Entergy Texas, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and State of Texas Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education

ACCEPTED
03-14-00706-CV
4407712
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
3/6/2015 4:11:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK

NO. 03-14-00706-CV FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
3/6/2015 4:11:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC., Clerk
Appellant,

v.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS, ET AL.,
Appellees.

B RIEF OF A PPELLEE

Filed by: Public Utility Commission of Texas

KEN PAXTON ELIZABETH R. B. STERLING
Attorney General of Texas Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 19171100
CHARLES E. ROY Elizabeth.Sterling@texasattorneyg
First Assistant Attorney General eneral.gov

JAMES E. DAVIS MEGAN M. NEAL
Deputy Attorney General for Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation State Bar No. 24043797

JON NIERMANN Environmental Protection
Chief, Environmental Protection Division
Division P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512.463.2012
512.457.4616 (fax)

March 6, 2015

Oral Argument Requested
 Identity of Parties and Counsel

Party Counsel
Entergy Texas, Inc., Plaintiff in the Marnie A. McCormick
district court, Appellant and John F. Williams
Appellee before this Court Duggins Wren Mann & Romero,
LLP
P. O. Box 1149
Austin, Texas 78767-1149
512.744.9300
512.744.9399 (fax)
mmccormick@dwmrlaw.com
jwilliams@dwmrlaw.com
(in district court, also Patrick J.
Pearsall)

Public Utility Commission of Texas, Ken Paxton
Defendant in the district court, Attorney General of Texas
Appellee before this Court (in district court, Greg Abbott)

Charles E. Roy
First Assistant Attorney General
(in district court, Daniel Hodge)

James E. Davis
Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Litigation
(in district court, John B. Scott)

Jon Niermann
Chief, Environmental Protection
Division

i
 Assistant Attorneys General:
Elizabeth R. B. Sterling
Elizabeth.Sterling@texasattorneyge
neral.gov
Megan Neal
Megan.Neal@texasattorneygeneral.
gov
Environmental Protection Division
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512.463.2012
512.457.4616 (fax)
Office of Public Utility Counsel, Ross Wyatt Henderson
Intervenor in the district court and Assistant Public Counsel
Appellee before this Court Office of Public Utility Counsel
P.O. Box 12397
1701 N. Congress Avenue, Ste 9-180
Austin, Texas 78711-2397
512.936.7500
512.936.7520 (fax)
Ross.Henderson@opuc.texas.gov
(in district court, Sara J. Ferris)

ii
State Agencies, Intervenors in the Katherine H. Farrell
district court and Appellees before Assistant Attorney General
this Court Administrative Law Division
Energy Rates Section
Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548 MC 018-12
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512.475.4237
512.320.0167 (fax)
katherine.farrell@texasattorneygen
eral.gov
(in district court, Susan M. Kelley
and Bryan L. Baker)
Texas Industrial Energy Rex VanMiddlesworth
Consumers, Intervenors in the Benjamin Hallmark
district court and Interested Parties Thompson & Knight LLP
before this Court 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1900
Austin, Texas 78701
512.469.6100
512.469.6180 (fax)
rex.vanm@tklaw.com
benjamin.hallmark@tklaw.com
(in district court, Meghan Griffiths
at Andrews Kurth, LLP)

iii
 Table of Contents

Identity of Parties and Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Index of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Glossary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Statement Regarding Oral Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Issues Presented.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Statement of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The Commission decided Entergy’s rate case, Docket 39896.. . . . . . . 1

B. The Commission addressed the question of Entergy’s rate-case
expenses in this case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. The ALJ considered ratepayers’ arguments against some of
Entergy’s requested rate-case expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

a. Depreciation expenses of Entergy’s affiliated company. . . . . . 9

b. Rate-case expenses to advocate for abandoning the two-
bucket policy for including incentive compensation in rates.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

c. Excessive rate-case expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

d. Adjustments to rate-case expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. The Commission issued its Order in this case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C. Entergy appealed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

iv
Summary of the Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

I. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A. Substantial-evidence Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

B. Arbitrary-and-capricious Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

II. The Commission has discretion to decide that expenses Entergy
incurred making a long-shot argument for overturning a well-
established Commission policy were unreasonable expenses for
ratepayers to reimburse. (Responds to Entergy Issue 1). . . . . . . 24

A. The Commission may allow the utility to recover only
reasonable expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

B. The Commission applied the law to the evidence and
determined that it was unreasonable for Entergy to recover
rate-case expenses incurred to argue that the Commission
should abandon its two-bucket policy concerning incentive
compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

III. The lack of a Commission rule about rate-case expenses for
incentive-compensation arguments did not relieve the
Commission of its statutory duty to allow the utility to recover
only reasonable rate-case expenses. (Responds to Entergy
Issue 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A. Entergy’s arguments that the Commission departed from
earlier policy in this case are unavailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

B. The Commission was merely applying the statutes to the
evidence and argument in this case, not promulgating a new
rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

C. Entergy’s arguments that the Commission engaged in ad hoc
rulemaking are unavailing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

v
 1. This case is distinguishable from Witcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2. Entergy improperly relies on the irrelevant thought
processes of individual commissioners in the course of the
case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. A rule was adopted when the Commission subsequently
conducted formal rulemaking proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

IV. The Commission’s decision about the amount of rate-case
expenses to exclude should be affirmed. (Responds to Entergy
Issue 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. Entergy—the party with the burden to prove rate-case
expenses—failed to provide the information needed to show
exactly how much of its rate-case expenses were incurred to
make the unreasonable long-shot argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision about
the amount of rate-case expenses attributable to the
unreasonable argument in the rate case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

C. The Commission’s decision is reasonable—neither arbitrary and
capricious nor an abuse of discretion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

V. Entergy failed to meet its burden under Utilities Code § 36.058 to
prove depreciation charged by its affiliate for rate-case expenses
was reasonable and necessary and no higher than the costs
charged to other affiliates. (Responds to Entergy Issue 4). . . . . . . . 47

A. The Utilities Code imposes additional requirements to show
that amounts paid to affiliates are reasonable expenses . . . . . . . 47

B. Entergy’s evidence is insufficient to meet its burden of proof. . . 48

1. Entergy failed to explain what depreciation expenses of
Service Company were included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

vi
 2. Entergy failed to provide evidence that including Service
Company’s depreciation expense made the expenses
comparable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Certificate of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

APPENDICES

Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A

Proposal for Decision.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B

Chart of PUC Dockets Addressing the Two-Bucket Incentive
Compensation Policy Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C

Statutes and Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D

Certified Copy of ETI Ex. 41 from Docket 398961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E

1
ETI Exhibit 41 from Docket 39896 includes an appendix of supporting
information on a CD. That CD is too voluminous to be filed electronically. Therefore,
the Commission has copied only those parts of the CD that it has cited, changed them to
PFD format, and attached them to the body of Exhibit 41. The Commission stands ready
to provide the Court or any other party a copy of the entire CD on request.

vii
 Index of Authorities

Cases Pages

Anderson v. R.R. Comm’n,
963 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Cent. Power and Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
36 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Cities of Abilene v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
146 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
883 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
916 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ dism’d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

City of Frisco v. Tex. Water Rights Comm’n,
579 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). . . 29, 37

Indust. Utils. Serv., Inc. v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n,
947 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, writ denied).. . . . . . . . . . . . 35

McHaney v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality,
No. 03-13-00280-CV, 2015 WL 869197 (Tex. App.—Austin February 27,
2015, no pet. h.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
406 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Pedernales Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
809 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, no writ).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Gulf States Utils. Co.,
809 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

viii
 Index of Authorities (Cont’d)

Cases (Cont’d) Pages

State of Tex. Agencies and Insts. Of Higher Learning v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
450 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed). . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32

Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc.,
665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Tex. State Bd. Of Pharmacy v. Witcher,
447 S.W.3d 520 Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Statutes

Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 2001.174. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
§ 2001.175(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Tex. Util. Code
§ 15.001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
§ 31.001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
§ 33.023(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
§ 36.002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
§ 36.051. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
§ 36.058. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 47, 48, 49, 53
§ 36.058(c)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
§ 36.061(b)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 24
§ 36.062. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
§ 36.062(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
§ 39.451. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
§ 39.452(a).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rules

16 Tex. Admin. Code
§ 25.231(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ix
 Index of Authorities (Cont’d)

Rules (Cont’d) Pages

§ 25.231(b)(2)(J). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
§ 25.245(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Other

39 Tex. Reg. 571 (2014), adopted 39 Tex. Reg. 6434 (2014)
(to be codified at 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.245). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

x
 Glossary

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APA Administrative Procedure Act. Tex. Gov’t Code
§§ 2001.001–.902

Commission or PUC Public Utility Commission of Texas

Docket 39896 Application of Entergy Texas for Authority to Change
Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, P.U.C. Docket 39896, the rate
case that generated the rate-case expenses that
Entergy sought to recover in this case

Entergy Entergy Texas, Inc., the utility that asked the
Commission for rate-case expenses in this case

ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas

OPUC Office of Public Utility Counsel, intervenor at the
Commission, intervenor-defendant at district court,
appellee in this Court

Order The Commission’s order on rehearing that is the
subject of this lawsuit

PFD Proposal for Decision prepared by the ALJ in this case

Service Company Entergy Services, Inc., an affiliate of Entergy that
services the entire family of related companies

State Agencies State Agencies of Texas that are customers of Entergy,
an intervenor at the Commission, intervenor-
defendant in the district court, and appellee before
this Court

TIEC Texas Industrial Electric Consumers, intervenor at the
Commission

xi
 Statement of the Case

Entergy challenges the district court’s judgment in an administrative

appeal that affirmed the Public Utility Commission’s order. The

Commission set the rate-case expenses that Entergy is entitled to recover

from ratepayers for reasonable expenses incurred in a prior rate case.

Statement Regarding Oral Argument

Oral argument would be helpful to allow the Court to ask any questions

it may have about the ratemaking or rate-case-expense cases.

Issues Presented

1. Did the Commission have discretion to decide that expenses Entergy
incurred to make an argument in the rate case that it had almost no
chance to win were unreasonable expenses for ratepayers to reimburse?

2. Does the Commission’s statutory duty “not to consider for ratemaking
purposes … any other expenditure … the regulatory authority finds to be
unreasonable, unnecessary, or not in the public interest” authorize it to
exclude Entergy’s unreasonable expenses even though the Commission
had no rule about Entergy making this particular argument?

3. The administrative record shows that, in addition to obtaining expert
testimony to support the unreasonable argument, Entergy included the
argument in its rate-filing package, responded to discovery about the
argument, and filed briefs about the argument. Entergy knew what it
paid expert witnesses but did not track work by its staff and outside
attorneys on an issue-by-issue basis. Was the Commission reasonable to
decide that some of Entergy’s expenses for staff and outside attorneys
were for making the unreasonable argument? Was the Commission
reasonable to estimate the amount of Entergy’s total unreasonable
expenses using a method supported by testimony in the record?

xii
4. Did the Commission reasonably find that Entergy failed to meet its
burden to show that depreciation expenses for unspecified capital assets
of its affiliated Service Company should be included in recoverable rate-
case expenses?

xiii
 Statement of Facts

Entergy Texas, Inc. (Entergy) appeals an order of the Public Utility

Commission of Texas (Commission) setting the amount that the utility may

recover from ratepayers for expenses that Entergy incurred in connection

with its rate case, P.U.C. Docket 39896.

