 2016, could you give a little color in terms of your assumption in the plan in terms of when you are able to move that out of column four and sort of what are the key challenges or steps that need to be taken to make that happen?
Drew Marsh:
I will answer that. So just from a financial perspective, we don’t have any costs beyond 2016. From an operational perspective in the NRC, I think there is a longer process there that goes on. And so while we may stop incurring costs, it may be a little bit longer into 2017. I think there is a possibility it could go even longer than that, but I don’t believe that would be necessarily our expectation that the NRC would make a rating change there.
Stephen Byrd:
Okay, understood. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next question is from Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is open.
Praful Mehta:
Hi guys and Paula, you will be missed and welcome David. So a quick question on the capital plan and your point that it’s the aging infrastructure that drives the growth and the CapEx, not as much the load growth. But I am assuming at some point, you do need load growth to kind of maintain your competitive rates and keep that rate and attract more I guess CapEx and more load into the region. So what is the minimum load growth that you look at from an industrial perspective, given the decline in load growth at least for 2016, how would you see the load growth out in the future and is there a minimum level that you would track to say you need that kind of load at least in terms of load growth to support the CapEx plan while keeping the rates in check?
Leo Denault:
So Parful that’s a good question. One thing to keep in mind, as you look at that capital plan, as you said, the generation piece of this is driven primarily by every year that goes by new technologies, improve the heat rate, cost efficiency, the environmental output of the new plants plus the old plants get older and more costly. So as time progresses, certainly we have the ability to benefit our customers with a more reliable, more environmentally friendly and lower production cost unit. And so we are doing that over time just like anyone would. It just so happens that this kind of seems to happen in big chunks in terms of when the facilities are required. So we are in the process of doing that. Recall that we have never been long generation also, so we are short – we anticipate being short generation out into the middle of the next decade even with if we were to have significantly lower growth. So the need for the generation will continue to exist and what we have mentioned before is we have some flexibility around the timing as it relates to the CTs. We have the deactivations of the units and certainly PPAs that roll off, that are all part of the mix. So it’s a combination of the need, but it’s also us making sure we have a risk mitigation strategy for the company and for its customers associated with how we put that in place. So I know there is no – at this industrial load growth number that we would give you that we say we no longer need this investment. But the fact of the matter is we would continue to be short with the ability to be in MISO and utilize the market over time as we go out there. And we won’t see that changing under too many scenarios. The transmission investment is driven in large part by changing reliability requirements, similar type of activity as it relates to new technologies and the ability to improve the operations of the system as we go forward plus again, the age of the infrastructure requires some upgrading as well. As does our entry into MISO provide us with the opportunity to make deliverability of assets that before we couldn’t into the market going forward as well. So in the transmission that we are doing from a reliability standpoint, a lot of that like the Lake Charles project, a lot of the load that we are going to serve there is already there, so it’s beefing up of the reliability, improving the infrastructure plus load growth that we already see under construction. So that’s pretty solid as well under a variety of load growth scenarios. And then as we talked about before, we are also embarking on the MI side of things and as we go forward, there could be other things that would certainly show up, that could either replace things that may or may not fall out or upwards than that capital growth going forward on the distribution side, which is going to become more and more important again in the benefit – to benefit our customers. So I guess the bottom line here is there is an opportunity for us to continue to invest this capital because of structure is and where the state of the technology is. And we are also managing it in a real risk mitigation kind of strategy. Again, not getting long on the generation side, not getting out of our skis on the transmission side and I would like to make sure that we are well within the balance of anything that might happen on a load growth point of view. But you are right, the main benefits that we have from load growth are that it continues to provide us with that competitive advantage, whereas I mentioned in my script, we are today over 25% below the national average in our rates, that contributes to our ability to attract new business into the region so that we have the capability to do that more. And so things like the Continental Tire example that I mentioned and all the steps that’s under construction that Leo mentioned, all of those, in addition to us managing our cost levels, the decline in natural gas prices, all of that go to contribute to that, rate advantage continuing and hopefully growing over time. And so, you can’t really say at what load growth you not do the capital, it’s very robust over a variety of load growth scenarios, but we have to be mindful of the risk mitigation strategies that we would in place when we build those new plants or those CTs, but also other costs pending that we can do as it relates to our normal O&M, fuel costs and production costs as we put these new plans in place for example, that help us maintain that advantage. That’s kind of – it’s more complicated than just one number, I guess would be the answer. But it’s pretty robust across a variety of load growth scenarios.
Praful Mehta:
Got it. Thank you, Leo. That was extremely helpful color. And finally just a quick question on taxes, I know you had reduced your NOL balance I think on the last call, now with bonus helping you as well, do you see yourselves being cash tax payers through the ‘18, ‘19 timeframe or it is the minimum tax cash tax during that period?
Drew Marsh:
Praful I think what we said is we expect our cash tax rate to be around 10% through that period that you are talking about. And as I mentioned earlier, bonus depreciation was baked in for a good bit of that, so we would expect it to be about the same over that timeframe.
Praful Mehta:
Got it. Thank you, guys.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And the last question will come from Charles Fishman of Morningstar. Your line is open.
Charles Fishman:
Thank you and good morning. On Arkansas, Leo, I recall that when you took your current position, this was one of your top three goals was to get an improved regulatory framework in Arkansas and now that you have it, I guess looking back and again I thought you said that your strategy was to tell Mississippi – or excuse me, to tell Arkansas that look at the industrial development in Mississippi if you have a favorable regulatory framework that can certainly support that development, I guess my question is was that the argument that helped win the day, number one. And I guess a related question would be is there anymore tweaking you would like to see in Arkansas, maybe besides a little higher allowed ROE?
Leo Denault:
Well, I would say, first of all there is no argument that we have had with anybody on anything. And I know you just used that term, but I don’t want that to be a term that’s out there. The fact of the matter is that all of our jurisdictions, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, all of them, we are all interested in the exact same thing. We are all interested in growing the economies of the jurisdictions in the states in which we operate and same with the city of New Orleans. We have spent a lot of time with all those jurisdictions, including Arkansas sitting down with them. Our jurisdictional CEOs have done a wonderful job. Their regulatory folks have done a wonderful job. Theo has done a wonderful job of making sure that we sit down and find common ground with all of them around bettering the economy of the state. And Charles, I started out with the four stakeholders and our objectives for them around the first quartile TSR, first quartile customer satisfaction, etcetera, we bring jobs to the state, we do good for the company, we could do good for the community, we could do good for the employees, it’s great for the political environment as well. So all we have done is we have sat down and discussed that with our regulators as well as the politicians in our regions to describe to them our desire to participate in that with them and help them achieve their objectives. And so what we have crafted in Texas with riders, in Arkansas with the forward-looking FRP, with Mississippi with the forward features at FRP, the way assets are recovered in Louisiana and New Orleans, etcetera. What we have accomplished with them is that common ground about how giving us the financial flexibility to make you all comfortable with the investments that we have through the regulatory process helps us attract the Big River steels, the Sasols of the world, the Continental Tires of the world to come to our region, to buy power from us, to help us invest in the infrastructure and create tens of thousands jobs. We are working on this together to be able to do that. So, I wouldn’t say that anybody won the day in Arkansas other than the State of Arkansas and we participated in that in a small way and they worked together with us to create something that allowed us to do that. And I would say that it’s no different than the workforce development program that I mentioned in my script. We are spending $5 million over the next 5 years to help train people to work at those plants that we have helped attract. And that’s good for all four of our stakeholders as well as we do that. So, it really has been the last few years of extraordinary collaboration, foresight buyer regulators and us listening to them as much as them listening to us.
Charles Fishman:
Is there anything in Arkansas with respect to regulatory framework that you would like to tweak?
Drew Marsh:
Well, I am not sure that, that’s something that we would need to do a lot of at the moment. Certainly, there is always things that we want to accomplish, but really that’s going to depend on the environment as we go forward, we go forward with the grid modernization, we go forward with AMI, we go forward with different things than what we have today that might require some further collaboration with those folks. But right now, we have got to make a filing under the first forward-looking FRP and get that underway before we started worrying about changing things.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. Well, I think you are being a little modest, because I know this was one of your goals in Arkansas and I think you did accomplish it, so congratulations. And that was my only question.
Leo Denault:
Alright, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And at this time, I would like to turn the call back over for closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you, Latoya and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. We plan to file our annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC next week. The Form 10-K provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056, confirmation ID 85410755. The telephone replay will be available until February 25. This concludes our call.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, you may now disconnect. Good day.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President, Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer Theo Bunting - Group President, Utility Operations Bill Abler - Vice President, Commercial Operations
Analysts:
Praful Mehta - Citigroup Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Paul Ridzon - KeyBanc Capital Markets Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt Charles Fishman - Morningstar
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants on the phone lines have been placed on mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] Do note today’s program is being recorded. I would like to now introduce our host for today’s program, Mr. Paula Waters, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please begin.
Paula Waters:
Good morning. Thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company’s SEC filings. Now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thanks, Paula and good morning everyone. Before we get started, there have been some questions about the forward-looking numbers we plan to disclose for utility, parent and other earnings at the upcoming Edison Electric Institute Financial Conference. Just to give you a quick preview they will be in line with our previous disclosures. Regarding third-quarter results, with the exception of impairments at EWC, results were largely in line with our expectations. However some of the drivers turned out differently than we originally anticipated, including stronger than normal weather that boosted earnings by $0.16 per share, which was offset by lower weather adjusted residential sales and regulatory compliance costs at the Arkansas nuclear 1 plant. As we've noted previously, we currently anticipate approximately $85 million of costs at ANO for additional Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection activities arising out of its placement in Column 4 of the reactor oversight process action metrics. These costs will impact operational results in both 2015 and 2016. The Pilgrim nuclear power station will also undergo an additional inspection activities related to its placement in Column 4 by the NRC which will increase its cost in the coming years. We realize these items, while temporary, are disappointing, we will do our best to mitigate their impact. However our longer-term objectives remain intact. Therefore as we work our way through the near-term operational issues at ANO and Pilgrim, we maintain our focus on our long-term opportunities. To that end, by most any measure the last few months, in October in particular, have been very productive. The actions we've taken demonstrate execution on the strategy we've outlined to you for some time. For the utility, the strategy is to grow the business by investing capital in ways that benefit our customers. This strategy is centered on our obligation as well as our opportunity to invest capital, to replace aging infrastructure, strengthen reliability, meet economic development and other growth needs and ensure that the environmental profile of our generation fleet is in line with the evolving regulatory framework. To facilitate execution of this investment opportunity, to enhance service to existing customers, as well as adding new customers, we seek to align our objectives with our regulators’ expectations so that we have the regulatory support and financial flexibility to make those investments. During the last quarter, at the utility we have received approval for the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Entergy which was completed on October 1. Closed on the transfer of the Algiers portion of Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans received approval of the renewable purchase power agreement in Arkansas which applied provisions for legislation passed earlier this year, advanced our generation plan through filing an application for approval to build another new combined cycle gas turbine plant in Louisiana and administering the competitive request for proposal processes for long-term capacity in Louisiana and Texas, which include market testing two self-build CCGTs, completed nine transmission projects totaling $92 million in investment while being on track to complete the transmission work required to support a major customer in December, ahead of that customer’s planned date to begin taking transmission service, and received regulatory approvals in Texas, Louisiana and from Utility Committee of the City Council of New Orleans for a settlement to end the system agreement next year. For EWC, the strategy rests on safe operations of our nuclear plants and managing risks so we get the most out of that business. Execution on this strategy requires disciplined and responsible decision-making in a volatile environment. We have also taken action consistent with our strategy. We announced the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center CCGT for $490 million. We announced the decision to close Pilgrim by June 1, 2019 and today we're announcing plans to shut down the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant at the end of the current operating cycle in late 2016 or early 2017. New York State officials worked as hard as we did over the past two months to reach a constructive and mutually beneficial agreement to avoid a shutdown of FitzPatrick but our efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. From a corporate level, we've added another new board member, one of three this year with expertise that helps position us for the future and importantly raised the dividend for the first time since 2010. While dividend decisions will be made annually, it is our intention to provide steady and consistent growth in our dividend in the coming years. Continuing to deliver on our strategy will be the key to meeting this objective. Earlier this year we outlined what we needed to do to execute on our strategy. Our achievements to date are listed on Slide 3. These significant accomplishments could not have been possible without the dedication and commitment of the entire 13,000 member Entergy team, as well as the dedication and commitment of those we partner with to grow the communities we serve. However focus is squarely on what's next to continue the momentum we've worked so hard to gain. One such item we're working on at the utility is completing the planned acquisition of the nearly 2000 MW Union Power Station. Entergy Louisiana, successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans have agreed to purchase this modern efficient CCGT at approximately half the cost of building a comparable new plant. Just last week Louisiana Public Service Commission approved the settlement in support of the transaction. No parties were opposed. We also continue to explore settlement options with the advisors in New Orleans and in Arkansas a decision by the Arkansas Public Service Commission is pending which we asked for by December 1. And industrial group is the only opposing party. We remain on track to close the transaction by year-end subject to pending regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. We've also been working with the APSC and other public officials to give Entergy Arkansas the financial flexibility it needs to make investments and help attract new business to the state. After passage of legislation providing for a platform for progressive rate regulation, we're now focused on the pending rate case. In addition to the Union acquisition, a significant component of the rate case is the approximately $800 million of added investments since the last case. In late September, staff [ph] filed testimony recommending a $217.9 million rate increase and 9.65% return on equity, an increase over the current 9.5% authorized ROE. As a reminder, Entergy Arkansas is seeking a $268 million base rate increase and a 10.2% ROE, factoring in rider offsets and that increase requested is $167 million. While we continue to work through the process, we view the staff’s testimonials constructive and look forward to working with all of our stakeholders toward a result that aligns us all for growing the economy in the state. The settlement deadline is December 31 of this year. In September, Entergy Texas field with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for rider recovery of nearly $140 million of incremental transmission and distribution rate base since the 2014 rate case. These rider filings seek nearly $20 million in new revenue requirements. Decisions are expected by early next year. Another area where we have worked diligently to align with our regulators is on the subject of the Entergy system agreement. The system agreement has been a long-standing source of frustration and disagreements among our regulators. Entergy Arkansas exited in late 2013 and Entergy Mississippi is preparing to exit within a week’s time. We are now well on our way to ending this arrangement altogether by September 1 of next year. After gaining approval by the LPSC, the PUCT and the Utility Committee of the City Council of New Orleans, the settlement is expected to be taken up by the City Council this week, leaving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the final outstanding approval. Ending the system agreement next year is not expected to have a significant financial impact to ongoing consolidated earnings. The benefits are two-fold
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo and good morning everyone. I’ll begin my remarks today with a review of our third-quarter results which are summarized on Slide 4 of the presentation. Our operational results of $1.90 per share, excluding special items related to the impairment of EWC, Pilgrim and FitzPatrick nuclear plant and the decision to close Vermont Yankee, were up from third quarter of 2014. As Leo noted, this was in line with our original expectations overall but not in line with the expected drivers. Strong weather made up for ongoing ANO Column 4 expenses and lower-than-expected residential sales growth. As reported, earnings were negative $4.04 for the quarter driven by the impairments of Pilgrim and FitzPatrick. Details of the impairments and the related accounting were provided in the Form 8-K filed on October 16. Moving to Slide 5, utility, parent and other results were up quarter-over-quarter. Contributor [ph] to the increase was net revenue which added $0.36 per share, a large portion of this was from weather but the remainder from higher industrial usage, recovery of the productive investments such as Ninemile 6 and items offset in operations and maintenance categories. Though net revenue was higher, we originally expected an additional $0.05 per share in net revenue from sales growth but missed this target with lower weather adjusted residential sales volume, down one-tenth of 1% quarter over quarter. Also contributing to the favorable variance is an asset write-off of $0.23 per share related to the settlement of the Mississippi rate base that was included in 2014 third quarter results. The impact of these favorable variances is partly reduced by higher utility non-fuel O&M expenses of $0.16 per share. Roughly $0.04 of this variance is offset in net revenue. Of the remaining variance, $0.07 was due to NRC inspection cost for ANO and the balance primarily due to higher distribution reliability expenses. Sales volume from industrial customers increased quarter over quarter by 4% as shown on Slide 6. Adding nearly 300 gigawatt-hours to our sales this quarter were new and expansion industrial projects mostly from ramp up in the core alkaline and petrochemical sectors. Volume from our existing customers recovered from the second-quarter decline and came in above third quarter 2014 levels as petroleum refineries ran at high utilization levels. And for next quarter one of our largest customers is already in an extended outage. So we currently expect industrial sales to less robust in the fourth quarter. Recall that lower sale due to short-term outages of existing customers can be less impactful due to demand charges. EWC third quarter operational results on Slide 7 were $0.18 in 2015, $0.05 lower than in the third quarter of 2014. Though the closure of the Vermont Yankee added $0.09 to operational result this quarter, this was more than offset by a decrease of $5.80 per megawatt hour, the average price earned by the nuclear plants still in operation. Operating cash flow on Slide 8 shows overall lower cash flow this quarter as compared to the third quarter of 2014. Cash flow at utility was lower primarily due to $300 million of Hurricane Isaac securitization proceeds received last year. Declines in EWC net revenue also contributed to lower cash flow. As we move past our third-quarter results, we will take one more look at our overall 2015 expectations relative to guidance. Beginning on the right side of Slide 9, utility , parent and other adjusted EPS is expected to be lower than anticipated driven primarily by $0.17 of O&N expenses from ANO Column 4 management, $0.06 of incremental reliability spending and $0.07 of lower-than-expected total weather adjusted sales primarily residential. This brought us below our adjusted EPS expectations which is disappointing. As on Slide 5, adjusted utility, parent, and other EPS removes the effects of special items, weather and tax items. However with both favorable weather and income tax variances as well as the operational income effect of impairments for Pilgrim and FitzPatrick. On the left side of the slide, we expect to exceed the original 2015 guidance range and are adjusting the range by $5.50 to $6.10. Currently we are tracking to around $6. We mentioned before that we have been working on tax items which could be recognized toward the end of this year. One of those is connected with the recently completed business, combination of ELL and EGSL. After guaranteed sharing of $107 million with our customers we’ll recognize $1.50 per share in the fourth quarter. Although there could still be other tax items resolved and recognize in the fourth quarter, we expect our 2015 tax position to our REIT to exceed our original guidance expectations. In other tax matters, our third quarter Form 10-Q will discuss the recent settlement with the IRS from the OA09 audit. The agreement on treatment for our 2009 position regarding nuclear decommissioning liabilities will reduce our federal net operating loss carry forward or NOL from $12.3 billion to approximately 1.9 billion. Having said that there are a couple points I’d like to make about the settlement. First, the settlement has no material cash consequences or impact on net income due to low utilization of the NOL. And in second, while it reduces our net NOL today we continue to pursue our tax strategies. We expect our cash tax rate to remain below statutory rates about 10% in the next few years. Turning now to EWC. As Leo discussed in his remarks we’ve reached an agreement to sell Rhode Island State Energy Center for $490 million and I expect to close the deal by the end of the year. We’ve also made the difficult decisions to close Pilgrim and FitzPatrick. Each of this decision provides greater clarity on the future of EWC. Rating agencies have reacted positively to the focus in improvements of utility and the difficult decisions we’ve made for EWC. Following the Rhode Island and Pilgrim announcements, S&P noted the reduction of exposure to merchant generation in support of our credit quality. And Moody’s view the developments along with the utilities support of regulatory environment and improving rate design as credit positive. A summary of our credit metrics and credit range can be found on Slide 10. At utility we were pleased with the successful completion of the Louisiana business combination on October 1 and our confidence of the newly combined Entergy Louisiana entity will bring benefits to our stakeholders. Moody’s assigned the combined ELL a rating of A2 for senior secured first mortgage bonds. At the same time Moody’s affirmed credit rating for Entergy Corporation and raised the outlook to positive and ratings for Entergy New Orleans were also positive upgraded. These positive credit rating actions acknowledge the strong financial footing of the company and in doing so help preserve our ability to access the capital needed to finance investment in the business at low-cost for the benefit of our customers. As noted on Slide 11 we will have more information at the EEI financial conference next week where we will continue the discussion of our business strategy longer-term outlooks and 2016 drivers. This will include more detailed information for EWC, utility sales and the opportunities and risks for our 2016 expectations. And As Leo said at the outset, we still see our utility, parent and other EPS for 2016 and 2017 consistent with our previous disclosures. We will provide detailed guidance for 2016 during our fourth quarter earnings call. As we continue to lay the groundwork for growth, we look forward to moving ahead with our strategies to create value for our customers, our owners and our employees and the communities we serve. And now the Entergy team is available to answer questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup.
Praful Mehta :
So I had a quick question on the cash taxes, given the change in the NOL position down to 1.9 billion, I know you clarified that you will still have a pretty low cash tax rate. Could we understand what’s the driver or what helps you get to that low cash tax rate given the NOL position change?
Drew Marsh:
Sure, Praful, this is Drew. As we talked in the past, and we have a portfolio of strategies out there that we are pursuing and those strategies are still intact. Over time we can see the NOL start to move back up again but we have to go -- right now we just settled, so the NOL is back down to where it is at 1.9 billion. So we just want to make sure that when you saw it come down you’d know what the driver was and what the settlement was. The important thing is that our tax team is still here, they are still working hard on new ideas and new strategies and we expect that those will continue to bear some fruit going forward.
Praful Mehta :
And then in terms of the FitzPatrick retirement, from a decommissioning perspective, do you expect there will be any impact from a cash flow perspective to Entergy or is the decommissioning fund – fully funded and how do you see that playing out?
Drew Marsh:
Well this is Drew again. So the decommissioning fund meets all the NRC requirements and consistent with how Vermont Yankee did, we would expect the same kind of approach for FitzPatrick going forward, so we wouldn't see or anticipate any cash contributions to the decommissioning trust fund associated with decommissioning the plant.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.
Paul Patterson :
Yes, hi, how are you. Just in terms of the tax rate, the 10%, that is the cash tax rate. Is that correct?
Drew Marsh:
Yes sir.
Paul Patterson :
And what’s the expected book tax rate that we will see in earnings?
Leo Denault:
Well the book tax rate as you know we don't usually give out a forecast for book tax rate until the prompt year. There are definitely some things that could improve over the statutory rate that we’ve used in our forward-looking expectations but at that this point we’re not prepared to say exactly what those are. There’s too many things going on in conversations with federal tax authorities, state tax authorities, state regulators to be able to successfully pin that down until we get closer to that time.
Paul Patterson :
And then with respect to Slide 36 and it looks like you guys are going to be expensing the fuel and other things associated with FitzPatrick and Pilgrim as special items. I'm wondering how will you guys be treating the revenue?
Drew Marsh:
Well the revenue will be operation – what we are going to be choosing to – not choosing, what we will be treating as special items or things that would otherwise have been capitalized, so any significant capital expenditures or in the case of Pilgrim refueling outage costs or fuel costs that would have normally otherwise been capitalized and amortized over coming cycles, those will be considered special items and we’re just – I think for just the sake of making a clear which pieces are part of the ongoing operations and which pieces aren’t, that’s the same approach that we used with Vermont Yankee and we think it’s more helpful that way. We will try to be as transparent as possible about all the moving parts in there.
Paul Patterson :
Okay, then just in general with the economies of scale, you have shut down three nukes in a pretty short period of time in the Northeast. Is there an impact on the economies of scale of what is left, meaning in the allocation of expenses or any thoughts on that?
Leo Denault:
Yes, there definitely is the lot of economies of scale, I mean we manage our nuclear fleet as a fleet across the North and Southern utility nuclear assets. So there is -- we have a lot of economies of scale but it will be shrinking over the retirement schedule in the next few years, depending on how far you go with the retirement schedule depends on how much of an impact that economies of scale has, for the Northeast we do have about $35 million of plant overhead at each plant and about half of that is direct costs. And so beyond that we will be targeting a level of costs that are prudent for the business size and the size of the fleet going forward to make sure the plant stays safe and reliable.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan Arnold :
Good morning, guys. Just to clarify, you have said very clearly that you expect the 2016 and 2017 utility parent and other outlooks to be unchanged or at least I think that is what I heard. But are you also saying that you are guiding prompt year -- beyond the prompt year, your guide to statutory tax rate, so is 2016 still good assuming a statutory tax rate or is that one of the things that might shift as you give us the drivers?
Leo Denault:
It’s assuming the statutory tax rate, we’re trying to hold quite frankly Jonathan the forward-looking stuff at EEI and we just removed it from this to do it at EEI next week. But it seemed to raise some questions, so the previous disclosure that was at the statutory tax rate that's what we were talking about.
Jonathan Arnold :
And so you expect that to still be the case?
Leo Denault:
And we hope that – to the earlier question about the effective tax rate I guess, we would hope to do better than the statutory tax rate in ‘16 but we’re not prepared yet to identify that but taking that aside we still are at the current disclosure that we put forth previously.
Jonathan Arnold :
If I may just on one other issue around guidance, the ANO costs that you referenced those as I think $85 million which is the same number between ‘15 and ‘16 that was in the 10-Q. Were those already in the guidance you showed us last quarter fully or is there an element of that being added in?
Leo Denault:
No, those are already fully baked into the guidance. They were not in the guidance that we set up at analyst day last year. Just to be clear, so analyst day last year was when we originally set up our range of where we thought the midpoint could land between 435 and 475 and it didn't include ANO at that point and expected higher interest rates for pension benefits etc. So there were several things that have moved around but ANO was specifically not included at that time but it is now.
Jonathan Arnold :
And was it included when you showed us $3.65 last quarter –
Leo Denault:
$3.65 is for ’15, just to be clear. And it was not – we originally said $3.65, that was at the beginning of this year, that’s before we had clarity around what ANO was going to be, so it was not included in the $3.65.
Jonathan Arnold :
So that’s part of the change to this $3.30 number?
Leo Denault:
Yes, that’s exactly right. So the drivers between the 365 and 330, I think it’s in my script but it’s like $0.17 is related to ANO and I am sorry was that -- $0.06 O&M and some other stuff.
Jonathan Arnold :
So similarly on the ‘16 outlook, that was the $35 million of ANO that you disclosed in the 10-Q would not have been in that range but you are saying the range is still good so something else must have offset it?
Leo Denault:
That’s right, what we said, the lower end of the range is what we previously had said.
Jonathan Arnold :
But that was again without the ANO drag, am I right in that?
Leo Denault:
That is with the ANO drag.
Jonathan Arnold :
The lower end comment included the ANO drag but it wasn't in the ‘15 $3.65?
Leo Denault:
That’s correct. I think I am confusing you worse than, than I really need to but our original guidance for ’16 was $4.35 to $4.75 where we said at the lower end, that includes ANO. For ’15, it was at $3.65 that did not include ANO but the $3.30 does now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
So let me actually start where you guys just left off there. In terms of weather normalized impact, the 2015 update you just provided, I know you just alluded to the ANO negative hit but you have had $0.23 if I have the year to date positive weather. What is kind of the impact of the weather normalized sales year to date if you will?
Leo Denault:
I believe that the weather normalized sales year-to-date – I don’t know – I can’t think of the year to date number off the top of my head. For the full year I believe it’s $0.07 of which about $0.08 is residential. So not weather, just residential, weather adjusted.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
Turning to more strategic issues. Looking at the nuclear business today, how are you thinking about Indian Point? Is this something, Indian Point Palisades, is this something you would consider continuing to own just as two standalone units given the continued portfolio benefit of owning it in the context of the regulated business or is this something that you would imagine that you could arrive at a strategic juncture on?
Leo Denault:
This is Leo. I mean obviously we continue to evaluate what the best bring to do with those assets is but as we mentioned before and when they were talking about overheads a moment ago in that discussion we still have economies of scale and an operating capability with the nuclear assets and as Drew mentioned we do operate facilities as a fleet and we can continue to do that from an operational standpoint and so we’re prepared to do that, doesn’t mean we aren’t looking at alternatives but as you know the alternatives around Indian Point are limited and we just have to go from here but obviously we can do it and we will if we have to and it’s not a problem for us but the strategic options obviously become limited given the regulatory approvals required et cetera.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
And just a clarification therein. The spring refueling outage on Pilgrim, that is a final decision now that you intend to pursue that rather than retire going into that?
Leo Denault:
We have not – in which year?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith :
The spring 2017 refueling outage, have you committed to doing that or is there still the thought process you could buy back the capacity?
Leo Denault:
No, we have not committed to do that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc.
Paul Ridzon :
A quick question. On Jonathan Arnold's question, you referenced 3.30, is that really be 3.35 I see on slide nine?
Drew Marsh:
Oh yes, I apologize. Yes, it’s $3.35.
Paul Ridzon :
And year to date, UPNO is at 3.55 so that imply we are going to have a loss in the fourth quarter?
Drew Marsh:
Is that including tax and weather, the $3.30 is tax weather and special items adjusted.
Paul Ridzon :
But your year to date results are $3.55 at UPNO? I'm just trying to bridge from here to there.