A. The Commission decided Entergy’s rate case, Docket
39896.

Entergy initiated a rate case at the Commission. Entergy, an electric

utility that provides service to parts of southeast Texas, is situated outside

the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and remains a fully

integrated utility—it generates electricity, transmits and distributes

electricity, and sells electricity to retail customers in its service area. That

business remains fully regulated by the Commission, which sets the rates

Entergy can charge.2 So, in 2011 Entergy filed a rate case with the

2
As Entergy explained in its brief, it was initially included among utilities that
were to transition to competition, but is currently subject to regulation under Chapter
36 of the Utilities Code. See Tex. Util. Code §§ 39.451, .452(a). Thus, Entergy’s rates
remain regulated by the Commission. See Tex. Util. Code § 36.002.

1
Commission, Docket 39896.3 Entergy asked to increase rates by over $100

million; the Commission’s order in Docket 39896 allowed the utility to

increase rates by approximately $27.7 million.4

The basic statutory formula the Commission uses to set rates is

(rate of return × invested capital) + reasonable and necessary expenses =

revenue requirement.5

The Commission then designs rates to give the utility a reasonable

opportunity to recover its revenue requirement.6 Although the utility’s

reasonable and necessary expenses included in rates are based on the

utility’s actual expenses over a twelve-month period called the “test year,”7

3
Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to
Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred Accounting Treatment,
Docket 39896, (November 28, 2011)(Entergy’s Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for
Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for
Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs) available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=2. (Subsequent
citations to this docket will be listed as “Docket 39896.”)
4
AR Item 32 at 3. Item 32 is the proposal for decision, which will be cited as
“AR, PFD” hereinafter. The administrative record (AR) in this case (Docket 40295) was
admitted into evidence as Joint Exhibits 1 and 2. R.R. at 6:11–6:20. It consists of two
volumes of filings, which are referenced as “item”; one volume of exhibits; and one
transcript that are all contained in one box. Citations to the Administrative Record will
be in the form “AR, Item(s) ___,” for filings, “AR, ___ Ex(s). ___,” for exhibits, and
“AR, Tr. at ___” for transcripts. In the Order, findings of fact will be cited as “FF__”
and conclusions of law will be cited as “CL __.”
5
See Tex. Util. Code § 36.051.
6
Id.
7
See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.231(a).

2
which is used as a predictor of expense that will occur in the future, one

significant expense does not occur every year—the expense of bringing a

rate case. So that amount is usually separately calculated and recovered

from ratepayers through amortization so that the utility will stop recovering

once rate-case expenses are fully recovered. Utilities Code Section

36.061(b)(2) specifically authorizes the Commission to allow a utility to

recover rate-case expenses.8

Originally, Entergy’s request to recover rate-case expenses was part of

the Docket 39896 rate case but the Commission granted the parties’

request to sever it into a separate docket, P.U.C. Docket 40295, the

contested case on appeal in this lawsuit.9 The Commission did not

incorporate the entire record of Docket 39896 into the record of this case,

but, at the hearing on this case, the administrative law judge took official

notice of the Docket 39896 record.10

8
“(b) The regulatory authority may allow as a cost or expense … (2) reasonable
costs of participating in a proceeding under this title not to exceed the amount approved
by the regulatory authority.” Tex. Util. Code § 36.061(b)(2).
9
Docket 39896, (April 4, 2012) (SOAH Order No. 13: Granting Unopposed
Motion to Sever Rate Case Expense Issues) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_591_7227
42.PDF.
10
AR, Tr. at 16.

3
 One issue in the Docket 39896 rate case—whether incentive

compensation for financially based goals should be recovered through rates

as a reasonable and necessary expense—is relevant to the amount of rate-

case expenses awarded in this case. An amount for payroll costs is usually

included among the utility’s reasonable and necessary expenses. Although

some utilities had included incentive compensation for top executives

before, in AEP Texas Central Company’s rate case filed in 2003 (Docket

28840),11 for the first time, a utility asked to include incentive

compensation as part of the payroll costs for all its employees. Most of the

utility’s incentives in that case were paid according to two sets of

performance measures, financial and operational. In that case the

Commission found:

169. The financial measures are of more immediate benefit to
shareholders, and the operating measures are of more
immediate benefit to ratepayers.

11
Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of AEP Texas Central Company for
Authority to Change Rates, Docket 28840 available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Control.asp?TXT_UTILITY_TYPE=A&TXT_CNTRL_NO=28840&TXT_ITEM_MATC
H=1&TXT_ITEM_NO=&TXT_N_UTILITY=&TXT_N_FILE_PARTY=&TXT_DOC_TY
PE=ALL&TXT_D_FROM=&TXT_D_TO=&TXT_NEW=true (Subsequent citations to
this PUC Docket will be listed as “Docket 28840.”)

4
 170. Incentives to achieve operational measures are necessary and
reasonable to provide T&D utility services, but those to achieve
financial measures are not.12

Thus, the Commission held that AEP proved that incentive compensation

should be included in rates only for operational measures.13 In its brief to

this Court, Entergy refers to this as two buckets of incentive

compensation.14

Evidently, using incentive compensation to pay all employees had

become fashionable, because the Commission was presented with similar

requests by other utilities in subsequent rate cases. The Commission

consistently maintained the distinction between operational-goal and

financial-goal buckets for incentive compensation. Incentive compensation

that belongs in the operational-goal bucket is recoverable, but incentive

compensation that belongs in the financial-goal bucket is not included as a

reasonable and necessary expense in rates because it is of more immediate

benefit to shareholders. Because different utilities can structure incentive

compensation differently, there is always a fact question about whether a

12
Docket 28840(August 15, 2005)(PUC’s Final Order) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/28840_878_487
259.PDF.
13
Docket 28840 (August 15, 2005)(PUC’s Final Order) CL 45 available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/28840_878_487
260.PDF.
14
Entergy Appellant’s Br. at 14.

5
particular type incentive compensation goes in the operational-goal bucket

or the financial-goal bucket. But the basic policy that only incentive

compensation to meet operational goals can be included in rates remains.

In Docket 39896, Entergy asked the Commission to abandon the

distinction between buckets and allow not only the incentive compensation

in the operational-goal bucket, but also any incentive compensation in the

financial-goal bucket. Entergy’s rate-filing package included testimony by

two different witnesses supporting that argument.15 The issue was hotly

contested; Entergy responded to discovery concerning that argument, and

it filed five separate briefs at the Commission supporting that argument.16

15
See Entergy Appellant’s Br. at 29 (discussing testimony of Mr. Gardner and
Dr. Hartzell about the issue).
16
Docket 39896 (December 20, 2011)(TIEC’s RFIs to Entergy Texas, Inc.)
available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_46_71373
7.PDF; (January 3, 2012) (Cities’ 7th RFI)) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_62_71465
2.PDF; (January 13, 2012)(Cities’ 10th RFI) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_141_7155
98.PDF; (January 17, 2012)(Cities’ 12th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_150_7157
44.PDF; (February 1, 2012) (Cities’ 18th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_266_7170
69.PDF; (February 2, 2012) (Commission Staff's 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.
Question Nos. 10-1 Through 10-8) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_280_7171
45.PDF; (February 9, 2012) (OPUC’s 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_322_7177
21.PDF; (February 21, 2012 (Texas Energy Consumers’ 9th RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_373_7187
54.PDF; (March 5, 2012)(Cities’ 23rd RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_415_7199

6
All the other parties opposed eliminating the distinction between the two

buckets.17

The Commission did not agree with Entergy’s argument to eliminate the

two buckets but did find that some of the types of incentive compensation

that other parties claimed were for financial goals really fit in the

operational-goal bucket. The Commission stated in Finding of Fact 129

that “[i]ncentive compensation that is based on financial measures is of

more immediate and predominant benefit to shareholders, whereas

incentive compensation based on operational measures is of more

immediate and predominant benefit to ratepayers.”18 In rate-case Docket

39896, the Commission did not allow Entergy to include $6,196,037 (as

42.PDF; (April 16, 2012) (State’s 11th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_655_723
481.PDF; Docket 39896, (May 18, 2012) (Entergy’s Initial Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=719; (May 30,
2012)(Entergy’s Reply Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=754; (July 23,
2012)(Entergy’s Exceptions to Proposal for Decision) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_775_7318
38.PDF; (October 4, 2012)(Entergy’s Motion for Rehearing)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_816_738
263.PDF; (November 21, 2012)(Entergy’s 2nd Motion for Rehearing) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_828_742
851.PDF.
17
AR, PFD at 22.
18
AR, Item 55 (Order) at FF 129.

7
well as the FICA taxes Entergy would have paid on the payroll) in rates

“because it was related to financial measures that are not reasonable and

necessary for the provision of electric service.”19 Entergy did not appeal the

Commission’s order in rate-case Docket 39896 on that issue.

B. The Commission addressed the question of Entergy’s rate-
case expenses in this case.

After it was severed from the rate case, the Commission sent this rate-

case-expense proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In

addition to Entergy and the Cities20 that were seeking to recover rate-case

expenses, parties included Commission Staff; the Office of Public Utility

Counsel, which, by statute, represents residential and small commercial

utility customers; Texas Industrial Energy Consumers; and State Agencies.

1. The ALJ considered ratepayers’ arguments against some of
Entergy’s requested rate-case expenses.

Each of the ratepayer groups other than the Cities raised challenges to

some of the rate-case expenses requested by Entergy and the Cities.

Among those challenges, State Agencies claimed that Entergy was not

entitled to recover for the depreciation of assets recorded by its affiliate,

Entergy Services, Inc. (Service Company). OPUC claimed that Entergy

19
Id. at FF 133.
20
Generally, cities that participate in rate cases at the Commission can require
the utility to reimburse their costs. See Tex. Util. Code § 33.023(b).

8
should not recover the expenses it incurred in the rate case arguing that the

Commission should abandon the two-bucket approach to incentive

compensation.

a. Depreciation expenses of Entergy’s affiliated company

State Agencies argued that the Commission should deny Entergy’s

request to include depreciation of assets owned by Entergy’s affiliated

Service Company. Entergy contended that the costs at issue were “a loader

to [Entergy] labor costs covering depreciation on office expenses and

capital.”21 Entergy conceded that such costs would typically be embedded

in a vendor’s labor costs billed to the Company.22

The ALJ recommended that Entergy not be allowed to recover the

depreciation expenses. He not only stated that Entergy had not cited to any

precedent which would justify the recovery of these apparently unusual

rate- case expenses, but also found that Entergy failed to prove the

reasonableness of the expenses under the more stringent standards that are

applicable to affiliate expenses.23

21
AR, Item 25 at 12.
22
Id.
23
Id.

9
 b. Rate-case expenses to advocate for abandoning the two-
bucket policy for including incentive compensation in
rates.

Commission Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC argued that Entergy

should not recover any rate-case expenses it incurred in attempting to

eliminate the distinction between operational-goal and financial-goal

buckets of incentive compensation. Commission Staff argued that by

challenging “overwhelming Commission precedent,” Entergy did not act

reasonably.24 Commission Staff contended that the Commission has such

an unequivocal history of denying recovery for financially based incentive-

compensation payments that “[Entergy] should have known that litigating

a position opposed to [it] was not a reasonable use of resources.”25 State

Agencies pointed out that Docket 39896 was merely the latest of three

recent cases in which Entergy sought, but failed to obtain, authority to

charge ratepayers for its financially based incentive costs (the others being

Dockets 34800 and 37744).26

The ALJ, who had also been an ALJ in the Docket 39896 rate case,

agreed with Commission Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC. He noted that

24
AR, Item 30 at 5.
25
AR, Item 24 at 8.
26
AR, Item 23 at 7.

10
throughout the rate case, Entergy took an aggressive position and made a

long-shot argument seeking to eliminate the two-bucket approach to

including incentive compensation in rates.27

The ALJ opined that Entergy’s citation to the cases over the years, where

other utilities requested recovery of financially based incentive

compensation, hurt Entergy’s cause more than it helped because all of the

requests were unanimously denied by the Commission. The ALJ thought

those cases disproved Entergy’s claim that the two-bucket approach was

undergoing continuing clarification.28

The ALJ also found that Entergy overstated and distorted the facts when

it suggested that commissioners have expressed some concern with the

Commission precedent.29 The ALJ noted that the statements Entergy relied

upon all came from a single commissioner, not multiple commissioners.30

Moreover, the comments that Entergy put in evidence show that the

commissioner considered the Commission’s two-bucket precedent binding;

27
AR, PFD at 23.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id. at 23–24.

11
he thought that any change should be accomplished by rulemaking, not an

ad hoc change in a particular rate case.31

The ALJ also found Entergy’s reliance on the recent order at the State

Office of Administrative Hearings in a rate case for SWEPCO to be

misplaced. In the SWEPCO case, the ALJs stated that the utility was not

legally precluded from seeking recovery for its financially based incentive

compensation. The ALJ in this case stated: “It is one thing to acknowledge

that a utility has a legal right to pursue a long-shot theory. It is another

thing entirely, however, to hold that the ratepayers must pay the costs of

the utility’s pursuit of that long-shot.”32

In this case, the Commission did not decide that a utility could never

argue in a contested case that the Commission should change its policy.33

But the Commission did decide that when Entergy argued that the agency

should change such a well-established policy, the argument was such a long

31
Id. at 24.
32
Id.
33
AR, PFD at 24

12
shot—so unlikely to persuade—that it was unreasonable for ratepayers to

bear the expense.34

c. Excessive rate-case expenses

Several parties also claimed that Entergy’s rate-case expenses were

generally too high and that rate-case expenses were high in relationship to

the amount by which Entergy’s rates were raised. Ratepayers also

complained that Entergy had filed three rate cases in the last four years.

Ratepayers were then required to pay rate-case expenses that Entergy

incurred in each of those cases.35

State Agencies expressed concern that, as a general matter, expenses

from rate cases before the Commission appear to be “getting out of hand.”36

Commission Staff “firmly agree[d]” with that concern.37 State Agencies

worried that utilities have no incentive to minimize the number of rate-case

proceedings or the efficiency of rate-case presentation because they assume

their costs will simply be passed on to ratepayers.38 State Agencies urged

34
AR, Order at FF 18f; AR, PFD at 24 (“Simply put, the ALJ concludes that
[Entergy] did not act reasonably when it incurred expenses litigating for recovery of its
financially-based incentive costs in the face of clear and consistent precedent to the
contrary on the issue.”)
35
AR, PFD at 28.
36
AR, Item 23 at 1-2.
37
AR, Item 30 at 13.
38
AR, Item 23 at 1-2.

13
the Commission to allocate rate-case expenses so that the utility was

incentivized to more productively and efficiently use its time in rate cases.39

OPUC agreed that the standard for evaluating the amount of rate-case

expenses to recover from ratepayers ought to give a utility pause before

deciding to pursue overly aggressive or novel arguments.40 Similarly,

Commission Staff and OPUC were concerned about the frequency of

Entergy rate cases over recent years. Docket 39896 was the third Entergy

rate case in four years. Each case resulted in a rate increase and an

obligation for the ratepayers to pay Entergy’s rate-case expenses.41

Staff and OPUC also expressed concern about the overall size of the rate-

case expenses in this case in relation to the outcome of the underlying rate

case. Total rate case expenses ($8.8 million) equal roughly one-third of the

total approved rate increase in Docket 39896 ($27.7 million).42

Commission Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC all expressed the concern that

Entergy was unreasonable because it did not provide good stewardship in

incurring rate-case expenses.43

39
Id. at 5.
40
AR, Item 22 at 8.
41
AR, Item 24 at 3; AR, Item 22 at 2-3, 7-8.
42
AR, Item 24 at 4; AR, Item 22 at 7.
43
See, e.g., AR Item 30 at 13.

14
 d. Adjustments to rate-case expenses

The ratepayer parties suggested three ways to adjust Entergy’s rate-

case-expense request to account for problems with Entergy’s request:

• The 50/50 approach. State Agencies’ primary recommendation was to

charge ratepayers for only 50% of total rate case-expenses, arguing that

shareholders, who reap benefits from a rate increase, ought to also share

in the cost of obtaining that rate increase.44

• The Results-Obtained Approach. Alternatively, State Agencies argued

that Entergy should recover only 26.4% of its rate-case expenses—the

ratio between the increase in rates that the Commission authorized in

Docket 39896 ($27.7 million) and the rate increase Entergy asked for in

that case ($104.8 million). OPUC also advocated that approach.45

• The Issue-Specific Reduction Approach. Alternatively, OPUC and

Commission Staff advocated reducing the amount Entergy requested in

rate-case expenses by the ratio between the amounts Entergy sought in

rates for unreasonable, overly aggressive issues and the total rate

increase sought by Entergy. They wanted to include both financially

44
AR, Item 23 at 3.
45
AR, Item 22 at 11.

15
 based incentive payments of $6.5 million, and transmission-equalization

payments of $9 million as the numerator of the ratio.

The ALJ agreed with the general concerns raised by Commission Staff,

State Agencies, and OPUC; he believed that a substantial cut to Entergy’s

rate-case expenses was warranted, but only considered the issue-specific

reduction appropriate.46

The ALJ recognized that Section 36.061(b) of the Utilities Code gives the

Commission discretion. He also recognized a number of factors—such as

the time and labor required; the nature of the case; the size of the interest at

stake; and the benefits to the client—that have been deemed relevant to

determining the reasonableness of rate-case expenses. See City of El Paso v.

Pub. Util. Comm’n, 916 S.W.2d 515, 522 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ

dism’d). The ALJ also noted that the parties agreed that Rule 1.04(b) of the

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct provides factors that can

be considered when determining reasonableness of rate case expenses.47

The ALJ rejected the 50/50 approach on the basis that it is contrary to

Commission precedent. He also rejected the results-obtained approach

although he did not find it contrary to Commission precedent. He

46
AR, PFD at 30–32.
47
AR, ETI Ex. 8 at 18-19.

16
considered it a punitive and hindsight-driven approach to cost recovery,

rather than basing cost recovery on whether a utility acted reasonably at the

time it incurred such costs.48

The ALJ found the issue-specific approach entirely consistent with

Commission precedent because the disallowance is a result of specific,

unreasonable actions by Entergy.49

The ALJ found that Entergy bore the burden of proving its reasonable

expenses, and that burden necessarily requires that it separate out any

unreasonable expenses. Having failed to do so with respect to financially

based incentives and transmission equalization payments, he found that it

was reasonable for the Commission to use the issue-specific reduction

approach to calculate those expenses.50

The ALJ proposed that most of the rate-case expenses requested by

Entergy—$7,344,113—be found reasonable and necessary and allowed as a

cost or expense by Entergy. That proposal reduced Entergy’s requested

amount of rate-case expenses for several small specific charges, for

$207,683 in depreciation of office equipment owned by Entergy’s affiliated

48
AR, PFD at 31–32.
49
Id. at 32.
50
AR, Item 24 at 15.

17
company, and for $1,275,738 attributable to “unreasonable and overly

aggressive arguments pursued by [Entergy] in Docket 39896 related to both

financially-based incentive compensation and transmission equalization

payments.”51 The ALJ also proposed a fact finding:

17. The amount of rate case expenses sought by ETI ($8.8 million)
is high, both in absolute terms, and in relation to the rate
increase ultimately obtained by ETI in Docket 39896 ($27.7
million).52

2. The Commission issued its Order in this case.

The Commission considered the ALJ’s proposal for decision and

“adopt[ed] in part and revers[ed] in part.”53 The Commission adopted Fact

Finding 17 about Entergy’s rate-case expenses being excessive. And the

Commission agreed with the proposal to exclude the Service Company’s

depreciation expenses. But the Commission allowed Entergy to recover

expenses incurred for arguments related to transmission-equalization

payments, contrary to the ALJ’s proposal. The Commission did not allow

Entergy to recoup from ratepayers those expenses incurred to argue that

the Commission should abandon its two-bucket policy concerning incentive

compensation included in rates. The Commission stated: “Specifically, the

51
AR, PFD FF 18f.
52
AR, PFD FF 17.
53
AR, Order at 1.

18
Commission agrees with the ALJ that reductions should be made to

Entergy’s recoverable rate-case expenses for Entergy attempting to recover

financially-based incentive compensation in base rates.”54

The Commission further stated that it “has repeatedly ruled that a utility

cannot recover the cost of financially-based incentive compensation because

financial measures are of more immediate benefit to shareholders and

financial measures are not necessary or reasonable to provide utility

services.”55 The Commission concluded “that it should follow its

well-established policy here.”56 The Commission cited four cases

concerning three different utilities from 2005 through 2011 where the

agency refused to allow recovery of incentive compensation based on

financial goals.57

The Commission also adopted the ALJ’s the use of the issue-specific

reduction approach to determine how to calculate an appropriate reduction

in rate-case expenses because the utility took a long-shot position trying to

54
AR, Order at 2.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Id.

19
convince the Commission to abandon its well established two-bucket policy

about including incentive compensation in rates.58

C. Entergy appealed.

Entergy filed this suit for judicial review of the Commission’s order to

challenge the amount of rate-case expenses that the Commission ordered.

OPUC, TIEC, and State Agencies intervened in the case. After reviewing the

briefs of the parties and considering their arguments at the hearing on the

merits, the district court, the Honorable Amy Clark Meachum presiding,

affirmed the Commission’s order.59 Entergy appealed to this Court.