Drew Marsh:
That includes weather and taxes, I believe.
Paul Ridzon :
So $3.35 does not include weather?
Drew Marsh:
That’s correct.
Paul Ridzon :
And then is $50 million this year and $35 million next year is still the right split for ANO?
Drew Marsh:
That’s correct
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd :
I wanted to just follow up on Fitzpatrick and check whether there are any limits on being able to put the plant into safe store or if there are other approaches being discussed that would be perhaps more rapid on actual decommissioning of the facility? Should we be assuming a long-term safe store option or is that still to be determined?
Bill Abler:
Stephen, this is Bill. I think you should generally assume a safe store option, we’re going to have to go through the process of getting a detailed decommissioning cost estimate we put together and then file our post shutdown activity report closer to the shutdown date but we are assuming the same type of approach we used at the Vermont Yankee.
Stephen Byrd :
Just on Indian Point, there has been a series of extensions of the standstill agreement with the state of New York on sort of CZM related topics. Should we be thinking given that they are having those extensions that there is very much an active dialogue going on there, active discussions. It struck me as likely that there are active discussions given the continued short-term extensions of that standstill. Any color on the dialogue there?
Bill Abler:
Stephen we have been in some active discussions but that standstill agreement date expired, so we will go back to our position on that before we executed the standstill, again we feel very confident our legal position that we had an effective withdrawal of the CGM application and as always we’re open to constructive discussions with state.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of
Steve Fleishman :
Thanks. A couple of questions. First, Leo, could you maybe give us some sense of how you kind of came at the dividend decision that you did in terms of just target payout or something of that sort?
Leo Denault:
Sure Steve. With the growth in investment and rate base and resulting earnings growth at utility, parent and other as we have been mentioning for some time it’s our objective to provide the glide path into a consistent more predictable dividend path, as we mentioned in the past we've taken more of I guess a lumpy approach to it where we raised it 29% one year and then we take a few years off and we raised it $0.10 or something like that. So as we look out into the future consistent with our expectations around the growth in the utility parent and other segment of the business, we’re kind of on a glide path, so we would hope to provide a consistent growth that will work its way into that payout ratio over the next few years.
Steve Fleishman :
Which is the payout ratio target is at 65 to 75?
Leo Denault:
Correct. At any given time we might be over or even under depending on how we’re growing business and then obviously it takes into consideration the reinvestment that we have and the opportunity for the utility for all the items that I outlined that we put in the disclosures.
Steve Fleishman :
Different question on the nuclear, just you guys historically used to have kind of top tier of nuclear operation so kind of having the ANO and Pilgrim kind of in this Tier 4 was definitely a change. And I think there have been some changes in management and I am just curious what are the implications for the broader nuclear fleet at Entergy, overall nuclear costs, are these really just specific can issues just for these two facilities?
Leo Denault:
First, Steve, we take the operation of the fleet, obviously the safe secure reliable, operations of fleet very seriously, we did have a couple of issues that kind of compounded on each other at both facilities to get us into Column 4, we’d anticipate that this is not going to happen anywhere else and that will work our way out of this judiciously and expeditiously with the NRC over the coming couple years.
Steve Fleishman :
So it’s not costs like for the overall organization or the other plants related to that?
Leo Denault:
No.
Steve Fleishman :
And then a last question just in terms of the Fitzpatrick decision, there has been a decent amount of articles just on the political aspects of that potentially. Is there any sense of any reaction we might see from this not only just at Fitzpatrick but also maybe Indian Point in terms of political regulatory stuff?
Leo Denault:
That I can’t really comment on that, Steve and we did work to try and come up with some way to extend the life of Fitzpatrick and we weren’t able to do that, it's in everybody's best interests but it just wasn't possible. But the state official worked just as hard as we did as I mentioned in my in my scripts to come to a solution and some thing is just difficult as you saw from the disclosures, there is a lot of money lost at that facility and that’s certainly a difficult thing to overcome. But we certainly aren’t out looking for any kind of political issues.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.
Michael Lapides :
Just curious on Fitzpatrick's decision, can you give us a view of how material from an EPS and from a cash flow accretion and dilution the retirement is for 2017 and beyond?
Drew Marsh:
So from a cash flow perspective we are going to be cash flow positive over the next few years consistent with the disclosure there of 225 to 273 million, so that’s the biggest piece, I think that comes from the fact that we’re basically operating at a loss there and we’re also -- we would be incurring costs associated with capital and refuelling going forward. So I think that – those are the biggest things from a cash perspective. From a net income perspective there's a lot going on, because of the impairments you’re going to see the costs associated with the refueling outages and fuel expense that we have, those are going to be reduced considerably. Obviously the depreciation is going to come way down. The one thing that’s a little different for Fitzpatrick is the decommissioning costs, the decommissioning expense that’s currently the fund is still sitting over with NIPA [ph] and so we won't see any changes there until a point where we actually get to fund and the liability over to us, so that’s a little different than Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim going forward. So those are some of the main drivers that you will see I think, as we are thinking about the income statement for that business.
Michael Lapides :
But I think my question kind of focused on the materialness -- if there is such a word -- of how earnings accretive would it be if I looked at 2015 run rate versus 2017 and beyond post-retirement and how cash flow accretive. Directionally are we talking huge level of accretion or dilution to either of those, tiny, middle of the road?
Drew Marsh:
I think 225, 275 million is, that’s materially accretive to me in terms of cash. The earnings piece – it’s going to be accretive but it’s not going to be hugely accretive upfront. There will be some accretion in ‘16 and then in ‘17 we will start incurring the decommissioning costs and stuff like that. We are going to provide some better transparency around what we think the drivers are at the EEI conference next week.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Neel Mitra with Tudor,Pickering, Holt and Company.
Neel Mitra :
Good morning. Just wanted to clarify where you are with the industrial sales growth? Obviously it was better this quarter than last quarter but still not up to kind of the 5% that you are guiding to. When do you expect to really ramp up and what are the factors that you are evaluating right now?
Theo Bunting:
Neel, this is Theo. You mentioned the 5% we were guiding to, I think we stated the year at 4.4% in 2015 and what we have seen is our new and expansions have come on line, they have come on line as we settled slower, been delayed, the ramp ups have been slower than anticipated but what we have also seen in the first two quarters of 2015 was we saw some low volumes with our existing customers and as you recall in the first couple of quarters that was really bigger -- had a big impact on the lower than expectations in terms of the industrial sales. As Drew mentioned, in script we saw it come back relative to that in the third quarter especially in our petroleum refinery area, and from that perspective in that particular segment we expect to see that returning to the levels we somewhat expected as we go forward. You also mentioned in the fourth quarter we’ve got an existing customer, probably in the sector that is going through some outages and we won’t see likely not to see the volumetric changes in the fourth quarter that we saw in the third quarter but again those are outage rated and as Drew also mentioned you generally don’t see a relative relationship in terms of revenue change relative to volume change, when that happens with existing customers. In terms of the drivers I think we are seeing some things that others are experiencing stronger dollar kind of weaker commodity prices and it’s challenging our expectations as we said before, what we see happening from early is delays and in some cases as I said ramp-ups not happening as soon as we had thought but we will provide more color around that at the EEI in terms of really diving more into what we expect to see in ’16 and going forward.
Neel Mitra :
Just as a follow-up with the 2016 and 2017 Utility EPS, is that more contingent upon rate base growth or sales growth? Are the two related over the next two or three years? How are you looking at that?
Theo Bunting:
Again I will start and Drew might also have comments relative to this but the two are related the growth as we all know and – this business is really driven by rate base at the end of the day and from our perspective our investment thesis is still intact and we see the opportunity that we laid out in the past continue to make investments that we talked about and it’s not so much depended upon the level of sales. Sales is an opportunity for us to mitigate the impacts of those rate base growth changes and clearly with our sales volumes we have the opportunity to mitigate that probably much better than maybe some others that you see that don’t have the level of robustness as it related to sales growth. Given – again the volumes do help in terms of getting to ROEs and as we’ve shown in slides before it’s really a combination of the two, to some extent but again the growth is really tied to the investment thesis and that thesis from our perspective is still well intact.
Drew Marsh:
This is Drew. I will just add. The big drivers are going to be getting the Union deal done and then the regulatory actions in Arkansas and Texas getting those resolved, primarily to get the investment that Theo is talking about and the rates. And then the sales growth is going to be helpful but it’s an element of lag reduction as we see it and there are some O&M benefits out there, we talked about earlier and that are rolling off hopefully by the end of next year. And then we continue to see our pension expenses coming down and we do see some higher operating costs this year because of some of the nuclear compliance costs and other things that we see, so we expect that to moderate a bit going forward as well. So those are main drivers, they’d shift a little bit as you go from ’15 to ’16 and then to ’16 to ‘17 but they are pretty much the same.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Charles Fishman with Morningstar.
Charles Fishman :
Good morning. Make sure I understand this, the ANO Column 4 enhanced inspections and the associated spending, you see a path that that would be eliminated after next year?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, that goal is to get out of Column 4 and reduce the compliance costs associated with being in that regulatory situation.
Charles Fishman :
And then just a second question on the lower residential sales, just an anomaly for the third quarter, are you seeing more energy efficiency, do you have any other color you can provide on that?
Theo Bunting:
Charles, this is Theo. As we’ve talked on previous calls like most other utilities we are seeing energy efficiency and products program as well as programs that we have specific to our space. We generally talk in terms of organic residential growth in the 1% area and we see that somewhat being challenged through this year and we saw it somewhat last year as well. In terms of third quarter we had two years where we had really – weather last year and fairly positive weather this year and when you see those swings like that year-over-year know sometimes the adjustment in terms of the weather for a period like that gets little challenged, and we continue to watch and monitor the residential sales volumes, also we saw 1 .2% growth in commercial in the quarter, as well but it’s something we pay a lot of attention to and continue to look at. I don’t know, from our perspective we don’t see a kind of flat to negative as a trend but it is something for us to continue to monitor as it relates to our view of our organic residential growth .
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sharp Pareza [ph] with Guggenheim Partners.
Unidentified Analyst:
Most of my questions were answered. Just on FitzPatrick is there any situation where you can think of – or where you would have used dcom versus safe store?
Drew Marsh:
The safe store option is the one that gives you the most time to allow the fund to grow to meet your decommissioning needs. So that seems like a likely candidate but I don't know if Bill wants to add anything in.
Bill Abler:
So again we will have to go through and calculate our cost, we got 728 million in the fund, and we will go through the same process of looking to forecasting when the fund would grow to have an adequate amount to begin decommissioning according to NRC you to have it fully funded before you can start, so it will be some form of safe store, probably won't go to the end f 60 years but depending on that cost estimate it will be out in the future, so.
Unidentified Analyst:
And then you don’t expect any indirect influence from New York to shut the plant down quicker.
Bill Abler:
No, nothing that we are aware of at this time.
Unidentified Analyst:
And then just what caused the talks to break down, was it sort of – was an r-mark contract and option as a bridge, so maybe a little bit of color on that?
Drew Marsh:
We’re not going to get into any of that. We can explain the RMR issue, we’re not going to obviously discuss any details of our discussion but we had -- we previously had the New York ISO do some analysis regarding the FitzPatrick plant as to whether or it qualifies as liability – and that most recent analysis indicates that it does not. So we have submitted our notification -- shutdown notifications the PSC and the New York ISO as of today, they will have to update that study but we certainly do not expect that answer to change. And as Leo suggested all of our discussions with New York are really confidential and not appropriate for us to comment on any details. End of Q&A
Operator:
I’d like to now turn the call over to Paula Waters for any additional remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thanks Roland and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release in website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statement. We will plan file our quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC later this week. The Form 10-Q provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence about conditions that existed at the time of the balance sheet will be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056, replay code 60315863. The telephone replay will be available through Monday November 9, 2015. This concludes our call. Thank you. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President, Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Drew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer Theo Bunting - Group President, Utility Operations Bill Abler - Vice President, Commercial Operations
Analysts:
Greg Gordon - Evercore Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Julien Smith - UBS Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Anthony Crowdell - Jefferies Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs David Paz - Wolfe Research
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Paula Waters, Vice President of Investor Relations. Ma’am, you may begin.
Paula Waters:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone with questions this morning, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company’s SEC filings. Now, I will turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Paula and good morning everyone. Consistent with the first quarter, Entergy’s second quarter performance was in line with our expectations. Operational earnings per share were $0.83 about where we planned it to be and we are on track to meet our full year guidance. Given market conditions and recent business developments, current indications point to utility, parent and other earnings near the lower end of the 2016 range that we outlined on Analyst Day, still meaningful year-over-year growth in the base utility business. We remain on track to achieve our financial outlook for 2017. To achieve the expected growth, we made notable progress on our 2015 to-do list as shown on Slide 2. These important tasks are key steps in moving forward, with our near and longer term strategies for the utility as well as Entergy wholesale commodities. At the utility, the strategy we are implementing is centered on our opportunity as well as our obligation to invest capital in order to replace aging infrastructure, strength and reliability, meet economic development and other growth needs and ensure that the environmental profile of our generation fleet is in line with the evolving regulatory framework. We are also taking steps to facilitate this investment by combining the Louisiana utilities. In July, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed a unanimous settlement to combine the two companies. Pending action from the Louisiana Public Service Commission later this month, closing is on track for the fourth quarter. In May, New Orleans City Council approved several significant matters paving the way for more economic and efficient service for the city’s residents. First, the transfer of the Algiers assets in New Orleans to Entergy New Orleans, which ships approximately 22,000 customers to the utility and second, the $99 million securitization financing, which includes three components
Drew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo. I will start by covering our second quarter results and then I will turn to our longer term financial targets. Slide 3 summarizes consolidated earnings per share. In the second quarter of 2015, Entergy earned $0.83 per share in line with our expectations. Additional details on the results are provided in the press release and slides published this morning. I will cover some highlights on results starting on Slide 4 where utility, parent and other had combined earnings per share of $0.87 on an adjusted basis. This compares to $0.98 per share last year. Details of quarter-over-quarter variances can be found in Appendix B1 of the release and here are some of the key points. Despite a 1.5% decline in sales volume quarter-over-quarter on a weather-adjusted basis, our overall net revenue variance was positive. This was partly driven by capital investments that benefit customers, such as the new Ninemile 6 plan. Residential sales growth also contributed as well as new industrial customers and expansion projects. The increase in net revenue was offset by a corresponding rise in related depreciation, operations and maintenance expenses and other items. O&M increases not offset in that revenue included increased nuclear-related expenses of about $0.09. Over half was from increased nuclear regulatory commission oversight of the Arkansas nuclear 1 plant. Earlier this year, ANO was placed in column 4 of the NRC’s reactor oversight process. The increased levels of cost for ANO were expected to continue into 2016. I will take a moment now to talk a little more about industrial sales volume this quarter on Slide 5. In total, the segment was down 1.5%, driven by our existing customers. Refineries were down the most quarter-over-quarter due to their turnaround season. We anticipated a more significant turnaround season than last year, however, was a bit more expensive than we expected due to macroeconomic factors, such as high product inventories and a strong dollar. Core alkali was also down quarter-over-quarter and more so versus our expectations. Utilization from this sector was lower than anticipated due to unplanned outages compounded by margin pressure from lower demand and the market’s recently added supply, including our customers. The decline in our existing large industrial group’s mass growth from expansions and four new customers who began to ramp up this quarter. Continuing the trend from last quarter, these new customers and customer expansions are coming online and ramping up more slowly than expected. I will talk more about that later as part of our forward-looking view. Switching over for a minute to EWC, Slide 6 indicates operational earnings per share this quarter were about breakeven as expected. You may recall that we said on the first quarter earnings call that the bulk of 2015 earnings were completed at that time. The quarter-to-quarter decline was driven by a $5 per megawatt hour decrease in revenue on the operating nuclear plants and lower volume from the 34-day refueling outage of Pilgrim compared to none last year. This decline in EWC nuclear revenue was the primary factor in the operating cash flow change as shown on Slide 7. Also reflected was improved net revenue with the utility largely triggered by productive investments put in service to benefit customers. For the full year view on Slide 8, today, we affirmed our 2015 earnings per share guidance with the midpoint of $5.50 and a range of plus or minus $0.40. Recognizing we still have the summer to go, we remain on track at each of our segments to meet full year expectations. You may recall that we expect some tax items to come into play this year, but we currently do not expect any tax items in the third quarter. Slide 9 recaps the 2015 guidance midpoint for utility, parent and other, adjusted for weather, tax and special items in 2016 and 2017 midpoint outlooks. These outlooks are consistent with our previous disclosures last year at Analyst Day and at EEI. The slide also provides 2013 and 2014 results on a comparable basis. This presentation illustrates how the base business has grown, with the expectations for continuing growth through 2017. The two main drivers for this growth are making productive investments in improving our utility return on equity as shown on Slide 10. Importantly, our plans for capital investment to modernize our infrastructure, maintain and enhance reliability, and meet new compliance standards have not changed. Our 2016 rate base growth includes the Union Power plant acquisition, which approved by the required regulators. We contribute roughly $0.02 per share per month in 2016. While we have made some adjustments to the structure, our regulatory procedural schedules in required jurisdictions still allow for us to close by the end of the year. In addition, we have moved up the projected in-service date of the St. Charles power station project. Assuming LPSC approval next summer, the new construction drawdown schedule will accelerate about $0.03 per share of AFUDC into 2016 and $0.08 per share into 2017. Approximately, 90% of our $8 billion of planned investment from 2015 through 2017 will fall under a formula rate plan, rider or other constructive regulatory mechanism. This percentage includes the forward test year, FRP proposed in the Entergy Arkansas rate case. New rates will be effective by early 2016 for the rate case. And in early 2017, the changes are warranted in the first FRP review. Regarding sales growth for the balance of the year, we are already seeing evidence that the refining sector is once again performing as expected. However, with the core alkali markets challenged, the balance recently added supply. Overall uses from these customers for the remainder of the year may not reach the levels we had anticipated. Still, new customers and expansions are coming online. Previously, we had indicated that the vast majority of our large industrial customers were already under construction or had reached their final investment decisions. This is still the case. However, we have seen them trail their own expectation for the last couple quarters. Of 17 large industrial projects expected during the year, 14 are complete or under construction. Of the 14, most have experienced delays getting online and a few have lower ramp rates than expected or lower peak usage than expected. Of the three that are not under construction, they currently are delayed and represent only about 0.1% of our expected industrial sales next year. O&M expenses and other elements of managing our return on equity, you are anticipating some benefit over time from the roll off of temporary nuclear compliance cost and an estimate – an approximate 50 to 75 basis point increase in discount pension rate to 4.75% in 2016 and 5% in 2017. Looking further ahead, we expect our capital investments and plant infrastructure, transmission and other distribution system improvements will ultimately lower O&M costs for our customers, while enhancing reliability in our service territory. We will persist in looking for every opportunity to control O&M costs as part of this. Given current considerations such as capital investment, rate actions, cost changes and interest rates assumptions, our financial outlook continues to support our previously stated expectations for utility, parent and other earnings per share. As illustrated on the slide, for 2016, we are currently near the lower end of the range. For EWC, EBITDA projections have declined as shown on Slide 11. Our expected energy and capacity prices have dropped by $1 to $2 per megawatt hour since March 31. As you know, wholesale prices are volatile. We continue to follow our hedging philosophy that allows us to benefit from upward price movements, while protecting against the operational and credit risks. All-in-all, our actions this quarter and plans for the future represent sizable utility, parent and other earnings growth potential in the coming years. The fundamentals of the utility business to achieve this growth are in place, including our solid credit profile reflected on Slide 12. Backed by these credentials, we are maintaining a sound financial foundation to make investments and better serve our customers. We will continue to execute on the plan we have laid out for you. Every plan faces challenges, we are confident in our ability to meet them and succeed. Our mission as a company is to create sustainable value for our four stakeholders. Our owners, our customers, our employees and the communities we operate in. That mission is foremost than what we do everyday. And now, the Entergy team is available for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Greg Gordon from Evercore. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
Thanks. I have two questions. At what point – and when we are looking at 2017 midpoint outlook, do you reassess the ramp rate on the industrial projects that are already up and running and the excess expected in-service those that are still in queue and give us a full update, it would seem that you really wouldn’t have the visibility for – with any degree of certainty until some point in early to mid-16, is that fair?
Leo Denault:
Theo?
Theo Bunting:
Greg, this is Theo Bunting. As part of our planning process, we would try to as get much information around as we possibly can. And I think in terms of when we would – you would expect us to see some updates relative to that, we would probably be pointing toward EEI in that timeframe. And as you said and as drew has mentioned in his opening comments that information does change from time to time. And our expectation is we will try to stay abreast of that as best we can and continue to update it as new information becomes available so that we can roll that into our overall expectations.
Leo Denault:
Great. Greg, this is Leo. I will just add while and we have said this since the beginning as it relates to the addition of these customers that there are big projects, billion-dollar investments, in some cases, $10 billion investments. Schedule is always an issue in that kind of thing. Our sector has the same issue when we build big projects that are first of the kind or unique or whatever. The issue here is while its common and some may come early, some may come late, they may ramp differently the investment profile that we have got between now and then is remains intact. And as you recall, the way the business model works, the rate base growth is kind of what we are targeting here. And so if you look out there whether they come in a little bit late, a little bit early, it doesn’t really change when these power plants come. The only changes we have made, I think Drew outlined and a little more details would lie in the script is a couple of the capital projects that we had are actually coming up earlier than we had originally planned, just given the timing and the need and it’s a combination of this growth from this sector, but also the need to replace the aging infrastructure that we have and the opportunity to get these things done and constructed. So it’s not just the sales piece of it that we need to look at it from a timing standpoint. It’s coming – some of it’s coming later because of the size of the projects and other factors, but the investment profile that we have got over the next several years through the first part of decade is pretty much on track.
Greg Gordon:
Okay, understood. So to get to your guidance aspiration for ‘17 and it reflects expectations for top line revenues from industrial, you would have to either readdress your expectations for revenue requirement from other customer classes reflects your costs then?
Drew Marsh:
Yes. I think that’s true and on a short-term basis, if we have said these productive investments we would expect to ultimately get into rates. And if the sales aren’t where we have expected them to be in any given period, you are right and you would have to adjust in another area.
Greg Gordon:
Okay. Second question is on EWC, obviously the power curves come off quite a bit in New York and New England, can we attribute that to winter premiums coming off or is it summer discounts getting steeper, some combination of both and do you think there was any market activity that you can see in the foreseeable future that might reverse that trend?
Bill Abler:
Greg, this is Bill. A couple of things, I mean obviously we have seen gas prices come off tremendously at $1 since last summer. We have also seen some folks take some steps to try to mitigate the gas supplies issues, that type of thing, in terms of using LNG facilities for base loading of plants, that type of thing. So I think there is a number of issues in the market that have driven those prices down. As we look forward, we are – we are slightly bullish gas prices as we look into ‘16 that increases a little bit over time, but we are seeing some movement in New England in terms of some market structure improvements that would come on in the ‘17, ‘18 timeframe on some energy price formation issues that could be constructive. I don’t anticipate at this point seeing the numbers we saw in 2014. I mean, that was largely driven by the polar vortex and kind of the after math of that, but we do see some constructive positive steps from an energy price perspective.
Greg Gordon:
The reason I asked is because you moved your hedging, the construct of your hedges around a bit for next year and hedged up just a fair amount more, but you – there were no demonstrable changes in your hedge profile beyond ’16, is that a fact – is that a function of your point of view?
Drew Marsh:
Yes, that is a function of our point of view. And to be frank, what we are seeing out in the market as well, there is a little bit less liquidity out in the market. And obviously, we are not – we don’t want to ourselves in a situation where we are locking in at these low prices at this point in time. So we are evaluating that as we go and we think there is some upside.
Greg Gordon:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks Greg.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Your line is now open.
Paul Patterson:
Good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning Paul.
Paul Patterson:
Just I guess I wanted to sort of follow-up on that letter that you mentioned from Murkowski and some other Republican leaders regarding market reforms. And I noticed this as well and I guess what I am wondering is I mean, how quickly do you think anything from that will actually come about and I mean I don’t know, I mean, they also sort of threaten legislation that they are going to get it done, I don’t know I mean I just wanted you just elaborate a little bit more what you think the practical benefit of that would actually maybe be?
Leo Denault:
Sure. As it relates to that letter, I think it’s on track with our general thoughts in terms of what needs to happen in the market. We have had similar discussions with the ISOs and a number of other stakeholders. We think that in general, depending on what gets implemented, there is upside potential of say $3 to $6 a megawatt hour as a result of these changes to energy price formation. Now the question on timing, this will come probably in increments. And as you look at the timing of being implemented, you are probably looking at the timeframe of ‘17, ‘18 before they could actually make those changes to their systems and get those in place where we would see that uplift. Now the exception there is what we have got going in ISO New England as it relates to the winter reliability program. That’s currently being reviewed by FERC as we speak. We could see some uplift there in the upcoming winter if we get a decision in our favor as it relates to that. So it will kind of evolve over time, but we see that happening across the next 5 years or so, 3 years to 5 years.
Paul Patterson:
And it will be a series of debt is what we are talking about I guess as opposed to one sort...
Leo Denault:
That’s what I would think, Paul is it’s I think just having discussions with the ISO, there are some practical issues you have to deal with in terms of how you can change the systems associated with that and so they are more than likely would be steps taken along the way as opposed to one just big massive change.
Paul Patterson:
Okay, great. And then just on the – on Friday there was an order out of FERC that denied the authorization that some of subsidiaries were seeking for – to issue and sell securities and what have you. And I can’t recall seeing that before with FERC, think it was kind of run of the mill, maybe I am wrong, so I was a little surprised to see that they rejected it, I know that you guys can put pressures, you can re-file, I was just wondering is there any significance to this or is this just sort of a hiccup that happened because of the format which they seem to be unhappy with or how you guys report it, could you just elaborate a little more on that?
Drew Marsh:
I think you hit on most of it in terms of the format. They have a way of using backward-looking results to assess what the coverage ratio ought to be. And we had suggested some changes to that and they didn’t want to put them in. So I think it is a bit of a technical challenge, but we should be able to put the new filing in and get that complete fairly quickly.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Drew Marsh:
Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thanks Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Weinstein from UBS. Your line is now open.
Julien Smith:
Hi, good morning. It’s Julien.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, Julien.
Julien Smith:
So perhaps, first question just as it relates to Texas and East Station and the decision to pull that out. Just to be curious, could you jive that with the RFP and what the ultimate thought process is around pursuing self-build options or acquisitions under rate base? I suppose what drove the decision to provide a little context and ultimately next steps?
Leo Denault:
Theo?
Theo Bunting:
Hey, Julien, this is Theo. As Leo indicated, I mean, really in Texas, it came down to – it was clear that a clear path in Texas that the parties really preferred a long-term capacity solution located in the State of Texas. And as he said earlier, our Western RFP is seeking just that. Our objective in Texas is to obtain support of the staff and the customer groups or approaches that meet the generation’s resource needs in Texas. And I mean, clearly, as the record indicated as it relates to Union transaction that was not the case. And as Leo mentioned in the script also in the opening comments, there has been interest expressed in New Orleans and we are pursuing regulatory approvals. We will pursue regulatory approvals in New Orleans with the City Council relative to that. The second part of your question, I am not sure I understood when you said kind of what’s next.
Julien Smith:
Right. I suppose fundamentally there is not necessarily any opposition to doing rate-based or cell phone options per se, right? This was more about a locational angle on the plant rather than your ownership of the unit per se, correct?
Theo Bunting:
We don’t believe there is any opposition to self build. Matter of fact, if you look – if you go explore the record I will mention by the other parties around another option being a self-build option in Texas. So, we don’t clearly believe there is any opposition to it. It was just a preference in Texas, the interveners and other parties in Texas. And clearly, I think their views and comments relative to other options made it clear that was self-build. It is something that could be pursued in the future.
Julien Smith:
Got it. And then separately on transmission, I know you have provided some background here, but I would be curious, I suppose MISO did an out-of-cycle study on MISO’s doubt during the quarter, could you elaborate on that as it relates to the studies that you discussed yourself at the various capabilities? And ultimately, how that jives with your capital budgeting process and if that’s already reflected in your CapEx expectation?
Theo Bunting:
Sure. I am not – when you talk about, I mean, we had one out-of-cycle project, I believe, which was the Lake Charles project. But in terms of just transmission and MISO in general, I mean, as you know, we have a fairly robust transmission investment in ‘15 through ‘15 – ‘15 through ‘17, I am sorry, capital cycle. We nearly doubled in ‘15 versus ‘14. And as Leo went through his opening comments, he mentioned a number of transmission projects that are currently being approved and the process of being approved and will be underway shortly, approximately almost $800 million of transmission projects. So, we feel good about the fact that we have got transmission opportunities. In terms of the MISO study, the VLR study in that MISO accelerated six projects into ‘15. And largely, most of those projects were already in our plan, but what we do see potentially is an opportunity for acceleration of some of those projects. And the fact that MISO is moving forward in that process gives us our confidence as these projects will be approved by MISO.