Summary of the Argument

In this rate-case-expense proceeding, the Commission reasonably

decided that one of Entergy’s arguments in its related rate case was so

unlikely to prevail that any cost to make the argument was unreasonable.

Thus, the associated expenses were not included in rate-case expenses that

the utility could recover from ratepayers. This decision is reasonable

because the Utilities Code allows only reasonable rate-case expenses to be

recovered, includes a policy of protecting the interests of both the utility and

its customers, and prohibits the Commission from including unreasonable

58
Id.
59
C.R. 232-34.

20
expenses in rates. Moreover, those statutes give the Commission enough

authority to find the expenses unreasonable without first adopting a rule.

And the fact that the Commission subsequently adopted a comprehensive

rule about rate-case expenses shows even more clearly that this contested-

case decision was not improper rulemaking.

Entergy’s expenses to make the argument were not limited to the fees of

expert witnesses on the issue because the issue was included in the utility’s

rate-filing package, the utility responded to numerous discovery requests on

the issue, and the utility filed five briefs addressing the issue at the

Commission. All of that necessarily involved work by Entergy’s staff and

outside attorneys. But Entergy, the party with the burden to prove the

expenses, did not track its expenses for staff and outside attorneys on an

issue-by-issue basis. Thus, the Commission reasonably used a method

proposed by expert testimony in the case to estimate the amount of rate-

case expenses incurred to make the unreasonable long-shot argument.

The Commission properly excluded depreciation expenses of Service

Company, an affiliate of Entergy, from rate-case expenses because Entergy

failed to show that they met the requirements in Utilities Code 36.058.

Entergy did not clearly explain what was being depreciated and why it was a

legitimate rate-case expense nor did Entergy show that the charges were not

21
higher than the charges to other affiliates or third parties for the same type

of services.

Argument

I. Standard of Review

As in any lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a suit for

judicial review of an agency’s order in a contested case. For an

administrative appeal of the Commission’s order in a contested case, that

means that the plaintiff must show reversible error in the Commission’s

order; the substantial-evidence rule described in Section 2001.174 of the

Administrative Procedure Act controls.60 That rule is very deferential to the

agency, but the deference is described differently depending on the type of

error alleged. Complaints in this case invoke the substantial-evidence

standard, and the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

A. Substantial-evidence Standard

When reviewing an agency’s fact finding, a court uses the deferential

substantial-evidence standard. It prohibits a court from substituting its

judgment for the agency’s as to the weight of evidence.61 “A court that is

reviewing purely factual administrative findings … may determine only

60
See Anderson v. R.R. Comm’n, 963 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998,
pet. denied); Tex. Util. Code § 15.001; Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174.
61
Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Gulf States Utils. Co., 809 S.W.2d 201, 211 (Tex. 1991).

22
whether substantial evidence supports those findings.”62 The true test is not

whether the agency reached the correct conclusion, but whether some

reasonable basis exists in the record for the agency’s action.63 “At its core,

the substantial evidence rule is a reasonableness test or a rational basis

test.”64

B. Arbitrary-and-capricious Standard

The Texas Supreme Court has recognized the limits of the arbitrary-and-

capricious standard of review when applied to agency decisions: “The

arbitrary and capricious standard of review historically has been construed

narrowly, and we do not think that the legislature intended it to be

interpreted as a broad, all-encompassing standard for reviewing the

rationale of agency actions.”65 Courts must uphold a Commission decision

if “some reasonable basis exists in the record for the action taken by the

agency.”66

62
Cities of Abilene v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 146 S.W.3d 742, 748 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).
63
Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446,
452 (Tex. 1984).
64
City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 883 S.W.2d 179, 185 (Tex. 1994).
65
Charter Med., 665 S.W.2d at 454.
66
City of El Paso, 883 S.W.2d at 185.

23
II. The Commission has discretion to decide that expenses
Entergy incurred making a long-shot argument for
overturning a well-established Commission policy were
unreasonable expenses for ratepayers to reimburse.
(Responds to Entergy Issue 1)

A. The Commission may allow the utility to recover only
reasonable expenses.

The Commission performed its statutory duty to determine whether rate-

case expenses are reasonable, to balance interests of both the utility and its

ratepayers when determining reasonableness, and to allow the utility to

recover only reasonable rate-case expenses.

The Utilities Code gives the Commission discretion when deciding how

much to award a utility in rate-case expenses. In a 2013 appeal of rate-case

expenses for Oncor Electric Delivery Co., LLC, this Court recognized that

“section 36.061(b)(2) gives the Commission the discretion to disallow

improper expenses.”67 And that statute only allows a utility to recover

reasonable rate-case expenses.68 The express purpose of the section of the

Public Utilities Code that applies to electric utilities is “to establish a

comprehensive and adequate regulatory system for electric utilities to

67
Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 406 S.W.3d 253, 264
(Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.).
68
Tex. Util. Code § 36.061(b)(2) (“The regulatory authority may allow as a cost
or expense … (2) reasonable costs of participating in a proceeding under this title not to
exceed the amount approved by the regulatory authority.” (emphasis added).).

24
assure rates, operations, and services that are just and reasonable to the

consumers and to the electric utilities.”69 Thus, when regulating electric

utilities, the Commission must weigh the interests of both the utilities and

consumers. In addition, the Utilities Code prohibits the Commission from

considering for ratemaking purposes, “any other expenditure … the

regulatory authority finds to be unreasonable, unnecessary, or not in the

public interest.”70

Thus, the Commission may not simply allow a utility to recover expenses

because the utility incurred them to bring a rate case. Instead, the

Commission must determine whether the expenses are reasonable, and the

Commission is prohibited from allowing the utility to recover expenses that

the Commission finds unreasonable. And in deciding what is reasonable,

the Commission must weigh the interests of both the utilities and its

ratepayers. That is exactly what the Commission reasonably did in this case.

69
Tex. Util. Code § 31.001 (emphasis added).
70
Tex. Util. Code § 36.062(4).

25
 B. The Commission applied the law to the evidence and
determined that it was unreasonable for Entergy to
recover rate-case expenses incurred to argue that the
Commission should abandon its two-bucket policy
concerning incentive compensation.

Although Entergy incurred expenses to bring the Docket 39896 rate case

and claimed that they were all reasonable, various ratepayer groups

challenged some of those expenses. Commission Staff, State Agencies, and

OPUC all argued that Entergy was unreasonable to incur expenses to argue

in the rate case that the Commission should abandon its two-bucket

approach to incentive compensation.71 They argued that it was so unlikely

that Entergy could prevail on that argument that it was not reasonable for

Entergy to have expended time and expenses to make the argument.72 They

argued that was unreasonable for ratepayers to bear the cost of Entergy

making such a long-shot argument.

The ALJ who heard this rate-case-expense case noted that he had also

heard the Entergy Docket 39896 rate case73 when he called Entergy’s rate-

case argument to abandon the two-bucket approach not only a long shot,

but also overly aggressive.74 He may have been considering both the fervor

71
AR, PFD at 22.
72
Id. at 22–23.
73
Id. at n.87.
74
Id. at 23.

26
of the argument and the amount of time and energy devoted to making the

argument. The record of Docket 39896 reveals

• that in its rate-filing package, the filing that initiated the rate case,

Entergy included testimony of two witnesses arguing that the

Commission should abandon the two-bucket approach, one an outside

expert;75

• Entergy had to respond to nine different discovery requests about the

argument from TIEC (industrial ratepayers), Cities, Commission Staff,

OPUC (representing residential ratepayers), and State Agencies;76 and

75
See Entergy Appellant’s Br. at 29 (listing both Mr. Gardner and Dr. Hartzell as
witnesses on the issue).
76
Docket 39896 (December 20, 2011)(TIEC’s RFIs to Entergy Texas, Inc.)
available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_46_71373
7.PDF; (January 3, 2012) (Cities’ 7th RFI)) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_62_71465
2.PDF; (January 13, 2012)(Cities’ 10th RFI) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_141_7155
98.PDF; (January 17, 2012)(Cities’ 12th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_150_7157
44.PDF; (February 1, 2012) (Cities’ 18th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_266_7170
69.PDF; (February 2, 2012) (Commission Staff's 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.
Question Nos. 10-1 Through 10-8) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_280_7171
45.PDF; (February 9, 2012) (OPUC’s 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_322_7177
21.PDF; (February 21, 2012 (Texas Energy Consumers’ 9th RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_373_7187
54.PDF; (March 5, 2012)(Cities’ 23rd RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_415_7199
42.PDF; (April 16, 2012) (State’s 11th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_655_723

27
• Entergy included briefing arguing that the Commission should abandon

its two-bucket approach in five different briefs filed with the

Commission.77

The ALJ and the Commission justly used the term “long shot” to describe

Entergy’s argument that the Commission should abandon its two-bucket

approach to including incentive compensation in rates. Since AEP Texas

Central Company tried to recover incentive compensation for all its

employees in 2004, the Commission has steadfastly maintained a two-

bucket approach—allowing recovery of incentive compensation that fits

within the operational-goal bucket and disallowing recovery of incentive

compensation that fits within the financial-goal bucket.78 Moreover, the

statements from a Commission open meeting that an Entergy witness

481.PDF.
77
Docket 39896, (May 18, 2012) (Entergy’s Initial Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=719; (May 24,
2012)(Entergy’s Reply Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=754; (July 23,
2012)(Entergy’s Exceptions to Proposal for Decision) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_775_7318
38.PDF; (October 4, 2012)(Entergy’s Motion for Rehearing)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_816_738
263.PDF; (November 21, 2012)(Entergy’s 2nd Motion for Rehearing) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_828_742
851.PDF.
78
See Appendix C to this brief listing various Commission rate cases from
Docket 28840 forward and the Commission’s treatment of incentive compensation.

28
attached to his testimony do not support Entergy’s position; they were 1)

only the statements of a single commissioner79 and 2) included a statement

that the two-bucket policy was so firmly in place that any change would

need to be done through a rulemaking proceeding.80 Entergy had no

reasonable basis to think it likely that the Commission would abandon the

two-bucket approach to incentive compensation in Docket 39896. Thus, it

was unreasonable for Entergy to have expended so much time and expense

on the argument and unreasonable to require ratepayers to bear the

expense.

Entergy tries to make the Commission’s decision that Entergy’s

argument to abandon the two- bucket approach was such a long shot that

ratepayers should not bear the expenses appear less reasonable by

mischaracterizing the facts. But what Entergy did was to argue that the

well-established policy of dividing incentive compensation into two

buckets—one for operational goals and the other for financial goals—should

79
Such statements are generally irrelevant. “It is immaterial what a
commissioner may have said or thought in the process of arriving at his decision.” City
of Frisco v. Tex. Water Rights Comm’n, 579 S.W.2d 66, 72 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979,
writ ref’d n.r.e.).
80
AR, ETI Ex. 12, Ex. SFM-R-1, p. 8 of 9 (statements of Commissioner Anderson
at the Commission’s July 30, 2009 open meeting) (“But it seems to be a long and
accepted precedent, and unless we were to open up a separate rulemaking or a project to
change that, to put the—everybody on notice, I’m hesitant to do it in a particular case.”).