Julien Smith:
And perhaps just to clarify is that already reflected in your CapEx outlook as it stands today?
Theo Bunting:
For the most part, yes.
Julien Smith:
Alright, great. Thank you.
Leo Denault:
Thank you, Julien.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Dan Eggers from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.
Dan Eggers:
Hey, good afternoon guys. Leo, just on the industrial outlook and kind of maybe the longer term prospects, can you share a little bit about how much time you are spending on economic development and kind of your quoting industrial customers and you were pretty busy last year. How is that changing, if at all, right now?
Leo Denault:
I will let Theo jump in, but we continue to work that process across all of our jurisdictions. You have seen a lot of success, obviously, with things that are under construction in the near-term, in the Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and others, but we have – as we mentioned earlier, as we went through our reorganization last year, one of the things that we had done was beef up the business and economic development functions and we continue to have those folks out working the process, things like the region designation here in Louisiana and other things we are working to make sure that we help continue to promote the region. So, I guess how much time we spend in quite a bit, some people – we have a department that’s their full-time job working with the states. And obviously, the states are backing off this either as all of them are working, working very diligently to try and help bring economic development. So, that includes we continue to utilize our site selection database. We continue to try and pre-certify sites. We continue to build transmission into areas that could house more manufacturing before the fact that they are not necessarily ready yet. So, all of those things, both in our activities from an economic development, operationally and also from the regulatory process, we are continuing to pursue forward on all of them. Theo, I don’t know if you want to add anything.
Theo Bunting:
I guess, Dan, one thing I will add in addition is we continue to work very closely with states in which we serve. And as Leo mentioned, we – in the regulatory environment itself, I mean, if you look at some of the transmission projects, he mentioned that we have done some of those transmission projects or specific around working to foster economic development in the regions. So, we have a lot of people dedicated full-time to helping the regions that we serve growth. That’s part of our growth story.
Dan Eggers:
Okay. So, I guess if I think about the economic growth from here, maybe I will say it differently. If you look at industrial demand, industrial recruitment today are the whiteboards more full or less full than they were 6 or 9 months ago? I mean, is the population of opportunity changing as you talk to customers?
Theo Bunting:
I would say we are continuing to pursue more opportunities and tried to keep that pipeline growing. I mean, that’s our objective quite frankly is to do as much as we can to continue to see a growth in the pipeline. In terms of kind of where we are now versus 6 months ago, I would have to go back and look at the data specifically, but it is something we focus on. And we understand that having a strong pipeline is really a key to having success in the economic development area.
Leo Denault:
And I will just add the investments that we are making in the system again make the area more conducive. So, we are modernizing the generation fleet. We are improving the fuel cost because of that. We are improving reliability, because we are building things like the Lake Charles Transmission Project that’s going to not only help serve the customers that are under construction down there, but it’s going to beef up the system down there to be able to handle more. So, we are – we kind of get out. While we are placing the aging infrastructure, beefing up the reliability to meet new requirements and to meet existing construction of those facilities, it puts us in a better position to bring those in. So, the investment profile helps fulfill not only what we are doing right now but bring other stuff in as well.
Dan Eggers:
And I guess just separate from market reforms, when you guys think about your more than and your point of view, do you see gaps against the fours, where you think New England New York prices should be today and maybe help quantify what you think the delta is with the sell off in power prices?
Leo Denault:
Yes, I don’t. I think what we are seeing obviously from a supply perspective is continued growth in the supply in Marcellus. Obviously, that is creating a discount to Henry Hub. And as we look forward in terms of our pricing, we don’t see those numbers going above 4% anytime in the near future. I mean, we see that staying fairly consistent with now, but again, I said we are bullish. So, we see it rising, but not getting above that level. So, that’s kind of where we sit. And obviously, the power prices are commensurate with that. I mean, as you look at that from an energy price perspective.
Theo Bunting:
And that’s true. I will just add that once you get out little further on the curve and don’t mention this earlier, there is a bit of liquidity discount that’s out there. And we have seen this in the past as you roll the props, some of that comes out of the market and improves things a little bit, but some of that had gone away last year, but it seems to have reasserted itself again. So, I guess but for some backwardation because of liquidity you think the curves are pretty realistic to where the fundamental value is?
Leo Denault:
No, I have said we are still slightly bullish. For ‘16 we are a little bullish and that kind of increases as we got – go out over time, but it’s relative to where we were a year ago. It's, obviously, a lower price level.
Dan Eggers:
Okay, got it. Thank you, guys.
Leo Denault:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jonathan Arnold from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Jonathan Arnold:
Well, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning Jonathan.
Jonathan Arnold:
Leo, could you just help us kind of parse your statement about the dividend still being potentially up for discussion in the fall, when we would look at your utility, Parent & Other, the low end of guidance for 2016 would put the pay out ratio above 65% to 75% target a little bit. So you are going to be thinking about other things beyond payout?
Leo Denault:
What we are looking at is a long-term perspective, Jonathan in the growth and the business. So I think the way I have characterized it in the past is that we are looking out several years. We are looking at sustained dividend path. We are not going to jump around with it to follow when earnings go up a bunch in 1 year raise it a lot. When they don’t go up raise it a little, we are trying to get ourselves more of a glide path view about the long-term prospects of the company. And as we have said, we look at the investment profile that we have for the aging infrastructure, for the reliability requirements, for environmental needs as well as the growth we are seeing in the business and that helps facilitate all of that. And we see an upward sloping long-term trajectory that would indicate to us that the time is right to look at when to start to follow that earnings path, and that could be as early at this fall.
Jonathan Arnold:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Anthony Crowdell from Jefferies. Your line is now open.
Anthony Crowdell:
Good morning. Just two quick questions, I wanted to follow-up on Dan’s question, your view on gas, I mean is it closer to the $3 number or the $4 number. And second, in your comment, Leo, you had stressed or stated that EWC makes up roughly 15% of the consolidated company’s earnings, where is the sweet spot there with EWC?
Leo Denault:
You want to talk about gas?
Theo Bunting:
Yes. I think on the gas price, I mean, you guys know where it is right now, we are closer to the $3 level and the $4 level at the front end of the curve.
Leo Denault:
As far as the sweet spot, I mean I wouldn’t say there is a sweet spot or not, it’s just the fact of the matter is right now, the investment profile that we have and the utility is very, very robust. The opportunity for returns are very good there. The need for the investment, because of, as we have mentioned before 75% of our non-nuclear facilities in the utility are over 30 years old, I mentioned the Michoud plant, for example in my prepared remarks. That’s a plant that’s been online since 1960s and there are more efficient ways currently if we – once we beef up the transmission system and meet the MISO requirements to be able to serve that load and deactivate that unit, we deactivated 25 units since 2010 and we continue to go on the path to have more and bigger units in that realm as we add to the system. The risk reward trade off is just better at the utility than it is at EWC for our deployment of capital. So it’s less than 15% and I am being generous with that because I take out the tax benefits that we are showing up in the 2015 numbers before you get close to 15% in 2015. And if you just protect out forward what’s happening with the utility business and the growth profile we have there, 15% becomes smaller. The 15% become smaller and smaller as we go through time given that trade off. So there is no sweet spot, it’s just a fact. And as it relates to the business itself, it’s a different business. It should have a different investor mix. It should have a different dividend profile. It should have a different commercial reality. And so our objectives right now are to grow the utility business and we – we have no plans to grow the EWC business to merchant business, given that risk-reward trade-off and the different investor base. But the fact is over time, between now and 2020 in particular, we are going to become more and more and more a utility. That’s just the fact.
Anthony Crowdell:
Great. Thanks for taking my question.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Michael Lapides:
Hi, guys. Just I wanted to make sure I understood something on the utility capital spending levels and the utility demand trends, it strikes to me that your tone today was that the demand trends a little bit softer or maybe a little bit more delayed than expected. But then when you talked about the capital spending trends and the generation, it seems as if several new projects have moved forward a year or so, I am just curious, it seems like if demand more pushed out a little bit, maybe projects would get pushed out, not accelerated, but can you just kind of walk me through the difference there?
Leo Denault:
Well, I will start and let others jump in, Michael. But the – remember for almost a decade, we have had I think we called it the portfolio transformation strategy where we have been working to replace the generation fleet over the course of the last several years, maybe not quite a decade, but maybe close. We have seen an ever-changing landscape of the reliability requirements out of the NERC and certainly the continuation of environmental policies, etcetera, whether it’s MATS, or now CPP or what have you. All of those things have created a real need for us to continue to modernize our generation fleet to add new transmission facilities and to make investments in environmental compliance and we are going to continue to do that. We are at a point now where we – as we change out that generation fleet, it’s turning more and more, absent the union projects, turning more and more to construction to replace that aging fleet. So that part of the process is reasonably agnostic to what the demand growth is. You are changing out the megawatt for megawatt because you get the more efficient new power plant in place versus one that with the O&Ms creeping up, etcetera, because of its age that just happens over time. So that’s really not changed one way or the other. The growth whether it’s a little bit delayed or not, is still pretty crisp. And we are making plans to build generation and replace the aging infrastructure as well as meet that new demand. If a plant slips a year, that doesn’t really change the capital program. And in fact even as long ago as Analyst Day when we were asked, so what could be your capital program, we said, well not very much, because it’s a long – you got to plan this stuff in advance. So even back then, we had mentioned that the capital program around the edges wouldn’t change a lot as long as the demand growth stayed in a reasonably close proximity to what we are seeing. And so delays, one way or the other where – what we mentioned back then might have some impact, that projects might move around, but that they were still going to show up. So all it is, is sharpening the pencil on the need for the facilities and when we can get it done based on the age of the fleet, interaction with the transmission system and when this stuff is showing up. And right now there hasn’t been big enough shifts in anything to change the construction program versus where we were. We have a couple of projects. We are going to market test for an earlier project. We are bringing the new generation here at St. Charles project online a little earlier. We brought Ninemile 6 online early. And I think we have learned from that in terms of the timing it takes. So we were embedding in some of these projects how long it would take to go from planning to development to construction and we have proven we can do it faster and at a lower cost and that’s what happened in Ninemile and that’s what we had anticipated what happened at St. Charles project and likely happens on some of the other stuff as well. So we are – the construction program meets many needs, sales growth is one of them and an important one we have to be ready, willing and able to serve these customers when they show up. And if they show up six months later than they had planned, we still want to be there with a reliable system when they show up and that's really all we are doing.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. And then one question on EWC, what do you see is the impact and do you think it’s already embedded in market expectations for some of the new pipeline projects, maybe constitution, which is coming online in New York, there is also some smaller pipelines that actually came on in New York pretty recently as well as some of the more longer dated projects, the Eversource and Spectra projects or the Kinder Morgan 1, to get you new gas up into New England?
Theo Bunting:
I think the Eversource-Spectra project is one that is kind of included in the current market expectations. Obviously, in New York, I think those are progressing well and are also kind of already included in the market. I think the issue is going to be how do some of those get paid for specifically in New England and how – what is the cost recovery mechanism going to be and how is that going to work, is it going to go through the legislative process. And then – but I think a lot of that is built into expectations kind of going forward.
Michael Lapides:
Got it. Thank you, guys. Much appreciate it.
Leo Denault:
Thanks Michael.
Operator:
Thank you. And our final question will come from David Paz from Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.
David Paz:
Hi, good morning.
Leo Denault:
Good morning, David.
David Paz:
I believe your 2017 utility outlook expected 3.25% or 3.75% retail sales growth on average, just want to make sure, is that still – does your outlook still expect to reflect that figure?
Drew Marsh:
Well, I mean we have continued to look at that and as Theo mentioned, we will have a fuller update later this fall, probably the EEI, but our expectations given the number of changing variables are that we are still in the middle of that range.
David Paz:
Great. And do you just have – I don’t know if you have given this before, but have you – what would every 100 basis point change in that figure do to your 2017 target, all else equal?
Drew Marsh:
I don’t know that we have published a rule of thumb on the growth rate of industrial change. Certainly 1% change in our existing base is about $0.11...
Paula Waters:
Total…
Drew Marsh:
Yes. So it’s like $0.02 for industrial, $0.04 for commercial, $0.05 or so $0.06 for the residential piece. So I think – and that's a 1% change across all segments, so on the existing piece. But I don’t know that we have published a rule of thumb around sensitivities for the industrial change in the growth piece, 1%. It would be a little different than the existing piece because the existing piece has the demand charges built into it already and so you would only be seeing the variability around the energy piece that we actually sell to customers. So – and that’s about 50% of the margin for the industrial piece. So I don’t know, it seems like there might be about $0.04, but I don’t have those numbers in front of me.
David Paz:
Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And I would now like to turn the call over to Paula Waters for any closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release in website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statement. As a reminder, we plan to file our quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC this week. The Form 10-Q provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence about conditions that existed at the time of the balance sheet will be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing 855-859-2056, conference ID 44024303. The telephone replay will be available until August 11, 2015. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Paulo Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Leo Denault - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Andrew Marsh - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Bill Mohl - President, Entergy Wholesale Commodities Theo Bunting - Group President, Utility Operations
Analysts:
Julien Dumoulin - Smith of UBS Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates Greg Gordon - Evercore ISI Daniel Eggers - Credit Suisse Steven Fleishman - Wolfe Research Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Jonathan Arnold - Deutsche Bank Charles Fishman - Morningstar
Operator:
Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy First Quarter 2015 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would like to introduce your host for today’s conference Mrs. Paulo Waters, Vice President of Investor Relations. Ma'am, you may begin.
Paulo Waters:
Good morning and thank you for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from introduced Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone with questions this morning, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainty that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Now I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo Denault:
Thank you Paula and good morning everyone. 2015 is an important year for Entergy because it would be one in which we continue to execute the strategy that we’ve been pursuing for some time. As we report results for the first quarter, I’d like to start by putting the progress we’ve made in some perspective. Two years ago we laid out an ambitious agenda for the future we wanted to create one in which Entergy was growing because our communities and customers were prospering. One goal in that agenda was to deliver stability and efficiency by maintaining solid financial putting and by making Entergy a more nimble organization one more aligned with the changing energy landscape. To that end we joined MISO and also began the process transform the way we work by removing cost from our business and aligning talent and resources with strategic company imperatives. Another goal was to provide clarity, a well defined path forward identifying what business initiatives the company would focus and the timeline for execution. We accomplished this by first articulating our vision and mission for the future simply but precisely. We filed and concluded several major regulatory proceedings including four rate cases representing 80% of utility retail sales which provide clarity on future earnings opportunities. We also ended our efforts to spinoff and merge our transmission assets by ITC. Finally we said that our well defined path would focus on seven major strategic imperatives which will refine down to growing the utility business, managing risk and preserving optionality at Entergy wholesale commodities. As many of you may recall from our Analyst Day presentation last June we outlined our plans to achieve these imperative. Over the past year we have continued to provide greater detail as to how we intend to capture the opportunities available to us and today the picture is much more complete. We have filled in details of what we aim to achieve, how we will achieve it and a timeline for execution. In terms of performance, results and growth, we continue to be in line with our expectation. In the near term financial results for the first quarter of 2015 include operational earnings of $1.68 per share. That’s a strong start to the year and while it’s still early, it is clearly in line with our expectations for full year results. Andrew will elaborate on this in a few minutes. On our strategic efforts, a brief look at that confirms the soundness of a number of the business decisions we made over the past two years many in partnership with our regulators. For example, joining MISO has proved enormously beneficial to our customers. In the first year alone, customers across the utility realized nearly $240 million in energy related saving exceeding expectation. Consistent with our expectations the utility also realized substantial capacity related savings due to the lower reserve margin required within MISO’s larger footprint. With an industrial renaissance underway in the Gulf South region fueled by low natural gas and electricity prices, it became clear that Entergy’s utility business was well positioned to capture an enormous growth opportunity. In order to meet this opportunity, we expanded the number of people dedicated to growing our industrial customer base. This team laid out a detailed map of where the opportunities would likely materialize to develop the customized strategies to serve these new and existing customers. With an effective partnership with state and local officials, we have worked tirelessly to help to track industrial customers to the legion and as of March 2015, the Entergy utility business has experienced seven straight quarters of industrial sales growth. As we said we would, we are leveraging this opportunity, this industrial renaissance provides keep our customer rates low while modernizing our operations, strengthening reliability and growing rate base. Some important examples of this include, our announcement last year to purchase the Union Power facility in Arkansas, the completed construction of Ninemile 6 ahead of schedule and under budget and planned transmission builds in Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas. Importantly, we are also taking deliberate steps to create the financial flexibility we will need to drive even more growth. Our current effort to combine Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is one good example. Obtaining authorization for a purchase capacity either in Texas in addition to the existing transmission and distribution providers is another. Focusing specifically on 2015, as you can see on Slide 2 it promises to be another busy year. We have set our sights on accomplishing a number of important tasks this year and we are on track. For example, Ninemile 6 began commercial operation in late December and we were pleased to welcome the Louisiana State officials and members of the LPSV to its official grand opening in January and out of the construction of a new high voltage transmission project necessary to maintain reliability in the Lake Charles area load centre, among the largest in Entergy’s history. MISO Board approved the project last week and we will be filing for LPSC certification very soon. In Arkansas Governor Hutchinson signed legislation that establishes a formula rate plan for the forward test year and also addresses evidentiary considerations in setting return on equity and the proper method to determine the AFUDC rate. Because it eliminates the need for a major base rate case every two years to three years, this law will allow Entergy Arkansas to align rates with investments in a timely manner to focus time and resources on activities that create sustainable value for the state including job growth. In Mississippi, within the recently approved rate case and a new law passed this quarter, we now have a well-defined rate structure including forward looking feature, available credit, faster recovery that will allow us to attract new customers and businesses for the state. We’re also making progress on task that we have targeted for the second quarter. For example, last Friday Entergy Arkansas filed its base rate case requesting to recover cost that result in $167 million increase including a 10.2% ROE a formula rate plan with a future test year. The latter would be further recently approved legislation We expect new rates to go into effect in early 2016. New rates associated with the formula rate plan to go into effect in early 2017. It is worth noting that after this case is resolved we expect to have two utilities operating under rate plan plans with forward looking feature. In fact, nearly 85% of expected rate base in 2017 will be under FRPs or other formulae rate making mechanisms. Over the next few years at the utility our priority is to continue to implement our resource plan, which we are calling power to grow and which is designed to allow us to support the economic growth in our service territory and maintain reliable service to existing customers all while keeping rates low. And by 2020, you see a need to construct approximately $3.7 billion and new generation resources consisting of six new power plants. We also expect 635 miles of new and upgraded transmission to come online by 2022. First most of these projects were subject to approval by our regulators, we will be making the necessary filings seeking those approvals. Let me give you a bit more detail about both the generation and transmission needs that comprise in the utilities power to grow. On the generation front, utility supply plans include for example three new build VCDT. More specifically, we are planning for whether through self-build or other agreements one 800 megawatt plant in the mid-south region pending the results of the RFP that is underway, to solicit proposals for new generation in this region of our system. The other plan would be in Wotab, specifically within the Lake Charles area, which is experiencing rapid industrial expansion. Completion of this facility is targeted for 2021. Third, would be in Texas, specifically the Western region also by 2021. The generation resources are in addition to the planned acquisition of the Union Power facility as well as the construction of Ninemile 6. It is important to know that as with the 2020 Amite South facility to help build projects with the other new plants I mentioned would be marked tested via RFP or other mechanism as directed by our regulators. But the need to modernize as well as to meet growing demand is clear. In addition, to support near-term needs, we anticipate adding one CT plant in the Lake Charles Louisiana area by the end of 2020 as well as CT in New Orleans in New Orleans in 2019. Both of these plants will further diversify our generation portfolio by providing quick start peaking capability, serve growth and meet occasional reliability need. On the transmission front, our resource plant includes significant investments in transmission to the new and evolving NERC requirements as well as facilitate committed and expected growth and attract future growth. Major projects include the $62 million project we announced this month in Arkansas, build 24 miles of line in part to attract new industrial customers. In Texas over the next two years we have approval to build three 230 KV transmission projects filling more than 65 miles of line and more than $150 million in investment. In Louisiana we plan to make significant investment about $56 million, in new high capacity transmission facilities in mid-south which will make economic energy available to our customers and ensure reliable service in the heart of this industrial load pocket. In addition, we intend to build an approximately $187 million project including contingency in the Lake Charles area and action recently approved by the MISO board. I'll make a note here that everything I've just listed has been part of our capital plan for some time. We began by identifying the context in need, moved to the level of investment we thought it would take, and have now named specific projects, which merely provide detail and clarity. As I have noted the power to grow projects will bring significant economic and reliability benefits to the customers and communities we serve and if our plants are approved we'll translate to $8 billion of capital expenditures over the next three years resulting in $3billion to $4 billion in incremental rate based growth. $1.05 billion to $1.1 billion in utility net income and utility parent and midpoint earnings per share are between $4.50 - $4.90 by 2017. In addition to this activity we are in the early stages of reviewing new investments and they could provide significant value to our customer. As we have before, we are identifying need in context and as these specifics begin to emerge, we will provide more. For example in Louisiana, the staff of the public service commission issued a composed order establishing a pilot program that would deploy instruments to stabilize natural gas cost including acquisition of supply to a direct interest or joint venture. Recent Mississippi legislation also supports such investment by providing for rate recovery and capital investment in natural gas reserves in order to foster long-term stability in the cost of fuel. We will also continue to evaluate opportunities for operational, reliability and customer service improvements as the industry continues to evolve and these could involve investments in the grid. We will work again in partnership with regulators and policy makers to achieve legislative and regulatory frameworks that support constructive outcome, both for our business those it serve. This is a long list, but we know that everything on it is important. If we continue to make progress on this list, as we expect to do, we continue to deliver good customer service with a more modern and reliable system that can accretive return levels and if we do it all while maintaining our rate advantage we will have creative value for all of our stake holders. The stability and financial flexibility created by these actions will help to put us into positions as discussed a dividend increase with our board of directors. A discussion that could come as early as this fall. Turning to EWC, here to over the past two years we've made progress on resolving numerous uncertainties and improving productivity. Most importantly, our EWC plant have operated safely and reliably. The nuclear fleet's average capacity factor over the past five years has exceeded 90%. We also made it a priority to better align our commercial and operational teams. If this alignment would be the foundation of everything we sought to achieve, the substantial values subsequently created by our risk management in hedging activities particularly during periods of extreme market volatility, these evidence are success in this regard. Our confluence factors resulting in much lower prices and less volatility this past winter in Northeast markets, our portfolio remains well positioned to capture upside from volatility as we see reserve margins decline and inadequate fuel supply infrastructure for the foreseeable future. We also made progress towards resolving some of the uncertainties surrounding the license renewal at Indian Point. We did this in part by successfully arguing the plant is grandfathered under the New York Coastal Zone Management Program. All this decision is being appealed by the New York State Department of State, we continue to believe that based on the facts we will be successful in extending the license life at Indian Point into the next decade and beyond. We remain committed to working constructively with the state of New York and regulators in this process. All the recent shut down of Vermont Yankee as well as the ongoing investment growth at utility has diminished with absolute and relative side, EWC remains an important asset in the Entergy portfolio. As we look to the future we will continue to focus on operational excellence and adapted commercial approaches. We'll also continue to advocate for changes to price formation and reform of the Northeast market structure. Continued out of market policies and intervention at state and regional level have made clear the critical need for federal guidance and direction in independent system operator who is been -- is responsible for competitive regional market. In particular, we believe guidance is needed in implementing new policies for both capacity and energy pricing, which are market based, for more transparency and provides fair value to attribute to provided by each type of generating resource. Entergy has been an active participant in many proceedings including clear and competitive market. Also initial signs of problem recognition are emerging. Generators and restructured markets left the constructive changes implemented in the near future. Without such change, sustainability of otherwise viable existing generating units will continue to be at risk especially given the investments required to properly maintain and reliably operate these facilities. We remain committed to working constructively with the FERC and the ISOs to achieve fair and balanced competitive markets in North East. In 2017, based on market crisis at the end of the March, we estimate EBITDA of $540 million at the EWC. Two years ago we redefined our mission, be a world class energy company in business to create sustainable value for all our stakeholders. We set plans and strategies to live that aim. I am pleased to report on our achievements for each stakeholder. Our owners, we set our objective to deliver top quartile returns in 2014, we did so. All our customers, we said we wanted to achieve best in class service. Most importantly to do this by keeping power flowing, when the lights do glow, getting them back on as quickly as possible. This June, the Southeastern electric exchange would recognize Entergy with its Chairman's award, our transmission team work restoring power, quickly and safely, after last year's tornadoes. Also this year perceivable reasons and for the 17th year in a row, EEI with its emergency recovery award. We said we would maintain our rate advantage. Today our average retail customer rates across all classes are 20% below the national average. We said we maintain our commitment to support the communities reserve. Last year alone be contributed more than $16 million in numerous agencies foundations and other organizations, all working, make our communities better. The recognition of our performance on this front, we are recently named to Corporate Responsibility Officer magazine's ranking of 100 best corporate citizens. We are proud to be number 36 overall as well as the top ranking utility. And finally to our employees, we said we would cultivate a culture, rewards and fosters achievement, in doing so we would create a company that everyone is proud to call their own. This effort will never have an endpoint. Everything I talked about today is evidence of our success on this front and the credit goes entirely to the 13,000 plus people across Entergy. So again today it is clear that Entergy is on a path to create sustainable long-term value for its stakeholders. We believe our track record of achievement over the past two years of service is an evidence of what we can achieve in the years to come. Again, in terms of performance, result and growth at Entergy we are where we expect to be. We are in track to accomplish what we set out to achieve/ And with that, I'll turn it over to Drew.
Andrew Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. Before I get to the quarter's result, I would like to spend a few seconds on our new quarterly earnings package. The release and appendices focus largely on results on or forward-looking disclosures are primarily in the webcast presentation. We have also made a few additions and on which I'll point out as I go through the results. In case you're having trouble finding a particular item, we are provided a cross-reference on the page 22 of the release. Our earnings package is organized a little differently, but the disclosures that you depend on are still provided. Hope you will find the new items all responses to your feedback. If you find that is not the case, report to us now. Now let's turn to the quarterly results. Slide three summarizes first quarter consolidated earnings per share. Operational results exclude special items from the decision to close Vermont Yankee, and the HCM implementation in 2015. Operational earnings per share were 1.6, a $1.68 in the first quarter of 2015, lower than the $2.29 per share earned in 2014. The quarter-over-quarter decline was largely attributable to lower wholesale energy prices at EWC. Slide four summarizes first quarter EPS with the utility and parent and other. Combined operationally EPS was $0.97 per share in the current period, compared to $0.90 in the first quarter in 2014. Utility net revenue was the base driver and billed retail sales increased 1.5% on a weather adjusted basis. Once again the strongest growth was in the industrial class. Quarter-over-quarter nonfuel O&M increase mostly in line with our expectations. In the near term, expenses were higher by $0.07 due primarily of planned maintenance outages. Nuclear spending increased $0.04 due largely to higher regulatory compliance expenses. Other expenses increased to $0.10 of the quarterly variance, most of which have direct cost recovery in net revenue including energy efficiency cost and MISO administrative fees. Utility first quarter 2015 results included an income tax benefit as well. You probably noticed that we added a new adjusted earnings view that endeavors highlight the underlying performance of the utility business with parent and other which combined on the basis of our dividend policy. Turning back industrial sales for a moment on slide 5, they came in at 2.9% higher than last year. The growth was again across almost all customer segments. Chemical saw the highest increase primarily due to core alkali and petrochemical customers. Transportation segment was also strong. Other industrial sales increased -- although industrial sales increased they were lower than we expected due to customer outages and some delays with new customers and expansion projects. Moving to EWC, slide 6 shows both EBITDA and EPS for the quarter. EWC operational adjusted EBITDA was $254 million in the current quarter about $200 million in the last year. Closer of Vermont Yankee and is mostly un-hedged position last year down than more than half of the quarter quarter-over-quarter decrease. Closer of VY also affects every line item and that makes the understanding detail drivers difficult. There for in spite 27 and 28 in the appendix provide additional information to help you navigate. Excluding VY, net revenue will still remain driver for the EBITDA decline as wholesale energy prices in the first quarter of last year was significantly higher. Now in VY nuclear generation increased on fuel refueling outage. On an EPS basis, EWC’s operational earnings were $0.71 per share lower than the $1.39 a year ago. In addition to the drivers already noted EWC had a higher effective tax rate and higher realized earnings on decommissioning trust about half of which was for VY. Briefly moving to slide 7, OCF was $611 million in the current quarter, about a $150 million lower in 2014. The most significant driver was lower net revenue from lower wholesale energy prices with EWC partially offset by higher net revenue at utility. Now let’s turn to forward looking information. Slide 8 summarizes our 2015 operational earnings guidance which we affirm today with the midpoint of $5.50 on a range of plus or minus $0.40. We are ahead of expectations through the first quarter as it still in the year and our expectations for the full year remain on track with our original guidance. As we look at the longer term expectation, slide 9 summarizes our EWC EBITDA outlook based on market prices as of quarter end. You will note that they have not changed much till end of the year despite the volatility between then and now. We are still bullish on power and natural gas versus the current market but not as bullish as we were and that means that we now expect EWC’s EBITDA will be below our previous point of view expectation. That said we received consistent feedback that the [POV] based EBITDA has been a source of confusion since we introduced it last summer. Markets have been within our point of view range and below our point of view and multiple times over the last year and again that EWC markets and by extension earnings a volatile. To simplify we are returning to our previous practices of externally communicating only the market based EBITDA expectation and to this gladded in the related of today. We will continue to provide our point of view on the market but not those specific point of view EBITDA estimate. While on EWC continue to receive questions regarding impairment. As in the current quarter we’ve not incurred an impairment law but we continue to monitor this issue which includes consideration of the expectation of future economic conditions particularly price levels is also stat of operations in the caring value of the asset. Keep in mind, impairments would not affect our decisions with respect to continued operations of the plan. Slide 10 reflects our 2017 outlook for utility and Parent and Other. The utility outlook remains on track for 2017 operational earnings of 1.05 billion to 1.1 billion. As we have said before, this includes our statutory tax rate and pension discount rate of 5%. Foundation for utilities growth outlook is it capital investment plan, continue to expect 5% to 7% [indiscernible] through 2017. Nearly $1 billion union acquisition and other potential generation refresh our aging fleet as well as to meet new customer loaded clients. And by transmission investments to meet noted requirements and customer reliability needs industrial expansion. In addition of the capital investment plan we will need to execute on rate cases in our Arkansas, Texas this year to achieve our objective. Few final comments on financing activity before I conclude, into deep corporation have $550 million five years notes which will come due in September this year. And with finance those notes and advance from maturity date possibly as early as this quarter. We are also amending Entergy Corps $3.5 billion credit facility along with $650 million of companion operating company line of credit to extend for one year and to account for the ELL EGSL business combination. Lastly on March 31st S&P revised its rating outlook for Entergy Corp and its subsidiaries to positive from stable. S&P specifically noted increased focus on our regulated businesses, the expectation for above average utility sales growth and recently passed Arkansas legislation and other factors that are expected to continue to strengthen our business risk profile overtime. As we’ve said, we’ve made a lot of progress in the last couple of years and we remain on track to achieve our objectives, over the next few years, and create real and sustainable value for our key stakeholders, our owners, our customers, our employees and our communities. And now the Entergy team is available for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Julien Dumoulin of Smith of UBS. Your line is now open.