29
be abandoned.81 It did not merely argue whether its incentive-

compensation plans fit in the operational-goal bucket or the financial-goal

bucket.

Although Entergy is correct that the question whether a particular form

of incentive compensation belongs in the operational-goal or financial-goal

bucket is a question of fact, that does not change the well-established policy

that there are two buckets: incentive compensation that belongs in the

operational-goal bucket may be recovered in rates and incentive

compensation that belongs in the financial-goal bucket may not. But in its

81
In its initial brief in the rate-case-expense proceeding at the Commission,
Entergy stated:

The Company requests that it be allowed to recover its test year costs of
incentive compensation. The Company recognizes that costs of incentive
compensation tied to financial goals have been disallowed in several prior
rate cases in Texas. The market prevalence of using financial goals as a
part of incentive compensation programs has not been disputed. Rather,
the Commission has previously denied recovery of such costs because of a
lack of evidence showing sufficient customer benefits. In this case,
however, the Company has assembled evidence not previously considered
by the Commission that shows the benefits to customers of using financial
measures in incentive compensation programs. The evidence includes the
testimonies of Company witness Gardner, Vice President of HR Programs
for the Entergy Companies, and Dr. Jay C. Hartzell, who is Chair of the
Finance Department, Professor of Finance, and the Allied Bancshares
Centennial Fellow at the McCombs School of Business at the University of
Texas at Austin. The new evidence also includes empirical studies that
support the Company’s position that customers benefit from incentive
compensation programs that use financial measures and goals that
encourage the financial health of the company.
Docket 39896 (May 18. 2012) (Entergy’s Initial Br.) available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=719 at 129–30.

30
brief to this Court, Entergy, after arguing the factual question about which

bucket should hold a particular type of incentive compensation, pivots to the

statement: “The findings that Commission policy was cemented long ago,

and that it was unreasonable for ETI to seek recovery of financially-based

incentives, simply cannot withstand scrutiny.”82 Entergy is wrong. The

Commission can reasonably hold that its policy about two buckets for

incentive compensation is so well-established that it was unreasonable to

ask ratepayers to foot the bill for Entergy challenging the well established

policy even while the Commission entertains fact questions about which

bucket holds individual incentive compensation plans.

This Court has recently acknowledged both the Commission’s long-

standing policy and the fact question that applies to individual types of

incentive compensation. In the Oncor rate case, this Court recognized both

“Commission precedent disallowing compensation payments that are tied to

financial-performance measures rather than those tied to strictly

operational measures”83 and that “the question of whether [a utility’s]

82
Entergy Appellant’s Br. at 16.
83
State of Tex. Agencies and Insts. of Higher Learning v. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
450 S.W.3d 615, 659-60 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed).

31
incentive-compensation payments were ‘financial’ rather than ‘operational’

in nature is one of fact.”84

But the Commission is not saying that a utility cannot recover its

expenses in connection with arguments about incentive compensation. Nor

did the Commission say that the rate-case expenses were unreasonable

merely because Entergy argued against agency precedent. It characterized

Entergy’s arguments as a long shot and overly aggressive. These are

important qualifiers. The two-bucket precedent for including incentive

compensation in rates was well established. Even Entergy in its first issue

in its brief says that the Commission has “historically stated a policy of

disallowing incentive compensation that is tied to “financial” as opposed to

“operational” measures … .”85 Thus, although Entergy does not use the

phrase “well established,” it accepts the premise. Entergy knew that the

Commission had a well-established policy of allowing incentive

compensation in rates only for operational goals, not for financial goals.

Nonetheless, Entergy argued that the two-bucket policy should be

abandoned. The utility should have known that was too much of a long shot

to have any reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Commission

84
Id. at 660.
85
Entergy Appellant’s Br. at x.

32
reasonably refused to make ratepayers pay the utility to make such a long-

shot argument.

III. The lack of a Commission rule about rate-case expenses for
incentive-compensation arguments did not relieve the
Commission of its statutory duty to allow the utility to
recover only reasonable rate-case expenses. (Responds to
Entergy Issue 2)

Neither Entergy’s arguments that the Commission changed its policy

about rate-case expenses in this case nor its arguments that the Commission

could not decide this case without first adopting a rule stand up to scrutiny.

A. Entergy’s arguments that the Commission departed from
earlier policy in this case are unavailing.

Entergy’s argument that the Commission’s decision to deny the utility’s

expenses to make an unreasonable argument is a change in policy are based

on a mischaracterization of the Commission’s decision. Entergy’s

arguments rely on the Commission previously allowing utilities to argue

about which incentive-compensation expenses belong in the operational-

goal bucket. But that is not the long-shot argument that Entergy made.

Instead, Entergy argued that the Commission should abandon its two-

bucket policy. Entergy shows no examples of allowing rate-case expenses

for arguments to change the two-bucket policy since it became well-

established policy.

33
 B. The Commission was merely applying the statutes to the
evidence and argument in this case, not promulgating a
new rule.

The Utilities Code by itself authorizes and requires the Commission to

exclude unreasonable expenses from the rate-case expenses a utility may

collect from ratepayers and put Entergy on notice that unreasonable

expenses could not be recovered.

There was no need for the Commission to adopt a rule before deciding

this case. The Commission cannot avoid its duty to apply the statutes just

because it has not yet adopted a rule to cover every situation that may arise.

The Commission could not dodge the issue and neglect its statutory duty by

noting that it had no rule about how to treat rate-case expenses and

certainly no rule about the very particularized question of how to treat rate-

case expenses incurred to argue about including incentive compensation in

rates. The Commission had to decide the issue based on statutes, the

evidence, and the argument presented in this case.

Applying the statutes to the evidence and arguments in this case, the

Commission recognized that a utility can make arguments in a rate case that

are so unlikely to prevail that it is unreasonable for ratepayers to bear the

burden of the expenses the utility incurred to make those arguments. This

34
is not a new policy of general application; it is merely an outcome from the

statute.

This Court upheld that same outcome in a 1997 water utility case. The

Court upheld denying any rate-case expenses to a utility that brought a rate

case that it wanted to lose. “[T]he Commission could have determined that

any expenses incurred in seeking a surcharge [the utility] did not want were

unreasonable, unnecessary or not in the public interest and that the utility’s

customers should never have to pay them.”86

C. Entergy’s arguments that the Commission engaged in ad
hoc rulemaking are unavailing.

1. This case is distinguishable from Witcher.

Entergy’s reliance on Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. Witcher,87 is

misplaced because the actions of the Commission are entirely different from

the actions of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. Unlike Witcher, the

Commission had no unstated policy for all cases that it applied to determine

whether Entergy should recover rate-case expenses. Instead, the

Commission had both a statute and a rule that prohibited including

86
Indust. Utils. Serv., Inc. v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 947
S.W.2d 712, 718 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, writ denied).
87
447 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed).

35
unreasonable expenses in rates.88 Once the Commission decided that the

expenses Entergy incurred to make the argument were unreasonable, the

published rule and statute prohibited the Commission from including those

expenses in rates.

The “rule” that the court found to be impermissible ad hoc rulemaking in

Witcher was an unpublished rule, was applied in contravention of the

agency’s published rule as applied to the facts, and was announced in the

order as a policy of general application; in this case, the only rule is a

published rule prohibiting recovery of unreasonable expenses, it was

applied in harmony with the fact findings, and the Commission did not

announce any new policy of general application.

2. Entergy improperly relies on the irrelevant thought
processes of individual commissioners in the course of
the case.

To support its argument that the Commission should have adopted a

rule, Entergy improperly cites the comment of one of the commissioners

during the Commission’s open meeting in this contested case.89 That

quoted language is not part of the administrative record in this case and

therefore not part of the record that the Court should consider. In an

88
Tex. Util. Code § 36.062; 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.231(b)(2)(J).
89
Entergy Appellant’s Br. at 18; 21–22.

36
administrative appeal, “[the] court shall conduct the review sitting without a

jury and is confined to the agency record … .”90 And this Court has

explained, “[t]he thought processes or motivations of an administrator are

irrelevant in the judicial determination whether the agency order is

reasonably sustained by appropriate findings and conclusions that have

support in the evidence.”91 The fact that the Commission’s final order does

not reach the same conclusion as the statement of Commissioner Nelson

that Entergy quoted, shows that through the process of deliberation, she

reached a different conclusion. That demonstrates the inappropriateness of

citing to thought processes of an administrator as evidence of what the

Commission actually decided.

And just last week, this Court noted that a statement similar to

Commisisoner Nelson’s request for a rulemaking showed that the agency

was not adopting a rule in its order. In McHaney v. Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality, this Court stated: “The comment made by a TCEQ

commissioner at a hearing that ‘if there is need for clarity in our rules, I

would encourage our staff to look at that and see if we need to go through

90
Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.175(e).
91
Pedernales Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 809 S.W.2d 332, 342 (Tex.
App.—Austin 1991, no writ) (quoting City of Frisco v. Tex. Water Rights Comm'n, 579
S.W.2d 66, 72 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.)).

37
the rule making or provide some other guidance” (emphasis in original)

strongly implies that rulemaking is not occurring at that hearing.92

3. A rule was adopted when the Commission subsequently
conducted formal rulemaking proceedings.

Although the Commission did not adopt a rule in this case, the

Commission did adopt a rate-case-expense rule through the formal

rulemaking process in 2014.93 That further indicates that the Commission

was not adopting a rule in this case. The actual rulemaking, deciding a rule

of general application for all cases, was done in formal rulemaking. In this

case the Commission merely decided the issues required to determine what

Entergy should receive in rate-case expenses. The Commission utilized both

formal rulemaking and its authority to decide matters that arise in a single

contested case in the proper context.

Entergy’s curious argument—that because it argues that the exceptions to

ad hoc rulemaking do not apply in this case, the Commission adopted a

rule—is illogical. The logical question is whether the Commission actually

adopted a rule in this contested case. It did not; it adopted a rule in a formal

92
McHaney v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, No. 03-13-00280-CV, 2015 WL
869197 at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2015, no. pet. h.).
93
39 Tex. Reg. 571 (2014), adopted 39 Tex. Reg. 6434 (2014) (to be codified at
16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.245).

38
rulemaking. Here the Commission decided only the questions necessary to

resolve this contested case.

IV. The Commission’s decision about the amount of rate-case
expenses to exclude should be affirmed. (Responds to
Entergy Issue 3)

A. Entergy—the party with the burden to prove rate-case
expenses—failed to provide the information needed to
show exactly how much of its rate-case expenses were
incurred to make the unreasonable long-shot argument.

Because Entergy did not track its expenses on an issue-by-issue basis, the

Commission used a proxy to identify the unreasonable expenses Entergy

incurred to make its overly aggressive, long-shot argument that the

Commission should abandon the two-bucket approach to incentive

compensation. Entergy complains that the Commission did not use its

actual expenses, but, because Entergy did not keep track of its expenses on

an issue-by-issue basis, Entergy fails to identify the actual expenses Entergy

incurred in staff and outside counsel expenses to make the unreasonable

argument. Therefore, based on the evidence in the case, the Commission

used a proxy to determine the amount of issue-specific rate-case expenses

that were attributable to the argument. The Commission applied a ratio to

the total amount of rate-case expenses Entergy requested. The ratio

compared disallowed financial-goal bucket incentive-compensation

expenses Entergy requested but did not receive to the total increase in rates

39
that Entergy sought in the Docket 39896 rate case. That resulted in a

$522,244.66 decrease in requested rate-case expenses. The Commission

described that amount as “the amount of rate-case expenses related to

financially-based incentive compensation using the issue-specific reduction

approach.”94

Once the Commission decided that Entergy’s financially based incentive-

compensation arguments were unreasonable and overly aggressive, it

needed to decide how much of the rate-case expenses were attributable to

that argument. The expenses to employ outside expert witnesses in Docket

39896 to support the unreasonable argument could be identified, but the

Commission found that those were not the only expenses. Entergy’s rate-

case expenses included the cost of its staff, the staff of its affiliate Service

Company, and its outside counsel. They decided to make the unreasonable

argument, hired the experts, and included the arguments in the rate-filing

package that initiated the rate case. In addition, they had to respond to

discovery on the issue.95 Finally, Entergy briefed the issue at the State

94
AR, Order at 3.
95
Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to
Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred Accounting Treatment,
Docket 39896 (December 20, 2011)(TIEC’s RFIs to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_46_71373
7.PDF; (January 3, 2012) (Cities’ 7th RFI)) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_62_71465
2.PDF; (January 13, 2012)(Cities’ 10th RFI) available at

40
Office of Administrative Hearings and before the Commission.96 To

accomplish all this, some of the time of Entergy and Service Company

employees as well as the time of outside counsel had to have been devoted

to the issue. The fees of the expert witnesses did not capture all these

additional expenses.

http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_141_7155
98.PDF; (January 17, 2012)(Cities’ 12th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_150_7157
44.PDF; (February 1, 2012) (Cities’ 18th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_266_7170
69.PDF; (February 2, 2012) (Commission Staff's 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.
Question Nos. 10-1 Through 10-8) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_280_7171
45.PDF; (February 9, 2012) (OPUC’s 10th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_322_7177
21.PDF; (February 21, 2012 (Texas Energy Consumers’ 9th RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_373_7187
54.PDF; (March 5, 2012)(Cities’ 23rd RFI)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_415_7199
42.PDF; (April 16, 2012) (State’s 11th RFI to Entergy Texas, Inc.) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_655_723
481.PDF.
96
Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to
Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred Accounting Treatment,
Docket 39896, (May 18, 2012) (Entergy’s Initial Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=719; (May 24,
2012)(Entergy’s Reply Brief) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=39896&TXT_ITEM_NO=754; (July 23,
2012)(Entergy’s Exceptions to Proposal for Decision) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_775_7318
38.PDF; (October 4, 2012)(Entergy’s Motion for Rehearing)available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_816_738
263.PDF; (November 21, 2012)(Entergy’s 2nd Motion for Rehearing) available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/39896_828_742
851.PDF.

41
 But when Entergy was asked to calculate the amount of rate-case

expenses devoted to any particular issue, the utility’s witnesses repeatedly

testified that Entergy did not keep track of rate-case expenses on an issue-

by-issue basis. At the hearing, Entergy witness Considine testified:

“Employees charge their time and expenses to a rate case project code that’s

set up specifically for Docket 39896.” In response to the question, “But not

issue specific?” Considine replied, “No, ma’am.”97 Again, Considine

testified, “The Company tracks time on a project level basis, and the entire

project related to the rate case as a whole.”98 In response to a question

about separating rate-case expenses concerning another issue in the rate

case, Considine indicated that he would not estimate how much time was

devoted to a particular issue because it would be a guess.99

In response to a request for information about the rate-case expenses

related to a different issue in the rate case, Entergy responded: “Costs

related to the preparation and presentation of testimony are not accounted

for in the manner requested. Costs are accumulated on a project level basis

and related to the rate case as a whole.”100

97
AR, Tr. at 35.
98
Id. at 45.
99
Id. at 45-46.
100
AR, State’s Ex. 4.

42
 B. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision
about the amount of rate-case expenses attributable to
the unreasonable argument in the rate case.

Lacking any evidence from Entergy—the party with the burden to prove

that its rate-case expenses were reasonable—that identified the exact

amount of rate-case expenses that Entergy incurred to argue for abandoning

the two-bucket policy, the Commission had to find a way to measure the

rate-case expenses associated with that argument. The Commission looked

to evidence in the administrative record and applied a method supported by

OPUC witness Benedict. He proposed using a percentage; he compared the

amount of disallowed financial-goal bucket incentive compensation that

Entergy sought in the rate case to the total amount by which Entergy wanted

to increase rates in Docket 38986. That ratio was applied to the total

amount of rate-case expenses Entergy requested to find the percentage of

rate-case expenses attributable to Entergy’s unreasonable long-shot

arguments.101 The ALJ and the Commission used this method to determine

how much of Entergy’s rate-case expenses were for the unreasonable and

overly aggressive rate-case expenses.

101
AR, OPUC Ex. 1 at 10.

43
 Thus, the way the Commission determined the amount of requested rate-

case expenses attributable to the unreasonable and overly aggressive

argument is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

C. The Commission’s decision is reasonable—neither
arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion.

Entergy unsuccessfully argues that the Commission’s computation of

unreasonable rate-case expenses is different from the Commission’s usual

practice. But the Commission followed its practice of excluding only that

portion of the expenses that were unreasonable and its method to determine

that amount is similar to that used in an earlier Commission decision, its

2004, Docket 28840 Order.102

Contrary to Entergy’s claims, the Commission’s actions were consistent

with other rate-case-expense cases: The Commission denied the utility’s

rate-case-expense request to the extent it concerned a single, unreasonable

expense—the expense associated with the argument that the Commission

should abandon the two-bucket approach to determining incentive

compensation included in rates. The Commission refused to generally cut

rate-case expenses in half, based on the assumption that half of the costs

benefitted the shareholders or to cut rate-case expenses based on the

102
Docket 28840 (July 2, 2004) (Proposal for Decision) at 125 available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=28840&TXT_ITEM_NO=636.

44
utility’s success in raising rates.103 The Commission’s issue-specific

approach is consistent with only denying unreasonable rate-case expenses.

Moreover, the Commission’s decision in this case is remarkably similar

to the way it decided how much of the cities’ requested rate-case expenses

should not be allowed in the earlier case. Although the Commission did not

use the term “proxy” in Docket 28840, the Commission went through an

analysis similar to the one here to determine how much of the rate-case

expenses were reasonable and should be recovered. In Docket 28840, the

Commission decided that a survey that the cities’ expert used was “seriously

flawed and that conclusions drawn from the data cannot reasonably be

supported under current legal standards”104 Without any analysis of the

amount the expert spent on each part of her study or testimony, the ALJs in

that case stated: “Although Dr. Goodfriend’s survey and the portion of her

testimony upon which it is based may be flawed, that criticism does not fit

the remainder of her testimony. Therefore, the ALJs recommend a

disallowance of one-half of Dr. Goodfriend’s expenses … .”105 The

103
AR, PFD at 31.
104
Docket 28840 (July 2, 2004) (Proposal for Decision) at 125 available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=28840&TXT_ITEM_NO=636.
105
Id. at 121-22.

45
Commission adopted that decision in its final order.106 Obviously, the

Commission went to less effort in that case than here to identify the amount

of expense to allocate to a single part of rate-case expenses.

And the Commission did not in this case mandate that every utility keep

track of its rate-case expenses on an issue-by-issue basis. It noted that

Entergy could not complain that exact rate-case expenses attributable to the

unreasonable argument were not used because Entergy, the party with the

burden to prove all the reasonable rate-case expenses it seeks to recover

from ratepayers, did not account for its expenses in a way that would allow

the Commission to determine the exact amount.107 But the computation the

Commission makes—using an issue-specific method to determine those

costs that is based on evidence in the record—was reasonable.

Finally, the Commission did not adopt a rule: it made no general

statement in this case that all utilities must keep track of their rate-case

106
Docket 28840 (Mar. 3, 2006) (Order) FF 29, available at
http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/31433_32_50489
0.PDF.
107
The PFD that the Commission adopted states:
Staff counters (and the ALJ agrees)that [Entergy] bore the burden of
proving its reasonable expenses, and that burden necessarily requires that
it separate out any unreasonable expenses. Having failed to do so with
respect to financially-based incentives …, it is reasonable for the
Commission to use the Issue-Specific Reduction Approach as a proxy for
calculating those expenses.
AR, PFD at 32-33.

46
expenses on an issue-by-issue basis. The Commission did address that

question when it formally adopted a new rule.108 Thus, the Commission

properly decided only the case before it and properly went through formal

rulemaking to adopt a rule.

Because the Commission was not making any new policy decision of

general application, it did not adopt a rule in its order in this case. It was

simply using the evidence presented to determine facts in this case.

V. Entergy failed to meet its burden under Utilities Code
§ 36.058 to prove depreciation charged by its affiliate for
rate-case expenses was reasonable and necessary and no
higher than the costs charged to other affiliates. (Responds
to Entergy Issue 4)

A. The Utilities Code imposes additional requirements to
show that amounts paid to affiliates are reasonable
expenses.

Expenses paid to a utility’s affiliate are subject to increased scrutiny to

ensure that no expenses are included that would not be similarly recovered

in an arms-length transaction. Entergy failed to meet the heightened

standard imposed under Utilities Code § 36.058 when it sought

108
16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.245(b)(6).

47
depreciation of the assets of the Service Company.109 For each item or class

of items, Entergy had the burden to prove that the expenses were

reasonable and necessary, and that the price was not higher than the prices

charged by the supplying affiliate to its other affiliates, or to a nonaffiliated

person within the same market area or under the same market conditions.110

The Commission must presume that affiliate expenses should not be

included in rates unless these conditions are met.111 Thus, Entergy had to

overcome the presumption against affiliate expenses to recover depreciation

expenses for Service Company in rate-case expenses. It failed to do so.

B. Entergy’s evidence is insufficient to meet its burden of
proof.

Regarding depreciation of Service Company’s assets, the Court should

uphold the Commission’s factual determination that Entergy failed to

provide evidence sufficient to meet the level of scrutiny that applies to

109
Tex. Util. Code § 36.058; Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 36
S.W.3d 547, 564 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (“Because of the possibility for
self-dealing between affiliated companies, however, expenses paid to an affiliated entity
are presumptively not included in the rate base. A utility can overcome this
presumption against affiliate expenses only if it demonstrates that its payments are
‘reasonable and necessary for each item or class of items as determined by the
commission.’”).
110
Tex. Util. Code § 36.058.
111
Tex. Util. Code § 36.058; Cent. Power & Light Co., 36 S.W.3d at 564.