Julien Dumoulin:
Now, could we address, first off, the sales growth? You addressed it at length in the commentary, but perhaps can you jive the first-quarter 1.5% relative to the full-year target? And also in contrast, I see that -- I suppose, in your guidance, you talk about utility revenue up $0.55 for the year. And I think you hit it net about $0.25 though, a constructive commentary there, where do you stand viz-a-viz the EPS as well? So the percent change in the EPS on the utility, if you can?
Andrew Marsh:
Theo, why don’t you start, and then if you could.
Theo Bunting:
So Julien I’ll maybe address your first question in terms of the growth. As Drew said, the 1.5% was primarily impacted by what we saw in the industrial sector in terms of where it came in at 2.9%; most of that that was driven primarily in two areas. The timing of new and the expansion project, that we expected in the first quarter, as well as the one time unexpected issues with just some of our existing customers. And those two issues roughly represented about 50% of the difference in terms of what we expected versus where we ended up. So clearly that seems we’ve had some softening in the first quarter. Clearly some of that we will see pick up as we go out into the year in 2016 and 2017. So it doesn’t change our overall expectation as it relates to 2017 at this point in time. What I’ll also say though even with the 1.5% growth as you mentioned our revenues were still strong and revenues got fairly much close to our expectations. And so it’s still early and we’re still assessing what we believe will be as we go through the year, but I mean the first quarter delays clearly could dampen our 2015 results but again as Drew mentioned early we still see ourselves in our earnings guidance for 2015.
Andrew Marsh:
Yes this is Drew and I’ll just add that in addition to what Theo said we do have some cost in that top line which are offset in O&M, so I think in my comments talking about around $0.10 is other stuff, for some things like MISO cost and energy efficiency cost that – we’re a little ahead of where we expected them to be and they’re offset in that net revenue line so that’s that part of why the net revenue line is higher than maybe what you’re anticipating as well.
Julien Dumoulin:
Got it. But just to be clear on the sales growth, its fundamental delays is not necessarily a shift in the fundamental outlook for a decline in the commodities, et cetera?
Theo Bunting:
Yes I mean what we thought primarily was just our shifts and timing. As we’ve said from an oil price perspective, we still don’t see any significant impact. I mean we fundamentally believe a large majority of our industrial growth through ’17 is coming from projects that are already in advanced stages of development and first quarter didn’t change that.
Leo Denault:
This is Leo, Jul, I’d just add. We’ve mentioned this before but I guess just it garnered some reinforcement. Lot of these expansions into our new customers, they’re big projects. And they target a date that it’s not uncommon for capital projects in the 100s of millions of dollars or in some cases the multi-billion dollar range a month or two here and there. So that may or may not occur in line with what we would have expected from time-to-time also.
Julien Dumoulin:
And then secondly, if you don't mind, a kind of bigger picture question on dividend, you alluded to it earlier. What's your targeted payout ratio? Or how do you think about the dividend in the context of the EWC business and the utilities at this point or prospectively?
Theo Bunting:
Well from EWC business, you don’t think about it at all. The dividend is purely from utility Parent & Other and we had outlined at the Analyst Day, our expectations that 65% to 75% payout ratio of utility Parent & Other Earnings was our target.
Julien Dumoulin:
Got it. So perhaps in looking at that initially here, remaining towards the top end of that range, would that be a fair statement as you think about growing that in the 2016 timeframe?
Theo Bunting:
Well, when we look at it, just to put some context about it. Our objective being to return capital to shareholders and to do it on an attractive sustained basis, we’re looking to create an era of sustain dividend growth. So as we look at their growth in that segment of the business, we’re going to chase the payout ratio and have the dividend jumping around a lot. We’re going to look for sustained growth in the business, and we’ll make recommendations in the board, put together a path with the dividend that achieves that consistent with what those long-term earnings growth power would be. So we’re going to review that as we always do every year. But when we get into this fall, it's going to be reviewed in the context of the growth that we continue to believe. This is going to occur within that segment as well as other factors that the board will consider like reinvestment dollars that we have to put into the dividend et cetera or into the utility business, but that’s primarily the way we’re thinking about it.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Your line is now open.
Paul Patterson:
I was looking -- I was a little bit confused by the decommissioning benefit that you guys have in the release. As I recall, you guys were expecting the decommissioning expenses to increase. So I was wondering, is that decommissioning -- how should we think of that decommissioning and guidance? The decommissioning trust fund and what have you, and the benefit that you saw in the quarter versus the rest of the year?
Theo Bunting:
It’s a good question Paul. So when we were in EEI, we talked about $20 million to $25 million of net income drag from -- and ’15, in ’16 and then it kind of trailed about 10 after that. So we do expect that the comedown as critical aspect of the decommissioning process lined up, lined off, I should say. But since the EEI as we go closure to the actual shutdown date and we started to need to make decisions around how we’re going to manage that decommissioning trust. And it become clear that we needed to be de-risking that trust as we moved to the first phase of decommissioning, which cause have to turn over a portfolio a little bit more than we had previously anticipated. And so we’re trying to do that at a nice ratable basis as we go through the year, starting a little bit last year and it will probably continue on into a little bit into the first quarter maybe even next year. But it should be about $0.04 or so each quarter, is kind of what our expectation is. And that over the course for the year is going to take up a lot of the offset drag that we were anticipating for ’15. So -- overall for the year would be anticipated now to be about flat or maybe even slightly positive or I would say about flat is the expectation.
Paul Patterson:
For the full year?
Theo Bunting:
Full year.
Paul Patterson:
Okay. So there's going to be -- okay. And then in terms of the zone changes in New England, I was wondering if there was any impact on you guys -- and this is in terms of the point of view change -- well, not the point of view change, but has there been any quantitative change in the point of view? I know you -- directionally, you guys are bullish, but has there been any -- anything in terms of your outlook for the markets that has changed quantifiably?
Theo Bunting:
Yes, Paul. We have in fact lower point of view from our natural gas perspective, obviously that close through power prices. However, we still do remain bullish compared to the market overall. As it relates to the zone in the New England; it’s really a tough call in terms of where those markets end up. We’re still working through that, but really there is a wide range of outcomes depending on supply demand balance. And so right now, I don’t have anything to share specifically as it relates to a price range. We’re trying to get more information from the ISO and further evaluate that.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.
Greg Gordon:
Can you talk about the -- what your earned return on equity has been in Arkansas? And given the recent changes in the regulatory structure there, and your intent on filing under the new structure, whether you think you'll see -- over what trajectory you think you'll see improvement in that return?
Bill Mohl:
Excuse me, yes, sure Greg, this is Bill. I believe if you look at the pocket -- webcast pocket, it was slight -- a normalized, it was about 5.9% for the last 12 months ending March 31 of this year. And clearly what the perform and what the rate case filing, we expect that you think about the impact and rate case filing and the revenue impact as well as net income impact, we see Arkansas as we go forward ’16 and beyond with the formal rate plans forward test here making significant movement to earning there a lot of return.
Greg Gordon:
Okay. So you think the balance -- that you'll be litigating that case for the balance of 2015. And to the extent there is a change, and we'll see that show up in 2016?
Bill Mohl:
Yes. I mean hopefully an effect, there is a large statutory period in Arkansas and while we don’t have a procedural schedule set just yet, we would expect to see the case playing out through the remainder of 2015 and we would see the latest rate impact in March from the filing date which was last Friday.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Daniel Eggers of Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.
Daniel Eggers:
Just going back to the point of view comment or kind of the change there, I think previously it looked like you had about $100 million or $150 million of POV uplift for 2017. How much has that point of view changed? And does that have any bearing on kind of the 2% to 4% EPS growth target you guys provided starting back at your Analyst Day?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. I’ll take first crack and then I will let anybody else to jump in. But as it relates to the EBITDA uplift that we’re talking about, before I think it was 650 million to 700 million. And as we kind of gone along and prices has stayed along and gotten closer and closer to those periods, it's less than less likely that we would make it into the range. And so our point of view as that slipped in the timeframe that we’ve talked about below that 650 fresh oil, I think. Last quarter we are right about the edge and now we’re a little bit below. So that’s what’s happening within. As we look out, we still have a bullish point of view that’s start to ride as we get beyond the period that we’re talking about, but it’s been pushed further out as we've gone along. As it relates to the 2% to 4%, I think the primary driver at the utility continues to be right on track. The utility and the Parent & Other combined entity in fact we've given those ranges for 16 and 17. Those are still very much intact. In fact, we’re looking for additional opportunities, maybe even in the ’17 timeframe. But as EWC is the part of that earnings mix, it doesn’t look like at this point that EWC would allow us to make it back into that particular range. However you never know stranger things happen in 2017 and particularly still pretty far away. So we wouldn’t say, we can’t make it, but right now as we look at our view, we’re probably just below that level.
Daniel Eggers:
Got it. Thank you. And I guess just on the gas reserves and rate base conversation, can you maybe just share a little more detail on how those two processes are going to work? And what you guys have from an overall annual natural gas burn rate?
Theo Bunting:
In terms of, Dan, it's Theo -- in terms of how those process works, we have the pilot program Leo mentioned in Louisiana, and we'll be filing comments relative to that, this month and that will progress based on the commission's directives, in terms of how they moves along. At this point, we are just -- we're exploring options. And the timing of that is going to depend on the form of the investment and again how that plays through the regulatory process. In terms of gas burn today, I'm not certain, I can't tell you exactly how much it is. We would probably just have a follow-up and give you that information.
Leo Denault:
I would just say, Dan, I mean, obviously given the nature of our fleet, or gas burn is pretty significant. I don't have it at the top of my head, have the -- how many it is a day -- we are talking about that --
Andrew Marsh:
I'd say, it's true -- I said it's going to be a small amount of our overall gas burn to begin with. We are not going to be able to jump in and hedge our entire supply. As Leo said, I mean it's very large, and we're spending in the neighborhood of $3 billion a year on gas supply, maybe a little lower because prices are lower today. But it's a significant amount, and so we would be trying to carve out, at least initially small layer that would allow us to kind of get our feet under it and we really appreciate how this is going to work through all the barriers, operational processes as well as regulatory process.
Daniel Eggers:
And I don't want to ask a detailed question, but I'm not going to anyway. The EWC guidance for this year at $0.70 versus the $0.71 you did in the first quarter, I know you don't want to update guidance too early, but is there a plausible case where you guys would not make money at EWC for the rest of the year?
Theo Bunting:
Well, if prices went lower, yes. But I don't think that's our expectation. I think we are a little ahead of schedule through the first quarter and we expect to do, to earn a little bit more, but as we are going along, the nature of the EWC business in particular has gotten highly seasonal and anchored towards really the winter timeframe. And so we do expect to make a little bit more money at EWC during the course of the year. The bulk of the earning at this point are completed through the first quarter.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the Steven Fleishman of Wolfe Research; your line is now opened.
Steven Fleishman:
Just a little more flavor this morning on the natural gas, pilot. And I guess you mentioned both Louisiana and Mississippi. Could you maybe give us a sense of just rather than an amount of gas, just potential investment size? Is this tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions -- just some rough idea of potential scale of these investments?
Andrew Marsh:
This is Drew. It's certainly not in the billion at this point and tens of millions is probably too small. So it's going to be of in the neighborhood of 200 million to 300 million, maybe initially in that range. It could be a little higher or lower, but something like that, if we decide to move forward.
Steven Fleishman:
Is that just Louisiana or is that both states?
Andrew Marsh:
That would probably be both states. I mean, Louisiana would be the bulk of it. Born is considerably smaller in Louisiana.
Steven Fleishman:
Okay. And you mentioned in your prepared remarks that you have no impairments on EWC, as of the current quarter. Why did you even mention that? Is there something that you are particularly focused on there, to bring that up?
Andrew Marsh:
It's something that we get questions on from time to time and because of that we think that it's something that's been on investors mind. So we wanted to just make sure we where forthright with a discussion about it and make sure that everybody knew that it is on our radar screen, it's something that we are paying close attention to. That was the primary reason for it.
Steven Fleishman:
Okay. And just lastly, in the kind of overall utility outlook that you provided through 2017, would you say the kind of improved Arkansas environment was kind of assumed in there? Or would you say it’s a potential kind of upside to the utility point.
Leo Denault:
Hi, Steve this is Leo. I mean clearly as we lay out our plan we are in expectation about improving our results in Arkansas. So I would say, if you look at the growth that we see, there are primarily three main elements especially when you move from 2015 to 2016 utility, but the sales growth, its regulatory improvement in Arkansas and clearly it’s the union investment. So, we did have an expectation around that. In terms of whether there is upside or not it would be worth to find as we go forward and we move through the process of the case itself; that means the early case. But we had expectation -- to provide improved results in Arkansas as we laid our plans for 2016 and 2017.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Michael Lapides:
Hey, guys, two questions. One, any plans regarding both near-term and long-term regarding the holding company level debt? Meaning is your anticipation to leave that debt there? Is your anticipation to make sure all of it is financed long-term and there's no short-term? You've done a good chunk of that already. Is the goal to kind of pay that down, so whenever EWC has cash flow, you can kind of get back to the mode, like you used to do a number of years ago, of being able to use EWC's free cash to buy back stock? Like, how are you thinking about short-term, one or two years? And then a three to five year cycle about what to do with the parent debt?
Andrew Marsh:
I’m not sure where to start on that one Michael. But there is a lot going on in that question. In terms of the capital structure, I talked a little bit in my prepared remarks about the parent financing that we have coming up. I think we’re going to do fixed rate notes, we’re going to refinance those this fall, or maybe even much earlier than that. We have a lot of financing activity going on the second half of the year with the Parent note coming due, the anticipation of the union acquisition and all of the -- and the financings that we’ll have to go on with that at utility level. And then because of them ELL-EGSL combination, we have to redo revolvers for those businesses. And while we are at it, we’re going to go ahead and redo the entire thing. So, we’re going to probably do that a little earlier in anticipation of the ability to close that combination. So those are the main activity things and in terms of going forward, we are continuing to anticipate that we’re going to carry that short term debt for a while and it’s going to continue to float. The short term rates haven’t moved too much and certainly we have lot of exposure to interest rate on the pension side of our book. So any movement on that side is balanced pretty well on the interest rate side for the roughly $1.5 billion of short term debt that we have. So, we would anticipate that we would change that anytime soon. And as we think about the overall Parent debt capital structure including both the short-term variable and the fixed rate, these we’re still targeting at 18% to 20% Parent debt to total debt ratio. So, we could probably be a little bit above that this year as we close through the union deal. We’ll probably draw a little bit more on that but over the next few years we do see it trending down and provided we don’t come up with a whole bunch more investment opportunity. So those are the kind of the main thing, we’re going to continue to kind of maintain our capital structure at the parent level for the time being as it is today. But obviously we’ll be looking for other ideas and opportunities as we go along. And I think that answers everything that you had in your question Michael.
Michael Lapides:
Yes, that's perfect. An unrelated question. A while ago, a year or a year and a half ago, there was a lot of discussion about Palisades in terms of operating performance -- NRC oversight, a handful of other things. Can you just kind of touch base on that a little bit? It's been a while since I think you've talked about it, so I just want a sanity check what's out there.
Bill Mohl:
Sure. Michael, its bill. Palisades has been running extremely well, above a 90% capacity factor. The one issue we have out there is the embrittlement issue, which is still under review by the NRC. We expect clarity on that by this summer. And again I think based on our own analysis we really do not believe there is any issues that I hope, that we could verified in July. But now Palisades is back on track and operating very-very well.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Your line is now opened.
Jonathan Arnold:
Just a quick one back on sales growth, I'm afraid. I was just curious on slide 5, where you talk about existing large customers down largely on outages. But it would have been up absent outages. Can you -- how significant was the outage piece? And can you just size that relative to the delays you saw on the new customer stuff?
Bill Mohl:
Yes. Jonathan, this is Bill. I think I mentioned as part of the first question. Roughly when we, in terms of where we landed versus our expectation, it was approximately half and half. About half it was really due to timing of new and expansion projects and half was really due to only one-time unexpected issues or outages with some of our existing customers.
Operator:
Thank you. And then an interest of time, our next question will come from the line of Charles Fishman of Morningstar. Your line is now open.
Charles Fishman:
My Arkansas question got answered, so let me move to Mississippi with just one question. Is the new law, I mean pre- the new law, you can make an investment in infrastructure; let's say the development didn't happen, and the Commission could come back with a used-and-useful argument and disallow that investment. Is that what this eliminates?
Bill Mohl :
Charles, when you speak to the new laws and we’re talking about what was passed recently as it relates to the ability to make investment in anticipation of economic growth.
Charles Fishman:
Yes. The thing you refer to on the first page you release.
Bill Mohl:
Yes, I think it's really more than anything again clarity as it relates to how you can make that investment in anticipation of that growth. But I think it really goes to what’s happening in Mississippi in terms of improving relationships and their recognition, of the importance of economic development and growth, economic growth in the state, again the clarity I think was more around you can make that investments and there was an expectation. We should have an expectation that that investment would be viewed as necessary and from as rate recovery perspective market it less controversial.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. That was it. Thank you.
Theo Bunting:
Yes, Charles, I’ll just add. What we’ve been doing over the last couple of years is working really in partnership with all of our stakeholders in each jurisdiction. And that partnership is around, but it is it that we're all jointly trying to accomplish, we're all jointly trying to accomplish economic prosperity in the communities that we serve and that they regulate or that they have administrative controller over through the governor, what have you. So we spend a lot of time on that overall objective. And that objective being to promote economic development and prosperity in those economy. That has resulted in a better understanding between us all about what our objectives. We share and what processes that we can utilize that we can agree on. So at the end of the day legislation and laws and alternative show-up the way we would design it and then we’re going to come up the way that jointly between us, governors, legislative, bodies economic development agencies, and regulators, that we’ve been in the best interest of those, of their jurisdictions and our customers. And so what I think you’ve seen in Arkansas, where you’ve seen in Mississippi, what we’ve seen with the proceedings around capacity transmission distribution writers in Texas, what we hope to see as we continue to go forward and Louisiana is things that work and more job creation, and economic prosperity, and better communities where we serve. That’s really all we've done. But it should turn out well for us, if it turns out well for the communities. And I think that's what you're seeing in those types of legislative efforts in the regulatory outcomes that we've seen over the last couple of years.
Charles Fishman:
Okay. Thanks, Leo. But it certainly gives you more confidence in your 2017 outlook for the utilities in what's happened in Arkansas and Mississippi recently?
Leo Denault:
It absolutely does and the reason that confidence is important is if you think about what's happening in all of these jurisdictions. In Arkansas we have major customer, coming online with a steel mill. And we provide a lot of electricity too in Louisiana. We've got significant growth along the Gulf Coast as it relates to the petrochemical business. And in Texas we see not only the industrial expansion but in Texas we see significant commercial and residential load growth as well and we have to be ready willing and able to serve that load and do that while we continue with the process we started around 10 years ago refreshing the generating portfolio and continuing to meet an evolving set of reliability requirements as it relates to transmission and so. The confidence is good because it gives us the ability to deploy that capital more quickly and in ways that better meet those customers' needs. So it's a win-win for everybody.
Operator:
And I would like to turn the call back over to Ms. Paulo Waters for any closing remarks.
Paulo Waters:
Thanks, and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release in Web site for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statement. We will file our quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC within the next week. The Form 10-Q provides more details and disclosures about our financial statement. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet would be reflected in our financial statement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principle. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our Web site or by dialing 855-859-2056; conference ID 87440452. The telephone replay will be available until May 5th. This concludes our call. Thank you
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation on today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Leo P. Denault - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Andrew S. Marsh - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Bill Abler - Theodore H. Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations
Analysts:
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Charles J. Fishman - Morningstar Inc., Research Division Andrew Levi
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Release and Teleconference. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Paula Waters. Ma'am, you may begin.