48
expenses paid to affiliates, and Entergy’s reliance on the rate case for

support is misplaced.

1. Entergy failed to explain what depreciation expenses of
Service Company were included.

The quality and character of proof of depreciation expenses that Entergy

provided is not the same in both the rate case and the rate-case-expense

docket. The Commission has explained that “independent evidence must be

provided in order to meet the statutory requirement to develop findings of

fact based on an item or class of items basis.”112 Entergy did not provide

sufficient independent evidence to include Service Company’s depreciation

as part of the utility’s rate-case expenses. Entergy failed to include studies,

comparison to affiliates, comparison to alternative providers, and evidence

of costs to Service Company on a stand-alone basis.113 Utility Code § 36.058

requires strict compliance, and Entergy did not meet the statutory standard.

The Commission found: “$207,683 in depreciation of office equipment

owned by [Service Company] (an affiliated company of [Entergy]) and used

112
Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. For
Approval of its Transition to Competition Plan and the Tariffs Implementing the Plan,
and for the Authority to Reconcile Fuel Costs, to Set Revised Fuel Factors, and to
Recover a Surcharge for Under-Recovered Fuel Costs, Docket No. 16705,(Oct. 13, 1998)
(Second Order on Rehearing) at 85, FF 150. available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=16705&TXT_ITEM_NO=5006 . (Subsequent
citations to this PUC Docket will be cited “Docket 16705.”)
113
Id.

49
by [Service Company] employees for their work in Docket 39896 is not

reasonable and is properly disallowed.”114

In this case, Entergy’s witness Considine testified in response to State

Agencies’ challenge to $207,683 in depreciation expense for Entergy’s

affiliate as rate-case expenses.115 State Agencies claimed that the utility

failed to support the amounts with detail. In response, Mr. Considine

attached detail that was supposed to respond to State Agencies’ concern.116

That detail lists many items for depreciation, but the plethora of data still

fails to explain what is being depreciated. Although the spreadsheets

include project code, year, month, resource code, resource description,

monthly amount, and journal ID number, all that data fails to explain why

those depreciation amounts are relevant to Entergy’s participation in the

rate case. The resource code is a number without any key, and the resource

description simply states “Depreciation & Amort Expenses.”117 There is no

way to know whether Entergy’s affiliate is depreciating only property used

to do work necessary for Entergy’s rate case or whether it is depreciating

every asset it owns.

114
AR, Order at FF 18a.
115
AR, Entergy Ex. 7 at 9 of 11.
116
AR, Entergy Ex. 7 at Ex. MPC-R-1.
117
See id.

50
 Entergy attempts to support the expenses by relying on Stephanie

Tumminello’s testimony in Docket No. 39896 where she stated that the

depreciable assets “consist primarily of computer equipment, computer

software systems, communications equipment, furniture, fixtures, leasehold

improvements, and aircraft.”118 Entergy’s reliance on this testimony fails

because it refers to expenses during the test year rather than rate-case

expenses, many of which occurred after the test year, during the rate case.119

The rate-case expenses are subject to entirely different project codes and

billing methods.120 And it is not clear that the same assets are being

depreciated in the rate-case expense proceedings as were depreciated in the

test year. For example, Ms. Tumminello testified that test-year expenses

were adjusted to remove depreciation of aircraft,121 but whether it was also

removed from rate-case expenses is a mystery. This borrowed testimony

118
Docket No. 39896, ETI Ex. 41 (Tuminello Direct at 79 of 98)(emphasis
added). (A certified copy is attached as Appendix E.)
119
Id. at 77 of 98.
120
Id. at 8, 45.
121
Id. at 79 of 98.

51
from the rate case fails to meet the standard requiring independent

evidence to support the item or class of items.122

2. Entergy failed to provide evidence that including Service
Company’s depreciation expense made the expenses
comparable.

Further, Entergy failed to provide evidence required by the statute:

Entergy did not demonstrate that the depreciation price Service Company

charged Entergy is no higher than the prices charged to other affiliates.123

For the test-year expenses, Ms. Tumminello’s testimony regarding

depreciation was supported with numerous reports, benchmarks, and

comparisons.124 But there is no such support for the rate-case-expense

depreciation. Although Mr. Considine testified that Service Company

charges Entergy its actual costs, this is insufficient without supporting

evidence showing that the prices charged to Entergy were not higher than

122
Docket 16705(Oct. 14, 1998) (Second Order on Rehearing) at 85, FF 150.
available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=16705&TXT_ITEM_NO=5006.
123
Tex. Util. Code § 36.058(c)(2).
124
See Docket No. 39896 ETI Ex. 41 (Tumminello Direct), Ex. SBT-20 Entergy
Arkansas Test Year Billing to Affiliates; Ex. SBT-21 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Test
Year Billings to Affiliates; SBT-22 Entergy Louisiana Test Year Billings to Affiliates;
SBT-23 Entergy Mississippi Test Year Billings to Affiliates; Ex. SBT-24Entergy New
Orleans Test Year Billings to Affiliates; SBT-25 Non-regulated Test Year Billings to
Regulated Affiliates. (A certified copy is attached as Appendix F.)

52
those charged to its other affiliates.125 There is no information that enables

the Commission to independently evaluate the costs that Service Company

charged to Entergy compared to its other affiliates. Entergy failed to meet

its burden.

The only evidentiary support Entergy offered to prove that depreciation

should be included in its rate-case expenses is a meaningless spreadsheet

and a Service Company employee’s conclusory statement that the

depreciation expense is reasonable and necessary. The Commission

reasonably decided that the evidence failed to meet the heightened standard

for allowing affiliate expenses under Utilities Code § 36.058. The

Commission properly excluded Service Company’s depreciation from rate-

case expenses, and the Commission’s order should be affirmed.

Prayer

The Commission asks the Court to affirm the district court’s judgment,

which affirmed the Commission’s order. The Commission also asks for all

other relief to which it is entitled.

125
Tex. Util. Code § 36.058; see also Docket 16705 (Oct. 14, 1998) (Second Order
on Rehearing) at 85, FF 153. available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/WebApp/Interchange/application/dbapps/filings/pg
Search_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_NO=16705&TXT_ITEM_NO=5006.

53
Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. DAVIS
Deputy Attorney General for
Civil Litigation

JON NIERMANN
Division Chief
Environmental Protection Division

/s/ Elizabeth R. B. Sterling
Elizabeth R. B. Sterling
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 19171100

MEGAN M. NEAL
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24043797

Environmental Protection Division
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512.463.2012
512.457.4616 (fax)
Elizabeth.Sterling@texasattorneygeneral.gov

COUNSEL FOR PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION OF TEXAS

54
 Certificate of Compliance

I certify that the foregoing computer-generated document has 11,080
words, calculated using the computer program WordPerfect 12, pursuant to
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4.

/s/ Elizabeth R. B. Sterling
Elizabeth R. B. Sterling

55
 Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this the 6th day of March 2015, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the following counsel
electronically, through an electronic filing service and by email.

/s/ Elizabeth R. B. Sterling
Elizabeth R. B. Sterling

Counsel for Appellant Entergy Texas, Inc.:

Marnie A. McCormick
John F. Williams
Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP
P. O. Box 1149
Austin, Texas 78767-1149
512.744.9300
512.744.9399 (fax)
mmccormick@dwmrlaw.com
jwilliams@dwmrlaw.com

Counsel for Appellant Office of Public Utility Counsel:

Ross Wyatt Henderson
Assistant Public Counsel
Office of Public Utility Counsel
P.O. Box 12397
Austin, Texas 78711-2397
512.936.7500
512.936.7520 (fax)
Ross.Henderson@opuc.texas.gov

56
Counsel for State Agencies:

Katherine H. Farrell
Assistant Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
Energy Rates Section
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548 MC 018-12
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512.475.4237
512.320.0167 (fax)
Katherine.Farrell@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for Texas Industrial Energy Consumers:

Rex VanMiddlesworth
Benjamin Hallmark
Thompson & Knight LLP
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1900
Austin, Texas 78701
512.469.6100
512.469.6180 (fax)
rex.vanm@tklaw.com
benjamin.hallmark@tklaw.com

57
APPENDIX A

Order
 ^ k+qn m
"R N

*` , 4 d !.il!

1©!^
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295 VVV

SOAEI DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX pt/8,t1c Plf 3:
CL4^ `

APPLICATION OF ENTER(^Y § PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSI(^N
TEXAS, INC. FOR RATE CASE §
EXPENSES PERTAINING TO PUC § OFTEXAS
DOCKET NO. 39896 §

ORDER

This Order addresses the rate-case expenses pertaining to Docket No. 39896,1 Entergy
Texas, Inc.'s last rate case. Entergy requested $8.8 million in rate-case expenses associated with
Docket No. 39896-$7.6 million for Entergy's own rate-case expenses and $1.2 million for
Cities' rate-case expenses. The proposal for decision in this docket was issued on February 19,
2013. In the proposal for decision, the ALJ recommended allowing Cities' rate-case expenses
incurred through August 31, 2012, plus up to $75,800 in rate-case expenses as they are incurred
after August 31, 2012. The ALJ also recommended that Entergy's rate-case expenses be reduced
to account for Entergy taking certain positions in the rate case regarding financially-based
incentive compensation and transmission equalization expenses. The Commission considered
the proposal for decision at the April 11 and April 25, 2013 open meetings. The Commission
adopts in part and reverses in part the proposal for decision, including findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

1. Estimated Rate-Case Expenses
The Commission reverses the proposal for decision regarding Cities' $75,800 in
estimated rate-case expenses to be incurred after August 31, 2012.2 In Docket No. 37772, the
Commission found that approving estimated rate-case expenses for two different parties

representing Cities is not in the public interest and disallowed their recovery in the rate-case
expense surcharge, but did not prohibit the Cities from seeking recovery of actual rate-case

pplication oJ'Entergy Texas, Inc. for A uthority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain
1 Application
Deferred Accounting Treatment, Order on Rehearing, Docket No. 39896 (Nov. 2, 2012).
2 Proposal for Decision at 4-8 ( Feb. 19, 2013).

90
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 2 of 8
SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

expenses in the utility's next rate case.3 The Commission affirms that holding here: Cities
cannot recover for estimated rate-case expenses in this docket, but may seek recovery in
Entergy's next rate case. To reflect its determination on this issue, the Commission adds new
finding of fact 16A, modifies conclusion of law 7, and adds new conclusion of law 10.