Paula Waters:
Thank you. Good morning and thank you, everyone, for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from our Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions] In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainty that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Now I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo P. Denault:
Thank you, Paula. And good morning, everyone. Last year, we told you that Entergy was in a unique position, and that's still true today. We said we had a significant opportunity to invest in and modernize our fleet, strengthen reliability and meet evolving regular expectations and requirements. We said by making these investments, we could both grow our rate base and our keep customer rates low, a strategy supported in part by the industrial renaissance here in the Gulf South. We said we would manage risk and preserve optionality at Entergy wholesale commodities by improving fleet operations and pursuing stability. We said we'd manage commodity risk and leverage in the inherent volatility of power prices to our benefit and that of our owners. I'm pleased to say we did all of these things in 2014. At the Utility, we announced the proposed purchase of the Union Power Station, which would serve 4 of our operating companies. In Louisiana, Ninemile 6 came online months early and about $70 million underbudget. We resolved 2 important rate cases in Mississippi and Texas. And in Arkansas, while we are not where we need to be, we were granted limited relief in our request for a rate case rehearing. We completed our first full year of operation in MISO. And it's becoming clear that our projections that customers would realize savings were correct, validating our regulator's decision to approve that move. Although the numbers are still estimates, it now appears that customers across the Utility will, in fact, realize more MISO-driven savings than we had originally expected. We did all these while keeping our rates low, about 20% below the national average across all of our customer classes. For the year, we beat our original 1.9% retail sales growth projections by 0.4% coming in at 2.3%. Industrial sales led the way with 5% growth, beating our estimates of 2.8% by a wide margin. At EWC, we improved operations at our plants, which, even during the coldest days of the polar vortex, we're able to provide customers with safe, reliable power. And we made significant investments at our Fitzpatrick plant to strengthen reliability even further. At Indian point, we received an important favorable ruling on CZMA from the New York State appellate court, and we continue to engage New York State agencies when appropriate and possible. And particularly in the first quarter, during periods of market volatility, our risk management and hedging activities delivered substantial value for our owners. EWC's strong first quarter, coupled with that of the utility resulted in operational EPS growth of nearly 9% for the year, well above the original guidance we provided in the fall of 2013. All of these things led to Entergy capturing a top quartile position on total shareholder return in 2014. We believe this performance illustrates our commitment to what has been our mission for some time, creating sustainable value for our owners, customers, employees and the communities that we serve. As we look to 2015 and beyond, we can say with confidence that the fundamentals driving our business are intact. Of course, we know that our company faces some challenges in the coming year. And these challenges, including the drop in power prices, underlay our announcement this morning on 2015 guidance. But Entergy remains on track to deliver on its objectives. Our strategy remains sound and you will continue to see us execute on it this year and in the years to come. Let me start our discussion about the Utility by saying we continue to believe that, today, Entergy has some of the best growth fundamentals in the business. We continue to see a need make productive investments to meet increasing reliability requirements and to modernize our fleet. We enjoy and are working hard to strengthen recovery mechanisms that give us the financial flexibility to make these investments. Again, we expect to do so while maintaining our rate advantage, both through actions we've taken and, despite the drop in oil prices, through the continued expansion of our industrial customer base. 2014 provided ample evidence to support this point of view. Let's start with productive investments and the recent actions we have taken. On December 9th, we signed an agreement to acquire Union Power Station near El Dorado, Arkansas. While the agreement is subject to regulatory approval from 3 of our operating companies, buying this natural, gas-fired, nearly 2,000-megawatt facility helps us modernize our fleet and positions our operating companies to meet growing demand, including from industrial customers. In Arkansas and Louisiana, similar to prior acquisitions, these filings also include proposals for timely rate approvals. In Texas, we filed for CCN, Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, and plan to file a rate case in the second quarter to incorporate the Union Plant and rates upon closing. In Louisiana, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the Utility added a self-build power plant in its fleet. We're happy to say that Ninemile 6 in Westwego began commercial operations in the MISO market on December 24. This plant provides value to our customers and to our community, and is already fully reflected in rates. In addition, in early June, we announced plans for a major transmission build in southwest Louisiana. The Lake Charles transmission project, with investment of an estimated $187 million, will be one of the largest transmission projects in Entergy history. Again, our aim here is to strengthen reliability and support economic development that is already occurring in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. I'll move now to the regulatory arena, where we also made significant progress. In Mississippi, we received more clarity in early December when the MPSC approved a rate modernization plan, which includes, as you know, a 10.07% benchmark ROE as well as provisions to strengthen our financial position for making investments. Importantly, and also in Mississippi, we began implementing the state's first ever utility-owned solar project, which will include the installation of 3 500-kilowatt ground-mounted solar arrays. Not a huge project, but it's an important way to gauge the viability of solar energy in the state, and, for us, it's also a good example of how Entergy and our commissioners can work together to find common ground. In Texas, we were the first utility in the state to take advantage of a distribution cost recovery rider. We also had 2 transmission lines CCN approved, and we filed another, for a total investment of approximately $166 million. In Arkansas, the APSC recently ruled to allow us to recover, via retail rates, FERC ordered System Agreement payments. 100% of the $71 million requested last year was approved in the PCA rider. And just last week, we notified the Arkansas commission that we will be filing a rate case in the next 2 to 3 months. We believe this rate case filed will have a positive outcome and give us the financial flexibility to invest in and strengthen our Arkansas portfolio, which in turn should go a long way in helping to drive economic growth and job creation. As you've heard me say before, constructive engagement with our regulators in Arkansas has been a top priority for us. We think we have an opportunity to strengthen our efforts in this regard, and now it's up to us to do just that. In New Orleans, ENOI and the city council's advisers reached an agreement in principle. This agreement would allow securitization of the amount necessary to establish a $75 million storm reserve. It would also allow recovery of nearly $32 million in capital costs associated with the Hurricane Isaac restoration. Funds from this securitization are expected in May of 2015, and will give Entergy New Orleans the financial resources to restore services if and when another storm hits. In Louisiana, the LPSC approved an accelerated gas pipe replacement program to, among other things, replace about 100 miles of pipe over the next 10 years. The commission also approved a rider for recovery of approximately $65 million in investment over 10 years. Rider recovery will be adjusted quarterly to reflect actual investment incurred for the prior year quarter. Finally, as I said earlier, we expect to see the industrial renaissance continue. Overall, we see retail sales growth estimates of 3.25% to 3.75% through 2017. Drew will be giving you more detail about this in a minute. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also had a strong year, capped by a quarter with some important positives. The plants are operated well and we made progress on the license renewal of Indian Point. As most of you know, a New York State appellate court ruled that Indian Point is grandfathered under the New York Coastal Zone Management Program; as such, exempt from CZMA review. If permission to appeal is denied or the ruling upheld, a new CZMA determination would not be required for license renewal. We also negotiated the standstill agreement with the New York State Department of State, which provides parties a period of about 6 months to discuss our recent withdrawal of the CZMA application. While we remain confident in our legal position to withdraw this application, the agreement is notable because it is evidence of the progress we've made in engaging in constructive discussions with New York State agencies. As we have consistently said, Entergy remains open to discussing a potential settlement that is fair and considers the interest of all parties. We continue to work through the license renewal process for Indian Point, a plant that supplies, on average, 25% of the power to New York City and the Westchester County area, and one that the New York ISO acknowledges as an essential part of the state's generation portfolio. We also continue to believe Indian Point will operate well into the next decade. Another item of note in the fourth quarter was Vermont Yankee, which came offline safely and as planned on December 29. Remarkably, it did so following its fourth breaker-to-breaker run. During what was often a difficult time, through hard work and dedication, our VY employees delivered an extraordinary year. At Entergy, we often say that we're lucky to work with the best in the business, and there can be no better evidence of this than our people at Vermont Yankee. And for that, they have our sincere thanks. The VY closure also highlighted market design flaws. And while we can't say these flaws were the sole cause of the closure, it nonetheless brings into stark relief unintended consequences that unviable market design can have. Fortunately, we're seeing some progress on fixes to capacity markets. And certainly, the infrastructure constraints in the Northeast are attracting more attention. If these attention translates to sound policies that address these issues, we think that would be good for everyone. One thing you'll be hearing about this year is energy price scrimmage. Basically today, some ISO market rules and algorithms can affect suppressed prices by not allowing the full cost of the marginal unit to set the clearing price. In the long run, this will lead to unwarranted plant retirements, resulting in higher cost and more volatility in price, and ultimately, degradation reliability. And that won't be good for anyone. I'll end our EWC discussion with a note on our hedging strategy, which is proving so successful in the past. While we strive to hedge with asymmetric upsides, take advantage of our bullish point of view and market volatility, our hedging portfolio as reflected in our quarterly price subsidy charts does carry some downside price risk. Moving forward, we will continue to position our portfolio to capture market upside while maintaining downside risk protection, always considering product availability, hedging costs and market liquidity. Overall, we think EWC has one of the best merchant portfolios in the country. Not only are our plants safe and well run, operating at high-capacity factors with few unplanned outages. But as we saw last year, all of them played a critical role in their respective regions. We also believe the EWC fleet is well positioned for growth, in part because we see improving fundamentals over time, including power prices, and a constructive outcome on Indian Point. And we intend to continue to strengthen these fundamentals through our own actions, including disciplined hedging risk management as well as diligently managing the processes for the continued safe operation of our facilities. So again, Entergy had a strong year. But as proud as we are of that success, it's in the rearview mirror. We are now focused on the road ahead and achieving our 2015 goals. First and foremost, excellence in safety and operations. We were pleased that River Bend received its first-ever rating of excellence compared with peers, joining both Indian Point and Waterford 3 in that category. This is an accomplishment that reflects our employees' years of hard work and commitment. We need to make sure that this level of excellence is maintained and expanded. At the Utility, we expect to deliver on our significant investment in construction opportunity, even as we work to find new ways to benefit current and potential customers. I'll note that this includes deployment of renewable energy. In 2015, we will be taking additional steps to assess its potential cost and performance at several of our operating companies. And in order to meet evolving customer needs and expectations, we will also look for opportunities to incorporate new ideas and technologies, working to ensure that we are able to earn our full allowed ROEs in the coming years. And the across the Utility also continues to be a priority. Another objective is to receive approval from the Louisiana Public Service Commission to combine Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single utility. This move will make it easier for us to make needed investments in the state's power infrastructure; and, via expanded rate options, sustain and propel the state's industrial renaissance. At EWC, we will continue to focus on positioning the portfolio to unleash its full value, and this certainly includes advancing license renewable efforts at Indian Point. We will continue to advocate for sensible policy frameworks that recognize the value of our merchant fleet, from environmental to reliability, which we believe will benefit not only our company but also the customers and communities we serve. And finally, all of these actions will support job creation and economic growth in every state, region and community where we do business. This includes substantial support for schools and universities as well as workforce training programs, so opportunity is shared with as many as people as possible. This is a priority for us. You'll be hearing more about progress against each of these objectives in the months to come. Let me conclude with a couple of important points. Today, as you heard me say, Entergy has an opportunity to position our service territory for the future. This means modern, more efficient plants, infrastructure that is even more reliable than it is today, and the incorporation of new and emerging technologies. For us, this opportunity translates to investment, particularly over the next 3 to 5 years. To reiterate, and as we saw in 2014, we have a compelling capital plan, a regulatory environment that, by and large, allows us the financial flexibility to deploy it, and sales growth that supports growth both keeping -- both by keeping rates low. And in the end, this business is a long-term play. So while short term and even mid-term volatility is a fact of life, as we look to 2015 and beyond, it that should not distract us from this company's strong fundamentals, sound strategy and unique opportunity. And with that, I'll turn it over to Drew.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review the financial results for the quarter as well as highlights from the full year. In addition, I will discuss the 2015 operational earnings guidance which we initiated today and review our 2017 financial outlook. Starting with Slide 2, our fourth quarter results for the current and prior years are shown on an as reported and operational basis. Note that operational results exclude special items from the decision to close Vermont Yankee, HCM implementation and the transmission spin-merge effort terminated in 2013. Operational earnings per share were $0.75 in the fourth quarter of 2014, lower than the dollar per share earned in 2013. Results by line of business are summarized on Slide 3. Starting with Utility, operational EPS was $0.61 per share in the current period compared to $0.86 in the prior period. The Utility continued to realize volume improvement with 2.4% weather-adjusted retail sales growth. Excluding the effects of weather, higher volume contributed about $0.03 per share to the quarter's net revenue increase. The industrial customer class had the strongest gains at 6.7%. About a third of the industrial growth came from the large chemical segment, which increased 11% quarter-over-quarter, mostly due to the expansion of the core alkali -- of the ag core alkali customer. We also had solid growth of 4.3% from our petroleum refining customers, while sales to small industrial customers increased 3.3% as regional producers continue to benefit from a stronger national economy. Higher price contributed approximately $0.14 per share, a portion of which was offset by the other line items. Despite the net revenue growth, Utility results declined due largely to 3 drivers. First, nonfuel O&M was higher as benefits from our cost management efforts were offset by higher nuclear spending to improve operations, timing of Basel spending and other increases, such as MISO administrative fees, which were offset elsewhere in the income statement. Next, we recorded a $0.06 per share write-off because of regulatory uncertainty associated with the resolution of the Waterford 3 steam generator replacement prudence review. Finally, the Utility's effective income tax rate was higher due to benefits recorded in 2013. Moving onto EWC, operational earnings per share of $0.39 were lower than the $0.48 earned a year ago. The low EBITDA, 2 key drivers were a higher effective income tax rate and lower realized earnings on decommissioning trusts. EWC EBITDA for the quarter, summarized on Slide 4, was $183 million, a $50 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2013. Increased net revenue was the main driver due primarily to the effects of mark-to-market activity. Similar to 2013, we had sales that did not qualify for hedge accounting. Unlike 2013, market price moved down after those sales were executed and resulted in a positive mark-to-market gain in the fourth quarter of 2014. The net revenue increase was partially offset by the gain on the sale of the District Energy business in the fourth quarter of 2013. Briefly moving to operating cash flow shown on Slide 5, OCF was around $1 billion in the current quarter, about the same as 2013. Now I'll review the full year results, starting on Slide 6. On an operational basis, 2014 earnings per share ended the year at $5.83, up from $5.36 in 2013 and above our original guidance midpoint of $5. The largest driver for the year was top line growth at EWC and Utility. EWC earnings benefited from improved operating performance as well as our hedging strategy, which, as Leo noted, provides upside opportunity in a higher-priced environment while balancing operational credit risk. Utility net revenue reflected rate actions and sales growth, including the effects of weather. The overall company net revenue growth was partially offset by several items, including a higher effective income tax rate, Utility write-offs and the 2013 gain on the District Energy sale. On Slide 7, and staying with the full year view, EWC's operational adjusted EBITDA increased almost $400 million year-over-year, due mainly to the higher net revenue discussed earlier. Our full year operating cash flow performance is summarized on Slide 8. OCF was about $3.9 billion in 2014, up $700 million from the prior period. The primary full-year drivers are higher net revenue and receipt of proceeds to reimburse the Louisiana operating companies for Hurricane Isaac's costs. I'll now turn to forward-looking information. Slide 9 summarizes our 2015 operational earnings guidance, which we are initiating today with a midpoint of $5.50 and a range of plus or minus $0.40. Our guidance range reflects 2 key updates as we talked you at EEI about our expectations for 2015. First of all, we're now using forward price curves as of December 31, which are lower than the September 30 forwards available at EEI. Since EEI, our revenue estimates for EWC's nuclear fleet have come down approximately $0.65 per share, including $0.13 for mark-to-market activity. Secondly, we have continued to evaluate our income tax positions and our midpoint now reflects an effective tax rate of approximately 23%. This change is driven by additional anticipated benefits at Utility compared to expectations last fall. The precise timing of these benefits is uncertain, but our best estimate right now is this will be more backend-loaded in the year. Other less significant updates largely offset. Now I'll cover a few highlights of each of the business segments. Starting with the Utility, the guidance midpoint is $5.70 per share. Net revenue continues to be an important driver and sales growth accounts are approximately half of the $0.55 net revenue increase. Our guidance midpoint reflects 2.7% weather-adjusted retail sales growth in 2015, including 4.4% growth for the industrial class. A portion of the growth percentage change is due to 2014 industrial sales that were higher than we expected, as well as continued refinement of our 2015 estimates, driven in part by timing adjustments, meeting some customers with delays and some with slower ramp ups. We also updated some customer-specific forecasts for recent utilization trends. In addition, the net revenue increase reflects expected rate changes. But as we noted last quarter, we don't see regulatory price changes having a material year-over-year bottom line impact. Below net revenue, Utility O&M will increase because pension expense is now estimated to be higher than we anticipated at EEI, due primarily to a lower discount rate of 4.27%. The pension expense changed since EEI increased the Utility O&M by approximately $0.06 per share. For taxes, the Utility midpoint reflects an approximate 23% effective income tax rate in 2015. Now let's turn to the EWC. EWC's 2015 operational earnings guidance midpoint is $0.70 per share. We've isolated the year-over-year earnings contribution of Vermont Yankee, and is now expected to decline approximately $0.20 per share. This different than our expectations at EEI of about $0.40 per share due to lower fourth quarter prices in 2014 and more earnings on the decommissioning trust as we rebalanced to a more conservative stance during the first phase of decommissioning. Another driver in EWC's 2015 guidance is higher nonfuel O&M, including higher pension and OPEB expenses as well as the maintenance outage at RISEC and our CCGP in Rhode Island. Our 2017 outlook is summarized on Slide 10. The Utility outlook for operational earnings of $1.05 billion to $1.1 billion remains on track. The foundation for the Utility's growth outlook is a capital investment plan, which is largely unchanged since EEI. The next important assumption for the Utility sales growth, which we anticipate will continue to be robust for 2017. Our current estimate for the full-year compound annual growth rate off a 2013 base year was around the low end of the range provided at EEI. Now that 2014 results are in the books, we are updating that disclosure to 3.25% to 3.75% 3-year compound annual growth rate through 2017, off the 2014 base year and reflecting continued refinement of our expectations. For EWC, we have an EBITDA outlook of $650 million to $700 million in 2017. As you know, market prices are volatile. And based on December 31 prices, we would not be in that range. However, based on of our point of view, we continue to believe that we can meet our EWC EBITDA expectations for 2017, although we are at the lower end of those expectations today. Our 2017 outlook for Parent & Other is unchanged as well. Slide 11 provides a view of the contributions to Utility growth by key industries expanding in our service territory. Over the last several months, we've seen steep declines in oil prices and many of you have asked us about the potential impact to our sales growth outlook. There will be some effect on our state economy, particularly on Louisiana and Texas businesses that supports the oil and gas services industry. However, the outlook to our core growth large industrials remains robust. Key growth segments in the chemical sectors are largely unaffected by oil price decline, such as ammonia, chlor-alkali and industrial gases. Primary metals and wood products are also largely unaffected. These industries rely on low energy costs in a growing economy to be successful. Other second order impacts could begin to impinge on petrochemicals, but we've only seen a couple of minor delays to date, and our customers remain committed to completing the multiyear projects they have started. We have seen some pullback in specific sectors like gas-to-liquid facilities, which compete directly with crude based on production or pricing. While we would note that although the gas spreads remain robust, prices are at lower levels with increased volatility, which has caused some of our customers' investment decisions to be delayed. Still, these customers are not key to our growth expectations through 2017. In fact, through 2017, the vast majority of our anticipated new or expanding large industrial customers have passed their final investment decisions, or they are under construction. As Leo said, 2014 was a good year, but it's now in the past and we still have a lot ahead of us. We understand that a lot has changed in the last few months and we know that a lot can happen between now and 2017. However, based on what we know today, we believe that the utility's long-term growth proposition is intact and achievable. We will execute the capital plan and upgrade our infrastructure to better serve our existing as well as our new customers. At EWC, we will manage around the volatility that is inherent in that business and we'll work towards additional clarity on Indian Point, which give us strategic flexibility. And we will continue to focus on safety and operational excellence throughout the company. We know we have new challenges and we are excited about meeting them. And now, the Entergy team is available for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Michael Weinstein of UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
It's Julien here. So I wanted to just dig in to the guidance a bit further here. Can you expand -- and I know you alluded to it already, but what exactly is driving the tax changes? Can you elaborate here a little bit? And what do you think about a normalized tax rate would be in subsequent years or just, kind of, in a generic year?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Julien, this is Drew. That's a good question. The -- if you look back over the last 5 years, we have had an operational effective tax rate in the range of what we're talking about. I think, corporate-wise, it's been about 26%, and at Utility, it's been about 23%. So what we're talking about is not unusual in that regard. And as we look forward, this year -- we'll usually talk about these things. We talk about a portfolio of opportunities and it's still certainly no different now. And we have a portfolio of opportunities that we're looking at in 2015. And by laying it all out this year upfront, we're trying to give you better view of what we expect this year. Beyond 2015, certainly our expectations continue to be that we will look for opportunities because that is one of the largest items on our income statement. But just to make sure that we are all clear about what the underlying business expectations are, we haven't -- we put statutory tax rates in for '16 and -- or our '17 outlook that we rolled forward today. So as far as 2015 goes, like I said, it is a portfolio of opportunities. We have a number of cases that are rolling forward with various tax authorities and it's based on what our expectations are today. Certainly nothing is guaranteed in that because there are ongoing discussions, but that's the best estimate that we have today. It could be higher or lower than that by the end of the year.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
And just relative to the initial guidance you kind of laid out there at the time of EEI, what exactly changed? If you could elaborate briefly.
Andrew S. Marsh:
I think it just has to do with some of our expectations about what's going to transpire, particularly towards the end of the year. And our desire to make sure that our investors were fully informed about what the possibilities could be rather than get surprised, even if it's an upside at the end of the year. We certainly didn't want to land that in your lap as a surprise.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Great, excellent. And then just cutting back to the other side of the house here, on the EWC front, what are you thinking about sort of -- or what gives you confidence, rather, in still having kind of a long-term bullish perspective? Obviously, you have a view of '17, what are you seeing out there? Is it capacity, is it energy? I mean, could you elaborate a little bit?
Bill Abler:
Sure, Julien. This is Bill. A couple of things. In the long run, as we look at gas supply, obviously we're seeing a huge cut back in drilling. So we think that, eventually, that will have an impact, a bullish impact on natural gas prices. As it relates to heat rates, we think that those are also undervalued in the market. As you think about the number of shutdowns, either economic shutdowns or shutdowns due to environmental reasons we remain bullish on heat rates. And we are seeing some positive changes in the capacity markets, such as what we -- what was evidenced recently this week up in New England.
Operator:
Our next question is from Dan Eggers of Crédit Suisse.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
If I just kind of have a look at what you guys did in 2014 and you look at the 2015 at the Utility level, right, if we back out the beneficial tax rate, '14 being pretty close to statutory, '15 being much lower, it looks like your earnings are a lot closer to flat year-on-year. And I know there's always going to be moving parts, but how should we think about earned ROEs this year for '15? And then '16, '17, how you get to your earned ROEs if that tax rate does normalize?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I'll take a first crack at this, and then Theo can jump in. And I'll let Theo talk about ROEs. I'll talk about the big drivers for the earnings blocks as -- particularly as we move forward. So I think you're right. In terms of '14 to '15, we're not seeing substantial growth because we don't have a lot of rate actions. But as you look forward, certainly this year, we have some significant investment opportunities. We're talking about like Union Power and those kinds of things that we expect to come on at the end of the year, as well as rate opportunities within Arkansas and Texas. And those are going to be the main drivers. They're going to push us forward to sort of 2016, 2017 time frame. And I'll let Theo talk about the ROEs in particular.
Theodore H. Bunting:
Hey, Dan, this is Theo. I mean, I think when you look at '15 ROE, I think you're going to see ROE that's slightly below 10%. Not much different from '14, I think, as you somewhat illuminated on. But I think as you go forward through '16 and you look at the things Drew just mentioned earlier, sales growth, the fact that the Union purchase goes into -- planted into rates in 2000 -- I mean, the spend it goes in the rates in 2016. And also you see some changes relative to some of our O&M level pension cost, I want to mention you'll see those ROEs start to move, as we have said many times at EEI and other venues, in that 10% to 11% range in 2016. As you look at the various operating companies, we see ourselves making constructive progress at Arkansas as it relates to moving towards the allowed ROE as a result of our 2015 plan rate case and other actions in Arkansas. The growth that we see in Louisiana will move our Louisiana utilities. I think when you look at it on a combined basis, you'll see that company at -- within its earnings band range based on 9.95% allowed ROE. And I think as you look to Mississippi, New Orleans, we see those companies also earning at their allowed ROEs when they get into the 2016 timeframe. Texas gets closer. We see growth in Texas as well. And also, we would -- because of the Union acquisition, we'll have a rate case in Texas to move forward with that. And so we'll see some -- likely see some rate change in Texas as well. So all of that, as you look across the jurisdictions, we move closer -- to those that aren't at that point today, they move closer to get to their allowed ROE. And overall, as we've said over the past few months, when you say Utility business, that's in the 10.11% ROE range.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
So I guess -- but if you think about kind of next year and beyond, effectively the $0.95 of tax that you have presumably could go away next year. You're thinking of the Texas case, the Arkansas case and putting Union in the rate base should more than compensate for that headwind. Is that the way if we're going to simply balance things out?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Yes, I think you'll see the rate actions. And again, as well as, I think, we'll see some O&M impacts as well as we go into '16.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Okay. And I just have one dumb question. If the discount rate stays at the same level as it ended last year, what happens to pension expense beyond 2015? Is it a catch-up year? Or would it stay at these levels, that would be a flat year-on-year comp?
Andrew S. Marsh:
No, that's an excellent question. No, It's an actually -- it would go up. So we build our forecast with interest rate increases, as the market tells us, in mind. And we -- mark-to-market, if you will. It's not exactly like a mark-to-market, but it's similar. And so we're anticipating interest rate rises, which would mean lower pension liabilities, which will mean lower pension expense. And so right now we are anticipating, in 2017, a 5% discount rate on our pension liability. And as I mentioned, that 4.27% is where we ended the year. So that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about $0.20 of earnings -- $0.20, $0.25 of earnings per share impact if we were sort of flat to where we are today versus our expectations for 2017.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Just on the 2015 guidance, you guys mentioned that there's an increase in depreciation and decommissioning for 2015. And you talked about it, I just wondered if you could just review that a little bit in terms of what's driving the increase in depreciation expense and decommissioning at the wholesale business at the nonregulated business.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Okay, this is Drew. So I mean, I think it's due to just normal activities. The depreciation is the higher -- the capital investment that we've made at EWC in 2014. And then the decommissioning expense is, as we get closer to the end of these lives, particularly as you shorten up your expectations, the decommissioning expense is going to rise naturally as you go out that direction. So I think it's just the normal expectations based on capital investment and shortening life of the assets.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
With the capital investment that you're making, the actual plant value of the nuclear plant is increasing as the lifespan of the plant is decreasing, is that correct?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Certainly, from a GAAP accounting perspective, that you're seeing a large -- you're growing the asset base right now. And it is -- as you are getting to a shorter life expectancy, you are having that greater depreciation, yes.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
And we should expect that to continue going forward?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes. I mean, like -- last year, I think, or maybe 2 years ago, we did a depreciation study to try and balance it out a little bit so it's less dramatic than it would have been before. But certainly, we -- you will see some of that still going forward, yes.
Operator:
Our next question is from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
I wanted to discuss hedging strategy from here. And just given the environment that we're in and your point of view, would you want to be a bit more cautious in terms of hedging in the expectation of improving heat rates, et cetera? Or how do you think about sort of your hedge philosophy at this point?
Bill Abler:
Steven, this is Bill. Well, absolutely, we think about that. So given the point of view that we just discussed earlier, as we look into the outer years, we want to be very careful about the products that we use so that we -- not necessarily really interested in a lot of fixed-price products at this point in time. So we look to move more towards structured products that have that asymmetric upside. Obviously, that depends on a lot of things -- counterparties, cost of the products, et cetera. But we are carefully looking at that strategy as we speak, specifically as it relates to 2016 and '17.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Okay. And just shifting to Indian Point specifically. There is a recent -- I think, it's a state ruling regarding -- just the hearing process around a potential summer shutdowns to protect fish in the Hudson River. Could you give us a sense of just procedurally the process through which that hearing will take place, just so we can try to focus on next steps in understanding that process?
Leo P. Denault:
Sure. That ruling just did come out this week. So kind of from a high-level perspective by February 20, Riverkeeper and the staff needs to make some recommendations as it relates to specifically what thinks it would like to recommend in terms of the outages that will go through the normal discovery process. Probably more of us throughout the summer. And then in the fall, we will actually have a hearing on the issues of outages and then hope to get you some initial reply briefs by the end of the year.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Okay. And then in terms of after the reply briefs, what would be the step back after that?
Leo P. Denault:
Well, depending on what happens there, then you would work through an appeal process, et cetera. To kind of sum it up, Stephen, we think this process probably goes on for several years before you get any final determination.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Oh, I see. So there could be a decision late in the year or early next year, but then there would be -- there could be various appeals after that?
Leo P. Denault:
That's correct.
Operator:
Our next question is from Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
One quick question on -- when you gave the sensitivity on interest rates and the discount rate just now, on the pension, I think it was $0.20 impact on 2017 if the discount rate increase did not materialize. Is that a holistic estimate, including your exposure to short-term debt? Or is that just the pension?
Andrew S. Marsh:
That was just the pension. And I was trying to do math on the fly, trying to widen my range out a little bit. But I think $0.08 is our rule of thumb on 25 basis points. So $0.20 to $0.25 is probably a better estimate for that. But yes, it doesn't include interest rate offset.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Okay. And the second point was I just -- I was curious on your -- I mean, you have the slides with the '17 point of view, but you also have '18, '19 disclosures in Table 7 of the release. Can you share with us what capacity price was embedded in that for the auction that just happened? Is it...
Andrew S. Marsh:
Are you talking about -- for ISO New England?
Leo P. Denault:
Well, for ISO New England...
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Yes. I guess, I think it wasn't updated overnight, but it must have -- might have been your point of view that was in there.
Leo P. Denault:
Yes, I think it is our point of view. So you know that the option results for those Pilgrim and RISE came back for the CMA zone at about $11.08 a kW-month for that option.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Right. So is that what was in your table here?
Leo P. Denault:
I think it's fairly close to what we had. I mean, I think we had talked about that. We anticipated it would be net cone [ph].
Operator:
Our next question is from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Can you talk to us a little bit about your plans in Arkansas? You've hinted at times about trying to seek legislative relief. Just trying to think about the timing of trying to do that? And what type of relief or what type of mechanisms you'd like to seek versus the timing and process for a potential full-blown rate case there?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Yes, Michael, this is Theo. And I guess I'll start with we believe in Arkansas, we started from a common goal with those that are in state, we believe, with commissioners as well as state and local officials, which is really about attracting jobs, supporting economic development growth and regional prosperity in the state. When you think about legislative actions that we've talked about, I think we said this before, the legislature is currently in session now in Arkansas, and any legislative actions would clearly go through the legislative process within the current session. In terms of the different -- what may be a part of that, I think as we said before, we would be looking at mechanisms that would align Arkansas with some mechanisms we see in other jurisdictions across our service area. Things like, for instance, FRP. FRPs may be similar to what we've seen in Mississippi that has various forward-looking elements that recently came out of the Mississippi case. And also, I think, one thing we would look to try and address in Arkansas is really given the commission some criteria other than kind of a simple DCF method to determine ROE. I mean, really, this is really about giving the commissioners some, I'd say, more tools in our toolbox and really giving them various options they can look at again in a different way in Arkansas that would help us, help achieve the common goal that I talked about earlier. So with the legislative session going on, from a timing perspective, I would expect that we'd follow some legislation around this and around these various components in the next few weeks in Arkansas.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Got it. So we should probably think that any rate filings wouldn't happen until after the legislation -- legislative session closes? So kind of thinking about a midyear case, that implies a midyear 2016 revenue change.
Theodore H. Bunting:
Well, I think if you look -- I mean, as Leo mentioned in his opening comments, that we did provide notice that he would file a case in Arkansas, I believe in 60 to 90 days. So -- and we did that at the end of January. If you count from that point in time, you're sometime in the March, April time frame in terms of filing a case. And given the statutory timelines in Arkansas, that would probably put you with, if I'm doing my math correctly in my head, a rate-effective timeline somewhere at the beginning, potentially, of 2016.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Charles Fishman of MorningStar.
Charles J. Fishman - Morningstar Inc., Research Division:
Leo, you made comments concerning the way the board would look at the dividend in 2016 at EEI. If I take Slide 10 on your 2017 outlook the way I understood those comments at EEI, I should look at the Utility, net income, your outlook, less Parent & Other. And it appears to me, you're probably, by '17, you're getting closer to the payout range you want to be in. Is that a fair assessment that the board -- in the way the board would look at it?
Leo P. Denault:
Yes. When we -- I think even when we were talking back at EEI, the view is that we'll start to have the conversation with the Board when we start to look at '16 and '17's results. If you look at -- and you're exactly right. What we are talking about is the payout ratio around Utility combined with Parent & Other, as the dividend paying entity that we would be looking to, excluding EWC, of course, given the volatility associated with that kind of business. But as we start to look at what '16 and '17 hold and what those combined earnings would be, we think that that's where the conversation begins with the board. As we've mentioned, a lot of factors will go into that, in addition to just what those earnings levels are. So for example, the investment profile, what's going to happen in terms of our investments in the Utility in 2016 and '17. And if it make sense to reinvest versus the dividend, raise dividend, because we have the growth path there. So you're right about the metrics. You're -- and like I said, the timing would show up right around as we look at the '16 and '17 earnings profile.
Operator:
Our last question is from Andy Levi of Avon Capital.
Andrew Levi:
Just a few questions. I'll keep it to 2, 2.5. Just back on the taxes, I guess the concern I have that it is about $0.90 of earnings power. So if you kind of back that out, '15 actually looks kind of weak. And so I just kind of want to understand your thinking on that and why that is the case? Because if you kind of just put a Utility multiple on it, it's quite a bit of value, 10 to 15x the value in the stock. And then I have a follow-up.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Okay, Andy, this is Drew. I think the way we're thinking about it is '15 is sort of a foundation year for the growth opportunity that we have over the next couple of years. And as we look at it, we were really focused on making sure that we put the building blocks in place for making that 2017 aspiration. Taxes are a big piece of what we do every day. And we manage them as well as we can, like every other line item on the income statement. And like I said earlier, it's not out of line with where we have been in terms of an effective tax rate over the last 5 years. So we think this is part of our normal operating procedure. And this year, it's -- there's a couple of lumpy items in there that are helping us get there. But this is part of our expectation and what we expect to do every day when we come to work.
Andrew Levi:
I understand that. But again, I'm not going to debate with you, but if you go back to your Regulation G disclosures, your statutory tax rate's 36%. So I'm just trying to look at the true earnings power longer-term of the company. The follow-up I have, this is on Pilgrim. I guess, since big snowstorm, the plant's been out. If you can kind of give us an update there? And if I'm not mistaken, you were supposed to have an outage in 2015 on Pilgrim? And so, whether this unforced outage will help on the scheduled outage that you had or is it just an unfortunate outage? And then in the spring, you'll go into your regular outage? And also the cost of having the plant down during this time of the year?
Bill Abler:
Yes, Andy, this is Bill. So to answer question regarding Pilgrim, the plant shutdown due to a Storm Juno, it shut down orderly, safely, without incident on the 27th. We did lose off-site power to the facility. However, all safety systems and backup power systems worked as planned. So we've been working through that, dealing with a number of issues. We expect that plant to start up in the near-term and in the next couple of days, and be back to full load probably sometime this weekend. As it relates to the planned outage, we do have a refueling outage that's scheduled in the spring. That remains unchanged. So we still need to refuel the facility and perform normal maintenance on that facility as we originally planned. So nothing really changes there.
Andrew Levi:
And I have one really very quick question. On just EWC, I didn't see any CapEx numbers for '15. Is that something that you guys disclose or you don't give?
Andrew S. Marsh:
No. It should be in there, Andy. It's on table -- it's in Appendix B.
Andrew Levi:
Okay. And how much is that for '15?
Andrew S. Marsh:
$425 million.
Andrew Levi:
$425 million. Okay. And so, your operating cash flow at EWC is how much?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I don't think we disclosed that specifically.
Operator:
I will now like to turn the conference call back over to Paula Waters for closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you, Shannon. And thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G Compliance statements. As a reminder, we plan to file our annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC around the end of the month. The Form 10-K provides more details and disclosures around our financial statements. Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-K filings that provides additional evidence about conditions that existed at the date of the balance sheet will be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing (855) 859-2056. Replay code 62430843. The telephone replay will be available until February 12. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Leo P. Denault - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Andrew S. Marsh - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Theodore H. Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations
Analysts:
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Greg Gordon - ISI Group Inc., Research Division Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Andrew Levi Charles J. Fishman - Morningstar Inc., Research Division
Operator:
Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Third Quarter 2014 Earnings Release Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time, for introductions and opening comments, I would like to turn the call over to Vice President of Investor Relations, Ms. Paula Waters. Please go ahead, ma'am.
Paula Waters:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions] In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Now I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo P. Denault:
Thank you, Paula, and good morning, everyone. As many of you know, the Annual Edison Electric Institute Financial Conference is just around the corner, so we'll try to keep our comments today relatively brief and save longer-term and more strategic updates for our meetings in Dallas. I'll start with the bottom line. Our plan and strategy remains sound and our progress against that strategy is both measurable and clear. As it often does, progress incurs a cost, and we saw little of this in the third quarter. But in fact, overall performance for the company was squarely in line with expectations. We're pleased to report that the utility posted its fifth straight quarter-over-quarter of industrial sales growth and the second straight quarter over 5%, exceeding our expectations for the year. Our nuclear plants operated well. We had fewer unplanned outage days, posting a 90% capacity factor at EWC. Vermont Yankee entered its final months of operation, and as difficult as that decision was, we are more confident than ever that it was the right one. We also made progress on our rate case in Mississippi, reaching a constructive settlement with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff, one which aligns customer regulator and state objectives with our own. Let me elaborate a bit on all fronts. As I just mentioned, utility posted quarter-over-quarter industrial sales growth of more than 5%. As you've heard us say many times, this kind of growth isn't by happenstance. At Entergy, we're doing everything we can to drive it. Doing so requires many things but one is having strong working relationships with the people who serve our utility states, certainly our regulators, but also state and local policymakers, economic development officials and our customers themselves. Together, we've been able to find solutions that work for everyone. For example, in Louisiana, this past August, we completed cost recovery for damage caused by Hurricane Isaac. We were pleased that the efficient structure by which we did so allowed us to share the savings with our customers. Cost recovery of Ninemile 6 begins when the unit comes online through a formula rate plan adjustment mechanism, which was part of the Entergy Louisiana rate case settlement approved last year. We are pleased that the plant, which will allow us to better meet the state's growing demand is scheduled to be completed early, before the end of the year, and under budget. Partly as a result of actions like these, we are in a good position to make the kind of investment our states need to support economic growth, even as we keep the cost of power low. The Mississippi rate case is another great example. As I just mentioned, last month, we reached a settlement. It's true that this settlement requires us to forgo recovery of costs associated with the development of a new nuclear option at Grand Gulf. It would also allow Entergy Mississippi to maintain a competitive ROE, better meet anticipated demand and continue to attract capital on reasonable terms. Perhaps, most importantly, by developing the state's transmission infrastructure, we believe it will help Mississippi attract industry and create new high-paying jobs. The MPSC hasn't approved the settlement yet and we don't want to get ahead of either ourselves or the commission, but we think it's reasonable and balanced and hope our commissioners will agree. We expect a decision in December. Driving growth in our service territory also requires operational and financial discipline. So in the third quarter, we saw progress on another important front. In a move designed to attract industry and jobs to the state, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana asked the Louisiana Public Service Commission for permission to become a single utility. Initiatives are different, but as in Mississippi, combining the 2 companies will make it easier for us to make needed investments in Louisiana power infrastructure, MBA-expanded rate options to sustain and propel the state's industrial renaissance. It will, for example, allow us to streamline investment by creating a stronger balance sheet. It will improve our ability to attract capital and it will give us more flexibility. By 2019, the 2 companies expect up to 1,600 megawatts in industrial load growth. Both are already making substantial investments to meet demand and replace aging infrastructure, which, together with other ongoing capital needs, will require more than $5 billion in capital investment in generation, transmission and distribution by then. Our business combination proposal to the LPSC reflects significant input from stakeholders across the states, in particular, our industrial customers. And we are pleased to see positive feedback from the market. As some of you may have seen, on October 10, Moody's issued a report saying this business combination is credit positive, reinforcing our case. Let me give you just a couple of other highlights from the quarter. Entergy Texas filed for nearly $7 million in revenue requirements associated with incremental distribution investment under a rider, becoming the first Texas utility to do so since legislation was passed in 2011. The decision is expected early next year. Some of our biggest customers also made progress. Big River steel in Arkansas completed financing and broke ground in September. Cameron LNG in Louisiana, also had its groundbreaking just last month. And last week, Sasol announced their final investment decision on the $8 billion investment in the Lake Charles Louisiana area. Entergy Wholesale Commodities operational performance was once again strong. As I noted earlier, our plants ran well. For example, the extended outage at Fitzpatrick came in below the shorter end of our expectations. And at VY, our employees have kept the plant running for nearly 670 consecutive days now. Remarkably, they are on their fourth breaker-to-breaker run. And in fact, all of our EWC plants play important roles in their respective regions and communities. Pilgrim provides fuel diversity in a part of the country, where infrastructure constraints are most severe. Without the on-site fuel benefits it provides, New England would be even more vulnerable to price volatility. As I noted a minute ago, Fitzpatrick completed its refueling and maintenance outage, a very complex undertaking, in just 44 days. A great example of what happens when a solid plan comes together with our employees' tremendous dedication. And with respect to Palisades, although it has a PPA through early 2022, it's long-term post-PPA outlook is improving. For example, the MISO region, where it is located, has recently seen 3 gigawatts of coal-fired generation retire and another 5-gigawatts is scheduled to retire in the next few years. So keeping highly reliable sources of baseload power like Palisades online will become even more important. Let me now to Vermont Yankee, since I know a lot of you will have questions about its closure. As you may know, in September, the plant began its coast down to permanent shutdown, which will occur at the end of the year. Last month, as we said we would, Entergy delivered a first-of-its-kind site assessment study to the state of Vermont. While decommissioning costs articulated in the study are higher than earlier estimates, they are more precise, allowing us to develop plans with much more certainty. Under the terms of our agreement with the state of Vermont, we had said we would periodically evaluate the cost of decommissioning, together with the trust, to determine when we would have the resources needed to begin major activities. Using conservative estimates about growth of the trust, we think it will have enough money to begin such activities in the next 25 to 35 years. At this point, we don't expect to add funds into the trust to meet NRC financial assurance requirements. The decision to close the plant was tough, it came with certain risks and challenges, but we planned to meet and manage these services thoughtfully, which I think we have. For example, we obtained an order from the Vermont Public Service Board authorizing VY to operate through the end of the fourth quarter. We targeted elimination of overhead associated with the plant and we placed the majority of Vermont Yankee employees wanting to stay with the company in new roles. It's worth reiterating that this was the right decision. First, we now see an incremental benefit of shutdown versus continued operation of an additional $50 million through 2017. And second, despite the upturn in forward power prices in New England over the past year, the economics for VY would still not be sustainable in the long run. Forward capacity market improvement through the newly defined constrained zones that spans Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island, is improving the revenue outlook at Pilgrim and RISEC, but VY would not have benefited from this new capacity zone. Indian Point also continues to operate safely and reliably. That plant's importance to the regional electric grid was recently reaffirmed by the New York ISO, which confirmed that, and I quote, "Significant violations of transmission security and resource adequacy criteria would occur in 2016 if the Indian Point plant were to be retired as of that time." As most of you know, the state of New York is currently scheduled to determine Indian Point's compliance with the coastal zone management act or CZMA by year-end. To date, we have submitted thousands of pages of information demonstrating that Indian Point operations are consistent with state coastal policies. There's at least one more environmental impact study the NRC has said it would submit likely late next year. And we think that, that study would be important to complete the record. We also have 2 other paths for resolution to establish that the NRC does not need this consistency determination to issue a renewed license. As we have made clear, we believe that it does not. Regardless of the outcome, we expect appeals to be filed. It is also possible that we will take other procedural steps to support our position. With that said, we don't expect license renewal to be decided any time before 2018. I think we can say with some assurance, that while Entergy may differ with some on the future of Indian Point, we can all agree that what it offers
Andrew S. Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review the financial results for the quarter, provide highlights on how we see 2015 shaping up and preview what we'll discuss at the EEI. Starting with Slide 2. Our third quarter results for the current and prior years are shown on as-reported and an operational basis. Operational earnings per share were $1.68 in the third quarter 2014 compared to $2.41 in 2013. Operational results excluded special items from the decision to close Vermont Yankee, HCM implementation and the transmission spin-merge effort last year. Turning to operational results by line of business on Slide 3. Entergy's operational earnings decreased quarter-over-quarter. One key driver was income tax expense, which affected each of the segments. The effective income tax rate was approximately 40% in the third quarter of this year compared to approximately 25% in the comparable period last year. Details underlying the income tax expense variance are discussed in Appendix A of our earnings release. Moving to the segments. At the utility, operational earnings per share were $1.72 in the current period compared to $2.04 in the prior period. Utility net revenue was higher than last year, led by weather-adjusted retail sales growth for the quarter at 2%. Once again, the industrial customer class had the strongest gains at 5.3%. And as Leo noted, this is the fifth quarter in a row for positive industrial growth, which was due largely to expansions in the chemicals, refining and primary metals segments as well as growth from small industrial customers. Substantially, all of the growth occurred in Louisiana and Texas. The quarterly net revenue increase also reflected higher price, resulting of rate actions, a portion of which was offset by other line items. Sales growth was partially offset by a very mild summer, leading to negative $0.11 of weather. Also, OEM was higher quarter-over-quarter. Benefits from our ongoing cost management efforts were offset by nuclear spending to improve operations as well as other items, some of which were offset elsewhere in the income statement. As Leo noted, utility results were also affected by a charge related to the proposed settlement of Entergy Mississippi's general rate case. The charge reduced current period earnings by $0.23 per share. Moving on to EWC, where operational earnings were $0.23 per share and were lower than the $0.46 earned a year ago, primarily driven by income tax benefits in the third quarter of 2013, as well as the depreciation change we have discussed in the past. EWC EBITDA for the quarter summarized on Slide 4, was $165 million, the same as last year. EWC's O&M was lower compared to the same quarter last year, and driven by our cost-management efforts. While the overall net revenue variance was not significant, there were a few important items within that line item. Third quarter results reflected 37 refueling outage days for the Fitzpatrick plant. You may recall that, that outage was originally planned for the fourth quarter. The net revenue effect of the refueling outage was partially offset by an approximately 40% improvement in unplanned outage days quarter-over-quarter and a higher average realized price of the nuclear fleet quarter-over-quarter. Moving on to operating cash flow shown on Slide 5. OCF was around $1.4 billion in the current quarter, up nearly $300 million from 2013. The primary driver was $310 million in securitization proceeds to reimburse Hurricane Isaac costs. Before we move on, Slide 6 highlights our credit metrics compared to a year ago. Let me just take a moment to note that we've seen credit improvements across several metrics, which shows progress in the right direction. I'll now turn to forward-looking information. Today, we affirmed our 2014 operational earnings per guidance of $5.55 to $6.75. Recall that the midpoint was revised upward in April this year by approximately 23% to $6.15 per share from the original guidance midpoint. Current expectations continue to be on track for the -- round the midpoint of our range, but for the unplanned charges associated with the Mississippi settlement. Similarly, as with that charge, expectations for the utility continues to be around the $5 midpoint we discussed in April. Next week, we'll see many of you at the EEI's annual financial conference. In advance of the conference, we surveyed some of you in the investment community to get opinions on where we can enhance our communications. One specific point of feedback was on our practice of pre-releasing earnings. It was clear that most of you do not find this practice useful. Therefore, going forward, we will discontinue it. You also provided feedback on what you wanted to hear at EEI. At the conference, and on Slide 7, we'll be prepared to talk about 2015. As you know, we will issue our official guidance with supporting details on our fourth quarter call. The good news is that our current expectations and the street consensus appeared generally aligned, based on commodity prices, as of September 30 and other factors, which I'll discuss now, with more details to follow next week. For the utility, we expect weather-adjusted sales growth in the range of 3% to 3.5% to be a significant driver. Industrial sales are expected to be the major component, increasing approximately 6%. We don't expect actions to have significant earnings impact. For EWC revenues, the capacity in generation table, the Table 7 in our release, provides details underlying our revenue assumptions. We also provide our current EBITDA estimate, assuming market prices as of September 30 in the accompanying slides. Because New York's Lower Hudson Valley capacity market is illiquid, the table, once again, utilizes point of view pricing for LHV. Next year, the assumed average price is approximately $6 per kW month per LHV. Staying with EWC, the closure of the Vermont Yankee will affect year-on-year results. This year, VY is expected to contribute approximately $55 million to EWC earnings and approximately $165 million to operational adjusted EBITDA. Keep in mind the year-over-year impact as the VY closure goes beyond simply removing 2014 earnings. To this end, EEI materials will include information on line item drivers for VY. Updates on other typical drivers will include interest expense at the utility and depreciation in both businesses, resulting from capital investments. Non-fuel O&M will also be a driver for 2015 and one component is pension expense. We will not know the final pension assumptions, including the discount rate, until early next year. For now, we are assuming a pension and OPEB expense increase of approximately $70 million, which includes updated actuarial and experience studies as well as a discount rate of 4.75%. We also expect our overall and utility effective income tax rates to be in the range of 32% to 34% compared to approximately 37% overall this year. Beyond 2015, we will discuss the longer-term view, and we'll roll forward many of our Analyst Day financial outlooks and aspirations by 1 year. Finally, for content, we'll cover the utilities growth story, which includes robust growth at industrial demand as well as the case for investment opportunities in generation, transmission and potentially natural gas reserves. For EWC, we'll focus on its long-term strategy as well as our efforts to improve clarity for Indian Point. We look forward to seeing you at EEI, where you know, we'll have a lot to talk about. And now, the Entergy team is available for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we will take our first question from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Just to sort of a follow-up on the EEI PD with the Vermont Yankee decommissioning. How should we think about the ongoing expense item associated with that? Can you give us a little bit more before EEI?
Leo P. Denault:
Yes. For the next couple of years, we expect it to be about a negative $0.20 to $0.25. And then after that, it would trail off to about -- excuse me, millions -- sorry, $20 million to $25 million of net income impact, and that trails off to about $12 million.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
I'm sorry...
Leo P. Denault:
There are several ups and downs in there. We'll have the line item drivers for you on a slide at EEI.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Okay. And then, does the change in the Vermont Yankee decommissioning cost, in total, have any impact on what you guys are thinking about with your other plants? And I recall you guys taking some significant tax positions associated with that. Could those change as well as a result of your update updated Vermont Yankee decommissioning study?
Leo P. Denault:
I'll answer the second question first. No, it doesn't affect our tax positions. And on the first question, we did learn quite a bit, because we did the detailed study of Vermont Yankee. But it doesn't change our current expectations for funding or expense at either -- or any of our remaining of nuclear facilities.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
So quick question here, as you're thinking about New England and all the latest developments, what's your fundamental view '15 through '17 on the forward curve? Do you think or is it your expectation to continue to use options to leave some upside there?
Leo P. Denault:
Yes, Julian, we plan to continue to use the same hedging strategy we have in the past, keeping in mind that there are certain limitations, depending on what the market offers. But -- so we continue to use a number of structured products. Those structured products change -- a number of counter-parties change, but we're still working to maintain that optionality in the book.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Great. And then looking at the capacity side of the equation there, obviously, we've seen a few new newbuild or potential newbuild announcements in the last few months. How has that, if at all, changed your expectations or pricing in the subsequent auction? And then, specifically, are you expecting the SEMA region to breakout separately? And do you have a price expectation therein?
Leo P. Denault:
Yes. So we have seen more a lot more activity in terms of proposed projects. Our expectations on pricing associated with capacity really hasn't changed. We think that for the rest of pool in England, that's still somewhere around an $11 cone. We do expect ISO New England to put in place the SEMA pricing zone that has -- will hopefully be resolved by the end of this year. As it relates to pricing in that specific zone, where RISE and Pilgrim reside, that will depend on the amount of capacity that's actually bid. I think you're familiar with the rules up there, in terms of limitations on capacity pricing for insufficient offers, that type of thing. But we are somewhat bullish in that area, but it's going to -- the final pricing will depend on the amount of capacity actually bid in FCA 9.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Great. Just to be make sure I heard you correctly, there's a potential for an insufficient capacity in SEMA?
Leo P. Denault:
Yes. So with rest of pool, there's a slope demand curve. I don't believe that slope demand curve has been implemented in SEMA, so we would revert back to the insufficient competition, which would go back to net cone.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Neel Mitra with Tudor, Pickering.
Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division:
I had a question on the New England capacity market as well. Obviously, of the winter reliability program, which is kind of a temporary fix, do you see anything progressing, going forward, similar to what PJM is doing with the capacity performance proposal to make sure that there's adequate fuel for the plants in that region or in the winter?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Well, Neel, I think, we were hopeful to see that actually change for this winter. Frankly, we were disappointed with the fact that they rolled the existing plan forward a year. But I believe, FERC gave made some pretty clear guidance on that issue for the '15, '16 winter timeframe needs to be addressed. So we are hopeful that we see some progress there that we move beyond something such as the oil backup reliability to a more market-based approach, which properly values all resources that have adequate fuel supply.
Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division:
Okay, great. And then, at your Analyst Day, you laid out the kind of the lack of pipeline capacity going into New England. Has your view changed with maybe some of the bigger projects that are being proposed out that would come on late 2018, early 2019? Or do think that there's still a long shot for a lot of projects that would actually bring gas into New England?
Leo P. Denault:
I don't think our overall point of view has changed. You've got the Spectra Northeast Utilities JV, you've got the Northeast Energy direct. And you have to keep in mind that those have not been subscribed. So we believe that, that could be a challenge, just given overall economics. So we believe, at least in the foreseeable future, nothing is going to change significantly. We'll continue to see a lot of volatility up in those markets. And at this point, those projects that have been proposed are very questionable, from our perspective.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
I wanted to discuss transmission growth as you join MISO. I wonder if you could just talk at a high-level. I know this is an evolving situation, but are there certain signposts or upcoming things we should be looking for to get a better sense of what's really going to be required to integrate your system into MISO?
Leo P. Denault:
Stephen, I'll start and I'll let Theo kind of jump in with the details. From a transmission standpoint, we've -- and obviously, we'll be giving updated investment opportunities and everything when we get out next week, but we still see, based on our internal business, which is from all reliability projects, projects associated with the industrial growth and demand that we see down here, projects that will be required when we build or acquire new generating capacity and everything, obviously, we've had a significant uptick over the last several years on our transmission investments and we would think that continues. And that is before you get into the idea of what we've got now that we're in MISO. And there's really 2 broad areas where, at least, where we see things, we're already seeing some things that are there because now we've got a bigger footprint and more generating capacity we have access to that we can count on, given the way it's dispatched in MISO, plus, then, there'll be the Order 1,000 issues and then, even things that show up to integrate us with -- or MISO with the region. As far as -- so we do see that there are some opportunities out there that we're already looking at, but more to come on that front. Obviously, some of those are farther out in the picture than near-term investments we have in our own system, which are pretty substantial. And Theo, I don't know if you want to add to that?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Well, I mean, yes, I'll add a little bit to that, Leo. I mean, you made a comment in terms of the path about our transmission spending. I mean, if you look back in 2010, we were probably spending somewhere around $280 million or so in transmission. I think if you go forward, we've kind of more than doubled that. So obviously, our level of transmission spending is increasing, as it relates to MISO. MISO does have the study out around their voltage and local reliability and mitigation that could potentially drive transmission investment as well. We've gone through the MTEP process for 2014. There were some projects that were identified within that process. That process will also occur in 2015, and you could see some projects that were proposed in 2014 become part of the 2015 MTEP process as well. But yes, I think one of the major drivers for us may not be so much MISO, but as Leo mentioned, just the transmission associated with the economic development opportunity that we have. If you look at our EGSL, ELL business combination filing and some of the details and how we talk about some of the opportunities that might require transmission investment within the context of that. So while there could be opportunities relative to MISO, I think we see our transmission opportunities somewhat broader than that.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
That's very helpful. I wanted to shift gears to Indian Point. Of late, has there been a dialogue between Entergy and the state over approaches that can be taking compromises, et cetera? Or is this playing out primarily in the legal arena?
Leo P. Denault:
Stephen, we've had a number of discussions with various representatives of the state, but obviously, we continue to aggressively pursue our legal paths. But I think, that's all I can say at this point in time.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
You had another really good quarter on the industrial demand side, even relative to probably expectation to spring. How much of that is -- you kind of maybe situational timing, relative to what you would've expected. And at what point in time are you guys going to be in a spot to reconsider that underlying growth trend?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Dan, I'm not -- this is Theo. I'm not sure I understand your question in terms of situational. But yes, I think, when we look at where we are, from an industrial growth perspective in the quarter, I think it's coming from where we would somewhat expect it to. It's primarily coming from expansions in the kind of the petrochemical refinery area. And that's what we really expect it to be at this point in time. If you look at one of the slides, I'm not sure exactly which number it is, on the 1,700 megawatts we laid out at Analyst Day, I think in terms of completed and signed projects, we're about 300 megawatts. And so we're really just getting started in that regard. As it relates maybe to the second part of your question, in terms of maybe changing expectations, I think, we, right now, we still feel good about the $3.05 to $3.75 earnings growth through 2016. And while we continue to firm that up in terms of what we see, as it relates to the 1,700 megawatts, obviously, we see movements in, we see movements out. We're still comfortable with that. The question of multiplier effect, the issue of potential energy efficiency impacts on the underlying intrinsic growth, we still think about. But with the puts and takes and ins and outs, I think from our perspective, we're still comfortable with the $3.05 to $3.75 at this point in time.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
And I guess, correlated to that is the residential load is -- hasn't been nearly as impactful, right? And when do you guys see -- or do you see the prospects for kind of the multiplier effect starting to show up in numbers, as these projects get done? And what should we be watching from the outside to see more uptake on that side?
Theodore H. Bunting:
I don't think we're really seeing the impacts of the multiplier effect at this point. Again, I mean, if you look at the slide, we've only got 300 of 1,700 megawatts that are signed and completed. I think, if you look at, historically, other areas where they've experienced, I wouldn't say this type of industrial growth, because I'm not sure anybody's experienced it in recent history, but some type of industrial growth. Generally, the lag that you see, in terms of multiplier effect, happens maybe within a year, couple of years, 1.5 years after, you really start to see the impact of the industrial growth. So we're not quite there yet, and I think that's still to come. We'll see more signed than completed projects as we move forward into '15 and '16. And so I think you'll start to see the impacts of kind of trickle-down the multiplier effect, more so '15, '16, time frame. But again, we're also going to continue to see impacts of our energy efficiency programs, as those are broad, within our service area.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Steven Fleishman at Wolfe Research.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Question, just on -- and thinking about the huge industrial growth. When you're signing contracts up with Cameron or Sasol or these different large customers, are you -- is it mainly a demand fixed payment no matter how much the facility runs? Just thinking about -- we don't know if, one day, these plants, if conditions could change, they may not run much or less. Just how are you kind of locking in the risk of that?
Theodore H. Bunting:
This is Theo. I mean, clearly, there is a demand element to most of our larger industrial contracts, and that's probably about as far as I'll go as it relates to that. A lot of those contractual arrangements differ from customer-to-customer. There are rate tariffs that are in effect for some of those service contracts. We also, in some cases, we get facilities charges relative to the particular customer. But clearly, there's kind of a little bit of a demand-based type element to rate structures when you talk about those types of customers.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay. As opposed to like a fixed payment?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Again, and some of it is just contractually specific to the customer.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay, okay. And switching gears, and one thing we started hearing from a couple of companies is some interest in looking at E&P reserves as something to put in rate base, and maybe it's like a hedge for customers relative to gas prices, as they're very low right now. Given that you guys have a pretty heavy gas fleet, is that something you've considered and something that might have interest in?
Theodore H. Bunting:
This is Theo, again, Dan. It's something that our regulators have historically looked at ways on a hedge volatility of gas -- I'm sorry, I meant Steve, I'm sorry. I still had Dan Eggers on my mind for some reason. And as a matter of fact, the LPSC has an open docket right now to look at long-term gas hedging opportunities. And one such opportunity might be to invest in gas and ground. And that can provide an economic long-term physical hedge for our customers. So yes, it is something that, historically, we've had discussions with regulators about, and I think, we'll continue to have discussions around.
Operator:
We would take our next question from Angie Storozynski with Macquarie.
Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research:
So I have question about the growth in regulated earnings because I understand that you're going to be providing us updates during the EEI. But I was just wondering this write-down of expenses associated with the new nuclear plant. Does it have any impact on the rate base? And should we have any worries that your former or current growth trajectory for regulated earnings is going to be lowered?
Theodore H. Bunting:
I guess Angie, I'll answer the question, in terms of impacts on rate base. The asset that was written off was not in rate base in the Mississippi jurisdiction. So, no, it would not have any impact on our views of rate base going forward. It really wasn't, I think you used the term plant. I wouldn't describe it as a plant. I would really describe it as more of some additional -- some early stage cost associating with permitting and licensing processes as we were looking at new nuclear opportunities in earlier years. So clearly, not a plant that was in service, per se, and not an element of rate base. So we'd not expect it to have an impact on our views of rate base growth.
Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research:
The reason I'm asking -- I'm asking because we're missing the slide that you usually have with the earnings growth for the regulated utilities.
Theodore H. Bunting:
I'm not sure which slide that is, Angie, but we'll certainly have that for you at EEI.
Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Research:
Okay. And then my other question, so there's been clearly a movement, a nominal movement in forward power curves. Could you give us, roughly a sense, if we were mark-to-market the EWC's earnings power, how much of a change would we see on these bars that you're showing for '15 and '16 EBITDA for EWC?
Leo P. Denault:
Angie, I don't know if I can comment specifically on the dollar value. I think, from our perspective, what we see is that for '15, it's in line with our POV, '16 maybe slightly lower than our POV and that widens as you move further out in the curve. So essentially, I don't think our point of view has changed much from what we provided you earlier in the year.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
A couple of questions. First of all, tax rate going forward, you talked about the 32% to 34% for 2015. Do you view that as a normal number? Or do you see kind of taxes migrating back towards the higher historical level overtime?
Andrew S. Marsh:
This is Drew. So we see it as -- we have -- as we've talked about in the past, we have a portfolio of activities going on with the IRS and at the state levels. And it depends on the timing of audits and things like that. So next year, we see 32% to 34%. Beyond that, I think we are still talking about a statutory tax rates in our guidance and our aspirations and outlooks and those types of things. So that's where we are for now.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Got it. And on the regulated side, 2 questions, one with Ninemile. How significant -- what's the best way to think about what that level of rate increase would be? And when is the earliest you could see that actually go into effect?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Michael, this is Theo. I don't -- right off the top of head, I don't have specific number, as it relates to revenue requirements around Ninemile. We'll probably have to get that for you later. But clearly, we would expect that any rate change relative to that would go in effect at the time we see the plant coming online.
Leo P. Denault:
And I'll just add that we've got lot of AFUDC in the earnings this year, and so you're not going to see a big pickup next year when that plant comes online. It'll be maybe $0.05 or so.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Got it. And last question, Mississippi, as part of the rate deal and some of the other negotiations with staff in the Public Service Commission, are you moving to more of a forward-looking formula rate plan kind of similar to what one of your large neighbors in the state has? Or is that formula rate plan kind of some kind of hybrid or still historical looking?
Theodore H. Bunting:
No, I think -- again, Michael this is Theo, what we have arrived at in agreement in the stipulation is an FRP with what we call forward-looking features, which does allow us to look forward, to some extent, to kind of calculate and set what we would view as revenue requirements associated with the period of time in the future.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
And are there any restrictions on when you can next file to get an FRP-related revenue increase?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Not certain. I'll have to get back with you on that. I don't -- obviously, we're going to operate within the formula rate plan constructs that have been in place in Mississippi for years. I mean, that's what we would expect. And my recollection is they don't necessarily have specificity as to whether you can get a rate increase. By the same token, that formula rate plan has -- obviously, it goes both ways. You could see rate decreases. So I'll have to verify that. But just off the top of my head, I don't believe there's any specificity in the stipulation around not being able to obtain a rate increase, or on the contrary, not necessarily having an -- experiencing a rate decrease.
Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Got it. And my apologies, one last one, cash levels at the end of the quarter were actually pretty high. I mean, roughly $1 billion, if you just assume short-term investments as well. Is that just a timing issue in terms of time line of CapEx? Or do you have a greater-than-expected cash balance that you can deploy to either the balance sheet or investment opportunities?
Andrew S. Marsh:
This is Drew. So it was a little bit elevated. We have a couple of big tax payments coming up, I think that's probably part of it.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Just picking up on something you just said, are you saying that you'll -- when you do your guidance, you're going to guide to a normal tax rate, and you were just sort of mentioning the lower tax number? Or is that sort of going to be a part of 2015 number you guide to?
Andrew S. Marsh:
No, what I was referring to for 2015, when we provide that guidance on the fourth quarter call, we would expect, at least, as we look at it right now, we'd expect the tax -- the effective tax rate reflecting that to be in the 32% to 34%. As we'd talked about 2016 as an outlook, we've been talking -- we've been using a normalized tax rate for that time frame.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Okay. So you're not changing your practice in terms of guidance on that front?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Right.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Okay. And secondly, so you just give us -- you gave a number of $70 million on pension and you mentioned the updated actuarial, I guess, mortality studies and then the discount rate. How much of the $70 million, if you can say, has to do with the new actuarial study?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Off the top -- it's probably -- I can't remember the exact number, but it's around half, I think. I mean, roughly half. We usually give a rule of thumb around interest rates and if you're trying to get to that $70 million increase off of our expectations for pension expense this year, you're not going to make it. And that's why we're talking about that piece.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI.
Greg Gordon - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
I'm all good. My questions have been answered.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We would take our next question from Paul Fremont with Jefferies.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
I'm looking, I guess at your Slide 24, which is the EWC EBITDA outlook, and it's very close or right on top of the numbers, I think, that you provided on the second quarter conference call. But at the time of your second quarter conference call, when you were talking about LHV capacity prices, you were sort of showing a flattish outlook going into the fall. This time, you're showing a fairly significant decrement. Is there something to offset the decrement that we should be assuming that are keeping sort of these numbers equal to where they were on the second quarter conference call? And if so, what would that offset be?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I think we'll have to get back to you. I don't have that -- honestly, I don't have been that in my head, Paul, in terms of what that reconciliation would be, but we can follow up with you on that.
Operator:
And we would take our next question from Andy Levi with Avon Capital Advisers.
Andrew Levi:
Just 2 clarifying questions. Just on Vermont Yankee on the $25 million. So that we should consider operating earnings?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes, yes, we're going to call that operational earnings next year. There will be some special items associated with Vermont Yankee next year and that related to the decommissioning activities themselves, but it will be a small amount, and we'll highlight it. But on an ongoing basis, we will be living with the decommissioned facility. And so we're going switch that to operational.
Andrew Levi:
Okay. And then, also, around Vermont Yankee, you mentioned, I guess, in prepared -- I don't know if it's prepared statements, but you said that at this point, I think, you didn't expect any escalation in prices. And I just want to understand what that meant.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Escalation of contributions to the trust fund, is that what you're referring to or...?
Andrew Levi:
Exactly. And what's the definition of -- at this point, meaning, is that at this point, the next 10 years ago or at this point...?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Well, as we look at where we sit with the trust and the expenses and our financing strategy associated with all of that, we believe that we won't need to contribute anything to the trust. But that is -- we have to still submit, here at the end of the year, our post shutdown decommissioning activities report to the NRC and then they have to sign off on it. So as we look at it, today, we think that we're going to be just fine. But we still have to go through that process.
Andrew Levi:
Okay. And one last question. Just on the pensions, on the $70 million. And I would, I guess, put the $25 million on Vermont Yankee on that, too. When you did your Analyst Day earlier in the year, were these expenses contemplated when you kind of talked about your longer-term outlook?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I think the Vermont Yankee mostly was and some of the pension piece was. But interest rates have fallen further since then. And so I think the pension expense is probably up a bit since then.
Operator:
We would take our final question from Mr. Charles Fishman with Morningstar.
Charles J. Fishman - Morningstar Inc., Research Division:
Just one question. Is the -- will the economic development pipeline slide, that's cumulative through '16? Will you rolled that forward next year -- or next week?
Andrew S. Marsh:
You're talking about the 1,700 megawatts slide?
Charles J. Fishman - Morningstar Inc., Research Division:
Right.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes, so we've been looking at that particular slide. We've gotten a lot of questions about how to actually make that more useful. And so we're rethinking it. We're not going to update it right now and roll it forward another year because we haven't completed -- it's a '13 to '16 view, and so we want get through '14 before we roll it forward. But we're still trying to figure out how we want to use that slide, if at all, or if in a different format going forward.
Operator:
And that concludes today's question-and-answer session. Ms. Waters, I would like to turn the call back over to you for additional or closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you, Alan, and thanks to all, for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for safe harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing (719) 457-0820, replay code 6761108. The telephone replay will be available through 1:00 p.m. Central Time on Tuesday, November 11. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's call. We like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Leo P. Denault - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Andrew S. Marsh - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Bill Mohl - Roderick K. West - Chief Administrative Officer and Executive Vice President Theodore H. Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations
Analysts:
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Presentation:
Operator:
Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Second Quarter 2014 Earnings Release Conference. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to the Vice President of Investor Relations, Ms. Paula Waters. Please go ahead.
Paula Waters:
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions] In today's call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company's SEC filings. Now I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo P. Denault:
Thank you, Paula, and good morning, everyone. As many of you know, at Entergy, delivering safe, secure, reliable power underpins everything we do. Our work is especially exciting during periods of growth. No one wants to hinder economic development or job creation and everyone wants to be part of a brighter, more prosperous future. I'm pleased to say that in the second quarter of 2014, this focus allowed us to deliver our commitments to all 4 of our stakeholders
Andrew S. Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review the financial results for the quarter, as well as our forward-looking outlook. Starting with Slide 2. Our second quarter results for the current and prior years are shown on an as reported and on operational bases. Operational earnings per share were $1.11 in the second quarter of 2014 compared to $1.01 in 2013. Operational results excluded special items from the decision to close Vermont Yankee, HCM implementation and the transmission spin-merge effort last year. Turning to operational results on Slide 3. Entergy's operational earnings increased, driven primarily by higher earnings at EWC. Parent & Other earnings were flat and at Utility, operational earnings per share were $1.17, $0.01 lower than a year ago. There are a few key offsetting drivers. For the quarter, Utility net revenue was a positive driver. Retail sales growth for the quarter was 2.1% or 2.6% on a weather-adjusted basis. Industrial customer class had the strongest gains of 5.3%. Industrial growth was broad-based across multiple segments, led by refining chemicals and small industrials and aided by several expansions. Increases within ETIs and EGSL service areas drove industrial growth. Sales growth was offset by the effects of weather, including milder-than-normal weather in this quarter's unbilled period. The quarterly net revenue increase also reflected higher price resulting from rate actions. A portion of the price increase was offset by other line items. Despite the spending increases offset in net revenue, nonfuel O&M was favorable quarter-over-quarter, reflecting our cost management efforts. Improvements from net revenue and O&M were offset by higher depreciation expense and higher effective income tax rate. Now moving on to EWC. EWC's operational earnings per share of $0.18 was higher than the $0.07 earned a year ago. EWC EBITDA for the quarter, summarized on Slide 4, was $84 million higher than last year. The increase is due to higher net revenue from improved sales volume, following continued operational improvement in our merchant nuclear fleet. This is illustrated by a stellar 95% nuclear fleet capacity factor for the quarter versus 82% in 2013. Unplanned outage days were dramatically reduced by 37 days, and there were no refueling outage days in the second quarter of this year. The average realized price for EWC's nuclear fleet also improved to just under $50 per megawatt hour compared to $46.40 a year ago or about 7% higher. The price increase was largely due to capacity prices while energy prices were relatively flat. Now moving on to operating cash flow shown on Slide 5. OCF was $761 million in the current quarter, up $189 million from 2013. Higher net revenue from EWC was the largest driver. I'll now turn to forward-looking information. In today's release, we affirmed our 2014 operational earnings per share guidance range of $5.55 to $6.75. Based on the result through the second quarter and June 30 forward prices, our current expectations point to just below the midpoint of the range, due largely to mild weather in the second quarter. As we think about the remainder of 2014, there are a few things we're paying close attention to. For EWC, we have seen market forwards for the balance of the year come down since June 30. There are also open regulatory proceedings that could see resolution this year at Utility. For example, the Waterford 3 steam generator prudence review is currently in process. On the call last quarter, we also discussed the expectations for incremental opportunistic 2014 O&M spending aimed at accelerating projects, improving top line growth and improving operational performance and reliability to benefit customers. Identified opportunities have fallen more into the improvement categories, but are generally consistent with the amounts outlined last quarter. EWC spending is a little lower than discussed last quarter, while Utility spending is a little higher. Now let's turn to 2015. For the past several years on this call, we provided a few thoughts for prompt year earnings. Following that practice, Slide 6 summarizes considerations for next year. The issues are probably what most of you expect. A few things of note. At the Utility, drivers include a full year of rate actions in 2014, including ELL's $10 million rate increase in December of this year and potential rate actions in 2015, including the EMI rate case, which is in progress. Also, recall that last quarter we noted that some of our Utility tax benefits originally expected in 2014 are now more likely to fall into 2015. And at EWC, note that the EBITDA expectation includes the full year benefit of DOE waste fees set at 0. At our Analyst Day, we also provided 3-year long-term outlooks for the Utility business net income, EWC operational adjusted EBITDA and consolidated earnings per share growth. As Leo indicated earlier, the precise building blocks or how we achieve those outlooks are likely to change due to the nature of our business. Utility outlook is to achieve $1 billion to $1.50 billion of operational net income by 2016. The unique industrial growth opportunity is the cornerstone in Utility's earnings outlook. They [ph] continue to develop new leverage to grow the top line and make productive investments beyond the discussions at the Analyst Day to ensure we meet those expectations. At EWC, operational adjusted EBITDA estimates that we provide in our webcast in the Appendix material are based on market prices as of a certain point in time. 2016 prices from our Analyst Day were consistent with both our point of view and April 30 forwards, but we're about 4% higher than market prices as of June 30. This has led to lower June 30 mark-to-market EBITDA around the bottom of our stated point of view range for 2016. Our point of view development is an evergreen process. Our point of view evaluates longer-term fundamentals that's not as volatility as day-to-day market prices. Despite some near-term gas market headwinds, we still expect to see natural gas demand pick up over the next 5 years and drive marginal natural gas drilling towards slightly higher-priced dry gas areas. Meanwhile, we continue to see tightening reserve margins in key Northeast power markets. With these considerations, we reasonably believe that we can meet our consolidated 2016 growth target, even with volatility and the underlying earnings drivers. Our Analyst Day in June is barely in the rearview mirror. We laid out then and reinforce today how we intend to create sustainable value for our 4 key stakeholders
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll go first to Dan Eggers at Crédit Suisse.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Just following up on the point of view conversation, which is obviously getting a lot of attention. If the point of view was consistent with where prices were earlier in the second quarter, can you talk about the lack of additional hedging that happened from the first quarter to the second quarter and how you guys are going to kind of approach the hedging strategy over the remainder of the year?
Bill Mohl:
Sure. Dan, this is Bill. A couple of things. As we look at what's happened in the short term -- shorter-term market, as mentioned, we've seen moderate weather increasing storage, obviously, the front end of the curve has dropped down. However, when you look at 2015, we are still -- our point of view is consistent with the market. And in fact, in the second quarter, we executed about 750 megawatts of hedges or converting placeholder hedges into more fixed-price hedges, which represents about 17% of the portfolio. So at this point in time, we believe we have got 2015 adequately hedged. As you look out into the future, '16 and beyond, our point of view is largely unchanged. Perhaps, 2016 was reduced a little bit from a point of view perspective. But remember that, as we talk about the ability to hedge, there's a couple of things to consider. One is -- and primarily is the liquidity out in the marketplace. So as we look at hedging '16 to '18, we're seeing a much less liquidity than we do for 2015. Obviously, our point of view is higher than current market prices and increasingly higher as you go further out on the curve, really due to the drivers, both from a heat rate perspective, heat rates being compressed, and our point of view on demand for natural gas. So we remain bullish on natural gas because of addition of gas generation, shutdown of coal units, incremental industrial load, additional exports to Mexico and LNG expansion. So really, the challenge we face '16 to '18 is just a lack of liquidity and the fact that our point of view was substantially higher. The other piece of that is, if you remember, I think we were pretty clear at Analyst Day, volatility in the markets has been substantial since the polar vortex. Therefore, making structured products, options, et cetera, much more costly and really, we don't believe now is the time to put those hedges on.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
And then, Leo, there seem to be a couple of Utility properties for sale in the region. Can you just remind us how you guys think about M&A and how that prioritizes against the CapEx program you guys have internally?
Leo P. Denault:
Sure, Dan. The whole M&A question for us has not changed in terms of how we think about it. We have our objectives as a company that we're trying to meet in terms of growing the business. And if we can do transactions that will facilitate that objective, we will do them. So something with a growth opportunity, something with a balance sheet opportunity, something with a cash flow opportunity, things like that. The capital decision that you're talking about, for us, is probably a little bit unique in that we have significant amount of growth opportunities that reside within the Utility itself, the organic kind of growth. So that just, I guess, would tend to potentially make the bar higher if we were looking to deploy capital, deploy balance sheet towards something. It would have to be a superior way to grow the business than the objectives or the opportunities that we have within the business itself. And again, as we've talked about a lot of times, the size of the customers that we look to add, that 1,700-megawatts is between now and kind of the foreseeable future. But as long as oil to gas ratio stays where it is, as long as the opportunities remain out there from a manufacturing standpoint, we -- that was just a point-in-time estimate. We go out beyond that. We would continue to see that growth opportunity. So nothing's changed. If you think about our objectives, growing the Utility business and preserving the optionality within EWC, if we can help manage that with a transaction, we'll do it. But the thing we have to be mindful of is the capital deployment opportunities we have within the business as well.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Michael Weinstein with UBS.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
It's Julien here, actually. Excellent. So first question on the EWC side, if you could comment. With regards to what's going on in New York, not just the highway but the REV, how do you see that impacting the future of Indian Point? And perhaps, more broadly, what are your latest thoughts on the Lower Hudson Valley pricing and sustainability as a construct, if you could comment?
Bill Mohl:
Sure, this is Bill. As it relates to our point of view on New York, if you look at where they stand, obviously, they're in a situation where they've got declining reserve margins. In fact, as Leo mentioned, if you look at their projections as they go into the future, they really need Indian Point. In fact, if they try to pull Indian Point out of the portfolio, even with some of the resource additions proposed, they violate reliability limits. So we believe that projects or policies such as REV are certainly something that can be implemented over time, but it will take a substantial amount of time to implement those. And if you look at a lot of the proposed projects in New York and the timing associated with those projects, you really have to question the viability of those projects and if they can meet the actual commercial operations date. So our point of view is that Indian Point remains critical for reliability, economic sustainability and also environmental sustainability. As it relates to Lower Hudson Valley zone, we feel confident that FERC will uphold its decision on that zone. Prices can change in that zone as resources are added. As we look out into the future, we include some of that in our forecast. Obviously, Danskammer is on the front burner right now, and so we're watching that very closely. Our point of view on that is that maybe part of that unit may become commercially viable within a reasonable period of time. The rest of that unit may take longer as it relates to the larger units at that facility. But we -- in general, we believe that the pricing associated with LHV will be maintained and that FERC will uphold its prior decisions.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Excellent. And could you just clarify a little bit on the last question, when it comes to your 2% to 4% range in the context of the latest commodities? Can you clarify, do you see any improvement on the regulated side to offset the commodity? Or are you effectively saying, status quo, we're moving forward on the plan on the regulated side and we have a view on the commodity that is different than the commodity is today?
Andrew S. Marsh:
This is Drew. It's more of the latter, Julien. It's -- the Utility, we continue to look for ways that we can look for levers that can help us maintain the $1 billion to $1.50 billion and if the opportunity is available, maybe go above that. But right now, what we're talking about is -- at the Utility, is the $1 billion to $1.50 billion. And then our point of view is the part at EWC that gets us back to the 2% to 4%.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Kit Konolige of BGC.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
So I wanted to ask a little bit about your mention, Leo, of the carbon rule. I noted that you said that the implementation may not match the EPA's objectives, if I can quote or misquote you. But can you give us a little more detail on what you think the development of that situation might look like?
Leo P. Denault:
Sure. Rod will handle that.
Roderick K. West:
Behind the comment is the observation. We're not going to make a formal statement beyond it. It's the observation that the state-by-state limits that have been -- or at least are evident in the EPA proposed rule -- remember, it is just a proposal -- suggest to us that we're not going to -- it's not going to be an easy path to achieve across-the-board emissions if we're just limited to a state-by-state approach. Our fear is that the marginal cost of compliance across the board is ultimately going to wind up working against EPA's objectives to reduce carbon and have a greater impact on, for instance, jobs, the cost of electricity for customers. Here where we see the chaos creating problems for EPA's objectives. If we aren't able, between now and October, to arrive at, let's just call it a consensus position for EPA, given the industry, given their respective states, we're going to put -- we're going to force EPA to wind up having to go a square against Congress and as a forcing mechanism to try and get at a comprehensive energy plan. We don't see that as being realistic within EPA's time line. And what we're trying to figure out between now and October is whether or not there's a path that allows us to get there. And so we're taking a very cautious approach but recognizing the complexity of this rule alone. It's just making it really difficult for us to see a path where EPA is actually achieving these stated goals of achieving though its 4, what we call, building blocks to achieving any realistically -- achievable, enforceable rules at the end of the day. And Entergy has been at the forefront of the greenhouse gas reductions from 2012. And just from our limited perspective, given where we are today, we really don't see how, beyond EPA's stated goals, how they get there from here. It's just -- we're trying to remain optimistic. We're trying to remain engaged with the EPA and figuring out whether the rule can be modified between now and October. But it's just -- we're having a hard time finding a reason to be optimistic that this ultimately works for us.
Leo P. Denault:
Kit, if I could just add, there's a -- as Rod said, there's stated objectives about the reduction, stated objectives about the flexibility, stated objectives about types of technology and everything and then there's a lot of math behind the rule, and we're not sure that the math and the stated objectives all mesh up as well. But as he said, proposed rule, through constructive dialog, through those sorts of things, maybe we get there. But it's just -- it's kind of drawing that line, as Rod said, between all those objectives, the complexity of the state-by-state issue and then the math that goes behind it that might not support it. But we're -- it's still early in the process.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
Right, okay. And then to follow-on on one particular state, New York, has there been any indication that the folks who matter in New York, say, at the Governor's Office or other high-ranking officials, that the possibility of the carbon implementation has changed their thinking at all or led them to reassess how they think about Indian Point?
Bill Mohl:
This is Bill. I would say at this point we have not seen any -- we haven't had any significant dialogue associated with that. We've had some conversations with the PSC, but I think, like us, everybody is still in the process of trying to evaluate this and understand how it practically gets implemented. So it wouldn't be fair to say we've seen a change in their position at this point in time.
Operator:
And we'll move next to Steven Fleishman at Wolfe Research.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Leo, I know you guys have been a point of view company from as far as I can ever remember, but I don't recall kind of initially having the point of view as part of the guidance. So just when we're thinking about future quarters and periods, how are you going to be updating the point of view, so to speak, just so we -- I'm sure you're updating it somewhat all the time, but just as more of like an annual thing, quarterly thing, how should we think about that?
Leo P. Denault:
Well, I'd say that in continuing with the past practice, we are not putting our point of view in guidance. In continuing with other -- with past practices, where we've got it overarching in our decision-making process and in our outlook. So when we look at guidance with the exception of the fact that I think last year, when we are given -- we had to put something in on Lower Hudson Valley and there was no market, and so we -- we're clear about imputing that. Our guidance is inclusive of market, not our point of view. Our outlook of what we think is achievable and where we'll be, that's based on what we think is going to happen. And in a lot of situations, that includes an assumption about the price power, and that's where we put our point of view in where we think we'll be at that point in time. But this -- we would distinguish that different from guidance, and that's I don't different than our past practices. As far as how often we'll update that, obviously, we're going to continue to give you a perspective around where we think we're going to get by 2016, et cetera. But that we'll probably just do on a quarterly basis and if we're not -- while we update our book every day, we don't run all the way through all the financial models everyday all the time. Hope that helps.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Yes. And just one other question on the 2015 earnings consideration slide. I think all of these were basically things that were in the outlook you gave at the Analyst Day. Is that correct? There's -- none of these are really new.
Andrew S. Marsh:
No. I don't think any of these are new, Steve.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay. And your highlight to pension discount rate a couple of times. Is that just because that's been a volatility item historically?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes. I mean, as you know, it gets set at the end of each year, based on interest rates at that particular point in time, and so it is uncertain as to what it'll actually become until you get to that point. The interest rates have been trending down most of the year, so there is some risk to that, that -- and I know you all are aware of that. But I want to just -- that's just part of the list. We want to make sure that you're thinking about all the drivers that we're thinking about.
Operator:
We'll move next to Jonathan Arnold at Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Just a quick one on there's been obviously a filing made at the New York PSC around some kind of a contract support for another upstate nuclear plant. Any -- would you like -- could you comment on that just conceptually and any sort of likelihood or interest in a similar arrangement or request for FitzPatrick?
Bill Mohl:
Sure. Jonathan, this is Bill. Yes, we're well aware of the filing that's been made regarding that facility. Our understanding at this point in time is that is for to meet a short-term reliability need. As it relates to FitzPatrick, we always consider those types of options. But in general, we continue to try to advocate for improved market structures. Our general thought is that the -- if we have the right market structure which values the attributes of specific generators, obviously, with nuclear its base load carbon-free generation with on-site fuel, that is a much better long-term solution. However, if there are opportunities to enter into other agreements based on certain other needs on the system, such as reliability, we certainly are open to that, but nothing on the table right now.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Do you have M&As that these are -- could there be a similar reliability issue to the, I guess, it's the Rochester one up around FitzPatrick's location? Or less likely in that case?
Bill Mohl:
Probably unlikely.
Operator:
We'll go next to Paul Patterson at Glenrock Associates.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
I guess, just back to the point of view, could you give us what you think the reason is that the market is mispricing or is not accurately forecasting the issues that you see coming up in terms of reserve margin, et cetera?
Bill Mohl:
Sure. I mean, the couple of things you have to remember that I think are constants in what we've talked about for a number of years as is relates to point of view and the forward market is number one is, as you look at the forward power markets, you got to remember that there's a lot more sellers than there are buyers as it relates to long-dated transactions. And so while we see very good liquidity in the front end of the curve so, obviously, for the prompt months and for the next year, as you get beyond that, you have a lot less natural buyers. As a result of that, probably one of the key drivers in the lower market prices is lower heat rates. And that's just kind of the situation that we are dealing with and we have been dealing with. As you get closer to delivery, then you will see the markets respond, you'll see heat rates increase and you'll see the issues, such as the physical constraints that exist in the market -- in the physical delivery market start to come out in the forward market. And so I can't tie it to any specific issue. Our belief is that, in general, infrastructure in the Northeast is going to be constrained. We're seeing a lot more retirements than we are seeing resource additions. Therefore, we're seeing lower reserve margins. And as we saw during the polar vortex, when you get periods of high peak demand, then you see a significant rise in the price of both natural gas and the price of power.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Okay. And so basically, around this time next year -- or by this time next year, you would expect the forward curve to come in line. Is that how we should think about it?
Bill Mohl:
Yes, we'll see the prompt years...
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
For 2016.
Bill Mohl:
Yes, we'll see the prompt years start to rise. And as you get closer to delivery, then depending on what the actual physical conditions are, then you see much more volatility as we did this last winter.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Okay. And then turning to New York and the legislation which passed the House of Representatives to defund, I guess, FERC's activity regarding the new capacity zone. How should we think about, a, what do you think the likelihood of that passing the Senate would be? And b, even if it does pass the Senate, what would the practical effect be, considering that I think pretty much FERC has already acted on this and acted on the rehearing if I understand it correctly? If you could just sort of elaborate a little bit on that.
Bill Mohl:
Well, first, let me say that this type of intervention in the markets goes to the very heart of what we're working on from a market structure perspective and is what's actually undermining some of the markets overall when we actually see political motives behind proposed changes that affect that market. As it relates to this specific appropriations bill, we -- it's not currently -- has not been initiated in the Senate at all, and our prevailing belief is that FERC has ruled on this. They've had all the information required to make their decision, and we remain confident they will maintain that decision going forward.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Okay. But I mean, if they defund this, how would that actually impact FERC? I mean, is there -- I mean, would it just be simply symbolic? Or would it actually have a practical impact on the capacity zone. Can you give us a perspective on this [ph]?
Roderick K. West:
This is Rod West. In terms of the actual order that FERC currently has out, the rule is in place. And so the defunding doesn't change the tariff that's ultimately in effect. You can assume -- and you'd have to ask FERC this, whether or not they were specifically defunded, whether they would lose the ability to access resources from other sources to actually do their job. It's opened [ph] a practical matter. The rule is where it is in the unlikely event, and we do not believe that it is a likely outcome that the Senate would carry that amendment. That's a question for FERC. But we have to have confidence that FERC's jurisdiction at the end of the day is going to be upheld and supported through the legislative process.
Operator:
We'll go next to Paul Fremont at Jefferies.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Looking at the preliminary 2015 drivers, can you elaborate at all on the changes in -- the expected changes in EWC depreciation? Because I guess, in 2014, I think your guidance have like a $0.25 increase in depreciation, and it looks like you're looking for depreciation to go up yet further in 2015.
Andrew S. Marsh:
This is Drew. That just relates to normal incremental capital, most of it above what we're depreciating right now related to Fukushima and the like. So that's just normal changes. Last year, Paul, you remember that we had that new depreciation study, and that's what was driving the larger change last -- from last year to this year. Going forward, we wouldn't expect to see such a large change. It will just be normal capital increases.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
And in terms of the useful life of nuclear, that assumption, is there any type of a major change there?
Andrew S. Marsh:
No, no changes there.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay. And then in terms of the Department of Environmental Conservation remaining hearings in New York, can you give us an idea of when the hearings are expected to end on Indian Point?
Bill Mohl:
Sure. I think you saw a flurry of activity last week regarding this matter, where we had a number of politicians, business folks, community members really speak out against the proposed capacity outages. Following that, the ALJs decided that they were going to push back the hearings associated with that topic for several months that were scheduled to be -- take place in January 2015. Our point of view on this whole process hasn't really changed since we talked to you at Analyst Day as we don't see any decision occurring on this matter any time before 2016 and likely gets -- may get pushed beyond that. So our point of view on that's consistent with what we talked to you about at Analyst Day.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
So 2016 would be the -- an actual DEC final decision?
Bill Mohl:
There could be a decision at that point in time. However, remember that as we detailed, there's a number of appeals, processes, et cetera, that we would -- we could pursue, so that wouldn't be the final word, so to speak.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Right. And that would -- that takes you to the 2018 time frame, right?
Bill Mohl:
Yes, sir, that's correct.
Operator:
And we have time for one more question. We'll take that from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
I wanted to talk about membership in MISO and just if there's any general timing we should be thinking about in terms of further transmission planning, sort of signpost we can look to in terms of the capital that will be required to integrate Entergy into MISO.
Leo P. Denault:
Theo, do you want to take that?
Theodore H. Bunting:
Yes, I'll start and maybe others could weigh on this. But I mean, MISO has -- obviously goes through its transmission planning processes. And as I think as I've talked about at the Analyst Day, we talked a little bit about transmission opportunities, and I laid out a time line as it related to projects that might have been submitted under MISO's kind of MVP, MEP processes. And August -- the month of August -- August 14, actually is the time when we would see MISO is completing some evaluations of projects that they would consider for their MTEP '14 process. So we also generally have our typical MISO transmission planning process that you would go through as a part of MISO, where we would submit projects, reliability projects and that sort of thing. As we laid out, again, in Analyst Day, I think we said we had about $1.7 billion transmission CapEx through 2016. Many of the projects that would be reliability-type projects that we would submit through MISO would be part of that $1.7 billion. But again, as you think about other types of projects, the MVP projects or other types of projects that might enhance economic benefits, you could see potentially spending above that level.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Great. And then just shifting gears for a follow-up on Indian Point, the coastal zone management process. What is the earliest date under which the New York State Department of State can make a consistency determination? I know the deadline is at the end of this year. But what would be the earliest date they could make the decision?
Leo P. Denault:
Well, they could actually make a decision themselves by the end of the year. However, we have reason to believe, as based on previous experience, that, that decision could actually be further delayed. Remember, consistent with our discussion at Analyst Day, then that would -- if it was an adverse decision, then we would take that to a Secretary of Commerce appeal process, which lasts over a year, and then there is appeals process is over that -- in addition to that. So at this point in time, everything that we had mentioned at Analyst Day is still correct.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's question-and-answer session. At this time, I would like to turn the conference back over to Ms. Waters for any closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you, Audra, and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing (719) 457-0820(719) 457-0820(719) 457-0820(719) 457-0820, replay code 6761108. The telephone replay will be available through noon, Central Time, on Tuesday, August 5. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
And again, that does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation.
Executives:
Paula Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Leo P. Denault - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Andrew S. Marsh - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President William M. Mohl - President of Entergy Wholesale Commodity Business - Entergy Corporation Theodore H. Bunting - Group President of Utility Operations
Analysts:
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Operator:
Good day everyone, and welcome to the Entergy Corporation First Quarter 2014 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. And at this time, I would like to turn the call over to Vice President of Investor Relations, Ms. Paula Waters. Please go ahead, ma'am.
Paula Waters:
Good morning. Thank you for joining us. We'll begin today with comments from Entergy's Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault; and then Drew Marsh, our CFO, will review results. [Operator Instructions]. As part of today's conference call, Entergy Corporation makes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these factors is included in the company's SEC filings. Now, I'll turn the call over to Leo.
Leo P. Denault:
Thanks, Paula, and good morning, everyone. By any objective measure, the first quarter of 2014 was extremely successful. Our operating groups provided excellent service to our customers under extreme conditions. Our commercial groups continued to provide growth opportunities while aggressively managing risks. Our support functions continued to evaluate and implement more standardized lower cost end-to-end business support processes, spanning multiple functions within the company. We continued our mission to support our communities through assistance programs and our direct contributions, and as a result, we created value for all 4 stakeholder groups
Andrew S. Marsh:
Thank you, Leo, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will review the financial results for the quarter as well as our updated 2014 operational earnings guidance. Starting with Slide 2, our first quarter results for the current and prior years are shown on as-reported and an operational basis. Operational earnings per share were a robust $2.29 for the first quarter of 2014 compared to $0.94 in 2013. The significant increase was due largely to higher net revenue from EWC's Northeast nuclear fleet, while Utility net revenue was higher as well. Operational earnings excluded special items from the decision to close Vermont Yankee and HCM implementation. Earnings and operational results on Slide 3. Starting with Utility, operational earnings per share were $1.13. This is $0.40 higher than the $0.73 earned in the first quarter last year, and there are a few key drivers that I'll highlight starting with net revenue. As reported in the pre-release, weather was positive in the current period compared to the mild temperatures in the fourth -- first quarter of last year. In addition, positive weather-adjusted sales growth contributed about $0.05. On a weather-adjusted basis, billed sales were 2.1% higher than the comparable period. The increase was consistent across the residential, commercial and industrial customer classes, with industrial sales growth for the quarter at 2.5%. Industrial gains were broadly spread across multiple segments. The net effect of regulatory actions was also a factor for Utility net revenue but was largely offset by other line items and therefore contributed only about $0.03 to the quarterly earnings increase. The net revenue increases were partially offset by an unfavorable unbilled revenue variance of approximately $0.09 quarter-over-quarter. Besides net revenue, nonfuel O&M was also favorable quarter-over-quarter, reflecting lower pension expense from a higher discount rate as well as last year's cost reduction effort which resulted in fewer employees and changes in benefit plan. When taking into account expense increases that have designated net revenue recoveries, such as storm reserves and energy efficiency program cost, the quarter-over-quarter improvement was about $0.10. Now moving on to EWC. EWC's operational earnings of $1.39 per share in the first quarter of this year was higher than the $0.46 earned in the prior period. EWC results included an income tax benefit, which resulted from a change in New York State tax law. The change resulted in a onetime reduction in deferred taxes of approximately $21 million. Turning to EWC EBITDA drivers on Slide 4. The $261 million increase was driven by higher realized wholesale energy prices for EWC's Northeast nuclear assets. The average realized price for EWC's nuclear fleet was $89 per megawatt hour. Leo mentioned that our hedging strategy was part of the story for EWC's earnings this quarter. To add to that, I will simply remind you that we maintain upside in many of our contracted hedges through a protective call to address operational and liquidity risks in high-price environments like we experienced in the first quarter. This discipline actually reduces our overall risk profile. We view Slide 5 for some time to illustrate how our contracting strategy provides asymmetric upside opportunity. Note the positive slope to the line and higher prices, illustrating the protective call strategy. Also included in net revenue is certain mark-to-market activity, which includes a range of items. In the first quarter of this year, mark-to-market activity netted to approximately $21 million pretax, which includes the -- which included the positive turnaround of the $45 million pretax mark in the fourth quarter of 2013. A natural question is whether or not this quarter could repeat next year and beyond. As Leo discussed, we analyze and prepare for longer-term fundamental changes. We don't rely on weather to achieve our goals, but we do remain bullish on our point of view of energy pricing in the Northeast market. We witnessed higher volatility in these markets in the last 2 winters and believe this will continue in the foreseeable future due to constrained Northeast infrastructure. Looking forward to next year, should the same conditions repeat, we would expect to be able to again capitalize on the optionality of our portfolio. However, note that we will not have the benefit of a largely unhedged Vermont Yankee unit as we did this winter, and our revenue opportunity will depend on the specific positions we have. Recently, the cost of volatility has gone up, and some products we used this winter are more expensive or are currently not available from counter-parties for next winter. We are constantly evaluating the EWC portfolio to determine which product will best position us for 2015, while balancing cost and risk against our point of view. Nevertheless, if the same market conditions were to prevail next year, we think we could experience up to 80% of the first quarter 2014 EBITDA without changing our hedging philosophy. The bottom line is that our portfolio going forward still has plenty of price upside opportunity and embedded option value. Now moving on to operating cash flow shown on Slide 6. OCF was $767 million in the current quarter, up $223 million or more than 40% higher than 2013. Again, higher net revenue from EWC and Utility was the largest driver, demonstrating that the high-quality earnings we realized in the first quarter resulted in near-term cash flow. I'll now turn to 2014 operational earnings guidance on Slide 7. The strong first quarter results and increased volatility in Northeast Vermont and forward power markets pushed our 2014 earnings expectations above our original guidance range. Our revised operational earnings per share guidance range is $5.55 to $6.75. Starting with Utility net revenue, there are a few drivers to note. First, we had $0.18 of positive weather that was partially offset by unbilled revenue, as we noted earlier. Also, the outcome of some rate actions were different than originally planned last October. Looking forward, we still see 2014 Utility weather-adjusted retail sales on track to achieve the 1.9% growth we have previously noted. At EWC, based on realized prices to date and forwards at March 31, net revenue is expected to be significantly higher than we thought last October. Approximately $0.90 per share was realized in first quarter results, and approximately $0.45 per share is yet to come and still subject to market price variation. The revised midpoint also reflects combined negative $0.20 in O&M and other which is largely driven by the expectation for opportunistic spending in O&M, partly attributable to EWC performance this year and partly attributable to the potential to accelerate projects and in improving operation performance and reliability to benefit customers. Looking at the opportunities available to us now, this number may be lower over the balance of the year at both Utility and EWC. The higher expense is also net of the expected benefit from a higher pension discount rate. Moving down a line, we currently see a higher effective income tax rate which will reduce earnings by $0.05 per share. The overall variance is the net effect of changes in the 2 businesses. About half of the effective rate increase is simply due to the application of statutory rate, the incremental pretax earnings causing the overall effective tax rate to rise. At the same time, some of our expected Utility tax benefits are now more likely to fall into a future year. On the Utility segment, I will also note that most of the changes are not fundamental to the underlying strength of the business, and there's no change in our expectations in Utility earnings growth through 2016. Of course, we still may do better in 2014. Overall, our guidance range reflects our expectations of earnings and volatility today. Despite all that has happened, it's still early in the year, and undoubtedly, things will continue to evolve. We won't update the guidance range for changes as they arise unless we expect the year end operational results will likely end up outside the current range. The first quarter of this year was a good beginning. We created real value for our stakeholders and highlighted the optionality of EWC's business as well as the value of nuclear fuel diversity in the Northeast market. During the quarter, we've also seen encouraging signs for capacity auctions as well as improvements in forward power prices beyond 2014, moving towards our long-term bullish point of view. At Utility, with much of the uncertainty from 2013 behind us, we're focused on positioning ourselves to take advantage of the opportunities ahead. In particular, the strong economic development pipeline went beyond this year as seen in a new format on Slide 11. As Leo said, we'll delve deeper into these and other opportunities at the upcoming Analyst Day. We look forward to seeing you there, and now, the Entergy team is available for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll take a question from Kit Konolige from BGC.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
A couple of follow-up items. So can you go into a little more detail on the increase in the O&M spending? If I understood it correctly, I took away that it's an opportunistic spend due to the improved revenues and sort of reinvestment, if you will. Are there particular segments or companies or projects that you're spending that O&M in?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Thanks, Kit. Yes, so at EWC, that is certainly the case as well as the Utility. And so at EWC, part of that is paying people for the great performance that Leo talked about in the first quarter, and part of it is looking for opportunities to move projects forward if those arise. The challenge associated with those, of course, is that they are difficult projects to plan. It's not easy to move a lot of O&M forward like that, and so we are getting an early start on it. It's easier to pull back than it is to decide at the end of the year that you want to move a lot of O&M forward. At the Utility, we're a little ahead of -- in that same regard. It's something that's beneficial for customers in terms of rate stability if we can offset some of the beneficial weather. And since it's still early in the year, we don't know that we'll be able to actually have the opportunity at the Utility to do that. And we'll certainly be looking at each company, because not all Utility companies will likely have that same opportunity. So -- but that's what we're working on today. We're preparing. We're trying to form up projects, and we're looking for those opportunities. But there's no guarantee that we'll openly end up spending that O&M.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
And on a separate area, you mentioned that -- if I heard it right, that 80% of the EBITDA in 2014 first quarter could recur in first quarter '15 and at $0.90 a share of the increase in the guidance range was due to the first quarter. First, just wanted to confirm that those were correct, and I just want to try to get an idea of how much of a, if you will, permanent baseline change there is here in level of EPS and EBITDA that will recur in '15 and forward. Obviously, forward prices have gone up some, and as you say, volatility has gone up and so on. If you can give us some idea of what we're looking at going forward, that would be a big help.
Andrew S. Marsh:
I'll start with the math part, and then I'll turn it over to Bill for the point of view discussion. So I think the math that you had, Kit, was correct, but I'd put a bunch of caveats in there as well. So those are -- it's 80% under the same market conditions that we see next year in the first quarter. And yes, that is against the $0.90 increase plus the part that we already had built into guidance. So it's the overall EBITDA that I was talking about when you look at it that way. And so part of that is from the fact that Vermont Yankee is not going to be in our portfolio next year. And part of that is, as you said, forward prices have already moved up, so we do have some still open positions in our remaining portfolio. They benefited from some of the price moves so far. And so you get up above what Vermont Yankee's contribution was this quarter, because some of our other positions have benefited from that early price rise. So with that, I think I'll turn...
Leo P. Denault:
This is Leo, Kit. Let me just jump in to make sure I -- I don't want you to -- I want to make sure you get the right specifics. The 80% Drew was talking about is if the same price volatility happened next first quarter that happened this first quarter, we're positioned that we can capture that value. If you want to look at -- when you were asking about permanent, the slide we have in the deck on EBITDA, that's where the market is today. And so you may not have been thinking this, but I just want to make sure. We're not saying that we already have 80% of what we've got this quarter -- first quarter next year. If the same thing happened, we're positioned to capture it. That's what Drew was trying to say.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
It's the same market conditions but not the same weather, obviously.
Leo P. Denault:
Well, Kit, whatever reason. It might happen because of weather. It might -- that would probably be why it would happen.
Kit Konolige - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
I get it, okay. It's basically just removing the Vermont Yankee impact.
Andrew S. Marsh:
That and some of the price rise that we've already seen so far this year. As you said, [indiscernible] prices have come up a little bit already.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Just a quick one on the -- in the Slide 21, you're just alluding to talking about just sort of the look at market today. Obviously, you don't specify the numbers, but it seems from the movement in the 2015 number in particular that it took -- probably up about $100 million of EBITDA outlook versus the prior version of this slide. I guess my question is, you've got 74% hedged. You now expect to realize 53% on that versus 49% before, which is a $4 uplift, and then the market pricing slide is also kind of a $4 uplift. And it seems 4x your generation ought to be closer to $150 million than $100 million. So is there some offset? Does my math make any sense there? And is there some offset embedded in there? Or are you sort of embedding some conservatism about next year in particular?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I'm not sure I followed all the way through on the last part, but I think it should all kind of hold together. I don't think there's any big offset built into the numbers that we're showing you there.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
But your hedged is up $4, and your open is up $4, and you've got 35 terawatt hours. It just doesn't seem that the bar is moving as much as it should by some reasonable margin.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Well, there is a bit of rounding in there as well, but there's -- we don't have any unplanned or hidden offsets in there. We're showing you just the revenue uplift there.
Jonathan P. Arnold - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Okay. And then if I may, on this discussion you just had about the 80% and the 20% if we have a repeat of this year's conditions next year. What -- can you be a bit more specific about what kinds of products that you use this year are not available in the market for next year and how you're -- and just some more color on how you're adapting to changes in available products in the market?
William M. Mohl:
Sure. This is Bill. I think as we've explained previously, we use a variety of different products. So some of that includes unit contingent. Some of that includes cap collars. And we use a variety of different option structures, both European, which clear on a forward basis versus Asian options, which clear more on a daily basis. As you can appreciate, as the volatility in this market has increased and if you look at daily volatility from -- for example, from winter '13 to winter '14, we've probably seen a pickup of over 50% between '14 and '13. Obviously, some folks who were willing to sell those products in the past have reconsidered their risk profile. And so right now, they are not as willing to offer those products, and so we have to readjust our portfolio to what's actually available in the market to be able to capture that. However, as Drew said, we still believe we have the opportunity to capture a significant portion of those upside, but it will be a different portfolio and there will be different prices associated with the products available due to that increased volatility.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Paul Fremont with Jefferies.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
I think I just want to better understand the changes that are taking place in the Utility guidance for '14. I guess the starting point would be there's a $0.20 reduction in the midpoint, and that includes the $0.18 of positive weather in the first quarter. So are we really looking at sort of a delta here of $0.38? Is that...
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes. This is Drew, Paul. That's a good question. So in the net revenue line, there is an offset to that $0.18 in our unbilled revenue category. And unbilled is something we don't normally talk about, because it's usually kind of plus or minus right around 0. But this quarter, it's a large number, and it has to do with sort of the estimates at the end of each quarter that we make. And so it was -- it's really sort of a holdover from the very end of '13 when it was really cold, those last couple of weeks in December. Those dollars have since gone into the build revenue category. And we're backing them out of the unbilled category, and you see the offset to the build. So it's about -- as I said, it's $0.09 quarter-over-quarter. It was about $0.10 between December and the first quarter of this year. So that's the biggest thing in that net revenue line that you're probably not seeing completely there.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Right. So that -- in other words, if that's $0.09 out of what would be potentially $0.38, what would be -- or is it $0.09 out of what really is $0.20? That's what I'm trying to figure out, because don't I need to add the...
Andrew S. Marsh:
If you're looking at $0.30, I think you're looking at quarter-to-quarter versus the $5.20 midpoint is just for 2014. And so our expectations for 2014 from the net revenue perspective have been largely met except you would say plus $0.18 for weather, minus $0.10 for unbilled and then a little other noise in there to get you that plus $0.05. And then...
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay, so that -- but then that still leaves like $0.28. So in other words, I'm just trying to figure out what drove it -- what's driving the $0.28 and whether that's -- we should look at that as potentially recurring items or nonrecurring items?
Andrew S. Marsh:
I'm not sure I'm following where you're getting the $0.28 from. I'm sorry. I think when we said $0.28, it's plus $0.18 weather this quarter versus minus $0.10 first quarter of '13. So there's a $0.28 weather delta there. Is that what you're looking at?
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
No, I'm just taking the $0.20 change in the midpoint of the guidance, adding in the weather of $0.18 and then subtracting out the $0.09 or the $0.10 that you gave me for...
Andrew S. Marsh:
Okay. So then -- so if you come down on the guidance table, maybe what you're seeing is there's a bit of the opportunity spending, and then the other part is the taxes piece. There were some tax items that we thought would occur this year when we set guidance in October. It looks like those have pushed back a little bit, probably into '15, and so that has moved out. We don't -- we still think those things will happen. The timing has just changed on them. So those are the -- from the guidance table, those are the main drivers.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
And the opportunity spend and the taxes together would sort of represent the difference? And -- because you also mentioned somewhere in there rate case outcomes.
Andrew S. Marsh:
Right, right. And so that's the smaller piece that's in that net revenue line item. That's part of what gets you down to the $0.05, and it has more to do with the Arkansas rate case at the end of the year probably than anything.
Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay. And still the expectation -- so even with sort of -- so in other words, if the Arkansas decision isn't reversed, you're still confident that you can come up with other offsets by '16 to get to the same $950 billion Utility net income number.
Andrew S. Marsh:
That's correct. That's correct. And as Leo said, we're looking for ways to exceed that. So we feel pretty good about where we are in terms of our 2016 number. Recall that, that doesn't include any tax benefit in it, and we have all the industrial renaissance and economic development opportunities in front of us. We think that's pretty safe right now.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Just on the hedging strategy, just make sure so I understand this, in the ratable or kind of point of view base that you guys are using, you didn't really increase hedge positions in the quarter. What is the thought process for adding on any out years as we move through this year? And what kind of percentage hedges do you want to have maybe going into 2015?
William M. Mohl:
What -- I mean typically, we look at prompts here, we hedge 85% of that position. So that's kind of the guidelines that we followed and we'll expect to continue to follow. Of course this year, effectively, we were a little less than that due to the fact of the uncertainty around VY and how long that unit would run and the uncertainty around the CPG. But we would intend to be hedged in an 85% level.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Okay. And then on -- kind of with the MISO integration, you haven't had a little more time with it and then some of these issues that have come up between transfer between MISO classic and MISO South. Can you maybe give a little color on how you guys see that getting resolved, what impact that's had on even with the value proposition of joining MISO from what you guys originally anticipated? And is that going to have any bearing on potential CapEx opportunities with the MISO transformation?
Andrew S. Marsh:
[Indiscernible].
Operator:
And gentlemen, this is the operator. We are unable to hear you at this time. [Technical Difficulty]
Unknown Executive:
The point I was making on the SPP MISO issue for the company, SPP filed a complaint at FERC seeking to -- in essence, to have FERC charge MISO for any excess capacity beyond the 1,000-megawatt limitation and the tie-in between MISO North and MISO South, the point being that we're in the initial stages of the litigation, if you will. We have not -- we've not ruled out the possibility or likelihood of resolving that issue by way of settlement. But if we were to ultimately go to hearing and if SPP were to maintain their position, that is essentially what they're seeking, to limit that inner regional dispatch to 1,000-megawatts and to issue that payment to SPP from MISO for any megawatts beyond that 1,000-megawatt capacity, so the debate is really about that. We don't have a point of view on how MISO would address it if FERC were to find that SPP's position was well founded. But again, it's early in the process, so we really don't know kind of how that plays out at that the moment.
Daniel L. Eggers - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
If this were to not get resolved, would this affect the value proposition of you guys joining MISO?
Unknown Executive:
No.
Operator:
Next we'll hear from Steven Fleishman with Wolfe Research.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Just wanted to first clarify how the LHV pricing came in relative to your expectation of a $2 increase for the full year, maybe just some color on that.
William M. Mohl:
Yes. I think, as you know, the LHV pricing came in for the summer strip rider a little bit under $10. May auction, spot auction was around $12.25. So that's in excess of our original estimate.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay.
William M. Mohl:
Not a whole lot. No, not significantly higher, but I mean it was a limit bit higher than what we had used as our kind of midpoint.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay. It's really hard to tell, because the $2, like an average for the year.
William M. Mohl:
That's right.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
So if we were thinking about this for a summer strip, was it $1 or $2 or something like that above what you would have thought the summer strip price?
William M. Mohl:
It's less than -- much less than $1 on an average basis.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay. So that's -- any LHV pricing that's assumed in the EBITDA -- any New York capacity pricing assumed in the EBITDA charts that you have should be pretty close even though you didn't update for that. It shouldn't be that different based on what came out.
William M. Mohl:
No, that's right. It should be consistent with what came out.
Steven I. Fleishman - Wolfe Research, LLC:
Okay. One other question just on clarifying kind of your point of view on New England and the like. And one could argue that there's obviously some pretty severe constraints. We also did seem to have some relatively severe weather, maybe not as much just in New England but like kind of the whole regional area or maybe the whole northern part of the country. So when you're talking kind of the bullish point of view and keeping your strategy the same, is it -- in a normal winter weather situation, do you think there'd be this much extreme or still have kind of an extreme option value that things are that bad in New England, that even normal weather, you want to keep the big option position?
William M. Mohl:
Yes. I mean, here's the way we think about it is, we've seen volatility in those markets in the last 2 winters, okay? And this winter, obviously, was more severe than the winter of 2013, but nevertheless, we saw volatility. Now take into consideration for 2014, you've got Salem Harbor coming off, that's about 750 megawatts. VY will be off in the first part of 2015. It'll actually shut down at the end of this year. And then you've got other units like Brayton Point that will come off in 2017. So you're losing a substantial amount of resources over the next 4 to 5 years. In fact, if you look at their overall portfolio, you're going to lose about 4,000 megawatts which represents about 10% of their generation -- over 10% of their generation capacity. And reserve margins, obviously, have declined to the point where FCA 8 resulted in a deficiency, and you went to basically new build prices for new resources. So there's a lot of dynamics going on there, but we believe that there will continue to be constraints. While there's a minimal amount of new pipeline capacity coming on due to compression projects, that type of thing, we don't believe it's adequate to replace the additional capacity that will be retired.
Operator:
Next we'll hear from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
So I hear your comments with Steve on the markets and what have you, and I also heard your opening comments which sort of indicated substantial concern with the way the market's being structured and what have you. And so I guess so to follow-up on this, do you guys -- I mean, I know what you guys are planning in terms of your filings, and I've followed your Exelon and Entergy joint filing on the Forward Capacity 9. But is there a plan b if, in fact, we don't get the market structure that you guys contemplate? Or should we think, basically, that things are sort of going in your direction and you guys are cautiously optimistic, and we're going to be seeing this sort of process continue in the stakeholder process, what have you and see how it plays out? Or is there perhaps another strategy you guys might be thinking about to get more value for your generation plan?
William M. Mohl:
Well, it gets to be a little bit complex, but let me lay this out. So we're working through the stakeholder process both in New York and in New England and at FERC, and we believe there's improvements to be made in the capacity market design. We believe there's improvements to be made in the energy market design, and we also believe that there are opportunities to be fairly compensated -- for generators to be fairly compensated based on the actual attributes they provide, for example, on-site fuel, 0 carbon emissions, et cetera. That is going to be a fairly lengthy process. We think we will see some immediate improvements, for example, in ISO New England with real-time energy pricing coming up by the end of this year. Leo mentioned the slope demand curve. In the interim, as we have mentioned, we expect to see quite a bit of volatility in the markets just due to the constraints themselves. And so when you say is there a plan b, I mean we're kind of working all of those in parallel and we expect to see some continued volatility until some of these market issues get resolved. And I think the polar vortex brought to the attention of all the markets and to the regulators that we've got some structural design issues that need to be addressed.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Okay. Going back to Forward Capacity Auction #9, there is this new entry pricing extension that's being proposed, and I was wondering if you could -- if you have any thoughts -- I mean, obviously you guys are against it. I understand that. But if you have any thoughts about what the -- I mean what the impact might be if that provision stays in the -- it could be whatever the proposal that New England put forth?
William M. Mohl:
I'll make sure I understand. Are you talking about the exemption as it relates to the renewables associated with that and the slope demand curve?
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Yes, the slope demand curve filing and the new entry pricing extension, they're going to increase by 40%, MISO proposing, from 5 to 7 years for new entry pricing.
William M. Mohl:
Yes.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Right. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about what that impact might be or if that's significant given the constraints you're talking about on the gas side or...
William M. Mohl:
I think our point of view is, we're not necessarily probably hung up on the 5 to 7. What has -- the most challenging for us is that when the ISO sets -- has new capacity enter the market, they choose a number of $7 a kW/month to provide existing generators. And so we believe, with the slope demand curve, that we have the opportunity, depending on resource availability, to see additional upside probably somewhere -- to $10 or $11 of kW/month once that slope demand curve gets put in place.
Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC:
Regardless of these other market design issues such as the extension and the exemption that you were discussing earlier, that even with those in place, you still think that the capacity price should probably get up there. Is that right?
William M. Mohl:
We still think -- I mean, obviously, we're concerned about the exemptions because it's another intervention into kind of what's referred to as the competitive market. But we -- even with that, we believe that there is some additional upside from a capacity perspective, capacity pricing perspective.
Operator:
We'll take our last question from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
I wanted to just talk through the low growth numbers that you're seeing which is obviously robust compared to the national average. Are there certain areas that stand out as the strongest areas of growth? And do those offer potentially more transmission spend than you've been currently contemplating?
Leo P. Denault:
Theo, you want to...
Theodore H. Bunting:
Steven, this is Theo. I guess we talked about that we would probably want to talk, to answer the second part of your question, really more around customer class maybe somewhat. And when we look at residential and commercial, I think for the past few years, we've expected what we saw last year, kind of a dip in growth, that being driven primarily by energy efficiency policies primarily at the federal level, somewhat around -- primarily around lighting. And I think what you're seeing now in 2014 and the first quarter as compared to 2013 is really a return to what we had probably seen on the simple average load growth 2010 through 2012 prior to 2013. So -- and it's something, I mean, we somewhat anticipated post the dip we saw in 2013. When you now talk about industrial and you talk about the industrial renaissance, we talked about fairly extensively, Leo mentioned on this call and we've talked about previously, as that growth shows up and it shows up to the extent that we've embedded it within the context of our guidance numbers and to the extent it shows up even greater, yes, there is the opportunity for additional transmission investment to connect that resources to that demand growth, to that load growth. We have some -- obviously, a transmission bill we have within the context of our current construction plan reflects the expectation we have relative to -- out to the 2.5%, 2.25% sales growth. But to the extent that growth goes beyond that, which, again, given what we're seeing we view as a possibility, there could be transmission to connect those load pockets, and we could do additional transmission spend associated with that.
Leo P. Denault:
Stephen, from a transmission point of view, obviously, the way to think about it is, we've got a plan. The construction plan of the $1.7 billion over the next 3-year period, that would include some of the economic development activity we have in our plan for that timeframe, the 2% to 2.25% load growth. The renaissance, the projects, the $65 billion that's been announced that we were talking about, that goes up to 2019, so that's even farther. To the extent that we pick up more, as Theo mentioned, there's an increment that could show up just in the base business. So you've got the current run rate. You got -- if we could outsize the growth on top of that outside growth, we get more -- against the other 2 buckets also, obviously, exists with the -- you look at the FERC Order 1000 issue MEP, MVP projects that's out there as well that we would anticipate participating in it at some level, certainly, within our service territory. And then there's that opportunity outside of it too, which we're certainly going to consider what we do there as well. So there's -- the transmission part of the business is actually more complicated and more interesting because of it given those different buckets that are all pretty robust at this moment. But the normal load growth in and of itself is pretty good based on what we've already got line of sight on. The incremental piece on that could make that even better if were successful in our strategy to attract and serve that load. And then we've got these other 2 buckets that we're evaluating, and certainly, we're going to have to make sure we do everything we can to do the right thing for our customers and work with our regulators on how we would all work through that. But that's an extremely interesting part of the business for us right now that we get to work through.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
That's very helpful, and I just had a very quick factual question just on the EWC business. I assume that the forecast still includes the DOE nuclear waste disposal fee. Is that correct?
Andrew S. Marsh:
Yes. Well, Stephen, there's, as you know, the possibility that, that might not be in there. We sort of factored that into our midpoint, $6.15. If it comes in or I should say goes away sometime in June, it would be about $0.08.
Stephen Byrd - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Understood. But in the out year EBITDA numbers, you're still assuming that you still have to pay that fee?
Andrew S. Marsh:
That's correct.
Operator:
At this time, I'll turn things back over to Ms. Paula Waters for any additional or closing remarks.
Paula Waters:
Thank you, Vicky, and thanks to all for participating this morning. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our call was recorded and can be accessed on our website or by dialing (719) 457-0820, replay code 6761108. The telephone replay will be available through noon, Central Time on Thursday, May 1, 2014. This concludes our call. Thank you.
Operator:
Again, that does conclude today's teleconference. Thank you all for joining.