II. Proportional Reduction
The Commission affirms the proposal for decision regarding the need to reduce Entergy's
recoverable expenses due to an unreasonable position pursued by Entergy in the rate case4 and
also affirms the use of the "issue-specific reduction approach" to determine how to calculate an
appropriate reduction in rate-case expenses when the utility takes positions that are in conflict
with Commission precedent.5

Specifically, the Commission agrees with the AU that reductions should be made to
Entergy's recoverable rate-case expenses for Entergy attempting to recover financially-based
incentive compensation in base rates. The Commission has repeatedly ruled that a utility cannot
recover the cost of financially-based incentive compensation because financial measures are of
more immediate benefit to shareholders and financial measures are not necessary or reasonable
to provide utility services.6 The Commission concludes that it should follow its well-established
policy here.

However, the AU did not include all of the impacts attendant to the disallowance for
incentive compensation.7 To calculate the amount of the reduction in rate-case expenses related
to financially-based incentive compensation, the Commission starts with Entergy's initial rate-

3 Application qf Southwestern Electric Power Company for Rate Case Expenses Pertaining to Docket No.
37364, Order at 1-2, Docket No. 37772 (Oct. 21, 2010).
4 Proposal for Decision at 29-30.
5 Id. at 32-34.
b Application of AEP Texas Central Company for Authority to Change Rates, Docket No. 28840, Proposal
for Decision at 92-97, Findings of Fact Nos. 164-170, Order at 35 (Aug. 15, 2005); Application of AEP Texas
Central Company for Authority to Change Rates, Docket No. 33309, Proposal for Decision at 116-12 1, Finding of
Fact No. 82, Order on Rehearing at 12 (March 4, 2008); Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, for
Authority to Change Rates, Docket No. 35717, Proposal for Decision at 96-100, Finding of Fact No. 93, Order on
Rehearing at 22 (Nov. 30, 2009); and Application of'CenterPoint Electric Delivery Company, LLC, for Authority to
Change Rates, Docket No. 38339, Proposal for Decision at 66-67, Findings of Fact Nos. 81-83, Order on Rehearing
at 22 (June 23, 2011).
7
Docket No. 39896, Order on Rehearing at 5-6, 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2012).
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 3 of 8
Sf)AH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

case expense request, reduced by $208,494 in disallowances made by the ALJ' and affirmed by
the Commission. The Commission further reduces this amount by an additional $522,244.66,

which is the amount of rate-case expenses related to financially-based incentive compensation
using the issue-specific reduction approach.

The Commission disagrees with the AU that Entergy's rate-case expenses should be

reduced due to Entergy's request for transmission equalization (MSS-2 expenses).`' Even though
Entergy did not meet the burden of proof that the requested expenses were known and
measureable changes to test-year expenses, the request for the MSS-2 expenses did not conflict
with clear Commission precedent.

Accounting for these reductions, the Commission finds that rate-case expenses for ETI in
the amount of $6,896,037.73 are reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Commission is
approving a total amount of $8,021,806.34 in allowable rate-case expenses in this docket.

To reflect its determinations on the proportional reduction issue, the Commission
modifies finding of fact 18 and conclusion of law 9.

1[I. Affiliate Payments
The Commission also finds that the price for Entergy's affiliate payments is not higher
than the prices charged by the supplying affiliate for the same item or class of items to its other
affiliates or divisions or a nonaffiliated person within the same market area or having the same
market conditions. The Commission adds new finding of fact 19 and new conclusion of law 11
to reflect that Entergy met the requirements in PURA § 36.058 regarding payments to its
affiliates for its rate-case expenses.

The Commission also makes minor corrections to conclusions of law 6 and 8 to
incorporate the statutory reference into the language of the conclusion of law. Consistent with
the discussion above, the Commission adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law:

Proposal for Decision at 33-34.
' /ct at 25-27.
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 4 of 8
SOAII Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

IV. Findings of Fact
I. Entergy Texas, Inc. (ETI or the Company) is an investor-owned electric utility with a
retail service area located in southeastern "I'exas.

2. On November 28, 2011, ETI filed an application (the ETI Application) requesting,
among other things, approval of a proposed increase in annual base rate revenues of
approximately $111.8 million over adjusted test year revenues, and a new rider for
recovery of costs related to purchased power capacity.

3. On November 29, 2011, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission or PUC)
referred the ETI Application to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for a
hearing and the matter was assigned docket number 39896 (Docket 39896).

4. On April 4, 2012, in Docket 39896, the ALJs issued SOAH Order No. 13 severing rate-
case expense issues into a new docket, the case at issue here, Application of Entergy
Texas, Inc. for Rate Case Expenses Severed from PUC Docket No. 39896, Docket
No. 40295.

5. The hearing on the merits in Docket 39896 was held in April-May 2012.

6. The Proposal for Decision (PFD) in Docket 39896 was issued July 6, 2012.

7. The Commission issued its final order in Docket 39896 on November 2, 2012.

8. The hearing on the merits in the present docket, Docket 40295, was held on
November 28, 2012. The record closed on December 21, 2012, following the filing of
post-hearing briefs.

9. The following parties were granted intervenor status in this docket: Office of Public
Utility Counsel (OPUC); the cities of Anahuac, Beaumont, Bridge City, Cleveland,
Conroe, Dayton, Groves, Houston, Huntsville, Montgomery, Navasota, Nederland, Oak
Ridge North, Orange, Pine Forest, Rose City, Pinehurst, Port Arthur, Port Neches,
Shenandoah, Silsbee, Sour Lake, Splendora, Vidor, and West Orange (Cities); State
Agencies; and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC). The staff (Staff) of the
Commission was also a participant in this docket.
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 5 of'8
SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

10. In Docket 39896, ETI adjusted its request for a proposed increase in annual base rate

revenues to approximately $104.8 million over adjusted Test Year revenues.

11. In the PFD in Docket 39896, the ALJs recommended an overall rate increase of
$28.3 million.

12. In its final order in Docket 39896, the Commission largely followed the
recommendations contained in the PFD, but reduced ETI's overall rate increase to $27.7
million.

13. In this docket, ETI seeks to recover $8.8 million in rate-case expenses associated with
Docket 39896.

14. Of that total, $7.6 million was incurred by ETI and $1.2 million was incurred by Cities.

15. Cities proved that, through August 31, 2012, they reasonably incurred rate-case expenses
of $1,125,768.61 in Docket 39896 and this docket.

16. Cities reasonably estimated that their total rate-case expenses in Docket 39896 and this
docket after August 31, 2012 will total $75,800.

16A. The Commission finds that Cities' estimated expenses are not recoverable as rate-case
expenses in this docket.

17. The amount of rate-case expenses sought by ETI ($8.8 million) is high, both in absolute
terms, and in relation to the rate increase ultimately obtained by ETI in Docket 39896
($27.7 million).

18. Rate-case expenses for ETI in the amount of $6,896,037.73 are reasonable and necessary
and should be allowed as a cost or expense by the Company. This amount is calculated
by reducing the requested amount by the amounts listed and for the reasons stated below:

a. $207,683 in depreciation of office equipment owned by Entergy Services, Inc.
(ESI) (an affiliated company of ETI) and used by ESI employees for their work in
Docket 39896 is not reasonable and is properly disallowed.
b. $281 for meals over $25 was erroneously sought by ETI, is not reasonable, and is
properly disallowed.
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 6 of 8
SOAN Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

c. $10 for clothing purchased by an attorney for ETl is not reasonable and is
properly disallowed.
d. $40 for laundry charges by an attorney for ETI is not reasonable and is properly
disallowed.
e. $480 for a lodging charge unsupported by receipts is not reasonable and is
properly disallowed.
f. $522,244.66 attributable to unreasonable and overly aggressive arguments
pursued by ETI in Docket 39896 related to tinancially-based incentive
compensation is properly disallowed.
19. The price for Entergy's affiliate payments is not higher than the prices charged by the
supplying affiliate for the same item or class of items to its other affiliates or divisions or
a nonaffiliated person within the same market area or having the same market conditions.

V. Conclusions of Law
1 ETI is a "public utility" as that term is defined in the Public Utility Regulatory Act
(PURA) § 11.004(1) and an "electric utility" as that term is defined in PURA
§ 31.002(6).

2. The Commission exercises regulatory authority over ETI and jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this application pursuant to PURA §§ 32.001, 32.101, 33.002, 33.051, and
36.101-111.

3. SOAH has jurisdiction over matters related to the conduct of the hearing and the
preparation of a proposal for decision in this docket, pursuant to PURA § 14.053 and
Tex. Gov't Code § 2003.049.

4. This docket was processed in accordance with the requirements of PURA and the Texas
Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't Code Chapter 2001.

5. Pursuant to PURA § 33.051, the Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal from a
municipality's rate proceeding.

6. Pursuant to PURA § 33.023, Cities bore the burden to prove that the rate-case expenses
they incurred were reasonable.
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 7 of 8
SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

7. Cities are entitled to reimbursement by ETI for rate-case expenses of $1,125,768.61
incurred in Docket 39896 and this docket through August 31, 2012.

8. Pursuant to PURA § 36.061(b), ETI bore the burden of proving that the rate-case
expenses it incurred in Docket No. 39896 were reasonable.

9. ET I proved the reasonableness of its rate-case expenses in the amount of $6,896,037.73,
and is entitled to claim that amount as a cost.

10. Consistent with Commission precedent, it is not in the public interest to permit recovery
of estimated rate-case expenses.

11. Entergy met the requirements of PURA § 36.058 regarding payments to its affiliate for its
rate-case expenses.

VI. Ordering Paragraphs
In accordance with these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission issues
the following orders:

l. The Proposal for Decision prepared by the SOAH ALJs is adopted to the extent
consistent with this Order.

2. All other motions, requests for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied.

3. Cities' and ETI's requests to recover rate-case expenses are granted to the extent
consistent with this Order.
PUC Docket No. 40295 Order Page 8 of 8
SOAFi Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX

S"1
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the % day of May 2013

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

DONNA L. NELSON, CHAIRMAN

KENNETH W. ANDER,40+; J"lT, COMMISSIONER

y-\cadm\orders\tinal\40000\402951'o.docz
 APPENDIX B

Proposal for Decision
 State Office of Administrative Hearings

2DI3 FEB 19 PH 3: 24

Cathleen Parsley
Chief Administrative Law Judge

February 19, 2013

TO: Stephen Journeay, Director Courier Pick-up
Commission Advising and Docket Management
William B. Travis State Office Building
1701 N. Congress, 7th Floor
Austin, Texas 78701

RE: SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX
PUC Docket No. 40295

Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Rate Case Expenses Pertaining to PUC
Docket No. 39896

Enclosed is the Proposal for Decision (PFD) in the above-referenced case. By
copy of this letter, the parties to this proceeding are being served with the PFD.

Please place this case on an open meeting agenda for the Commissioners'
consideration. There is no deadline in this case. Please notify me and the parties of the
open meeting date, as well as the deadlines for filing exceptions to the PFD, replies to the
exceptions, and requests for oral argument.

Sincerely,

unt
Administrative Law Judge

HB/mle
Enclosure
xc: All Parties of Record

300 W. 15th Street, Suite 502, Austin, Texas 78701/ P.O. Box 13025, Austin, Texas 78711-3025
512.475.4993 (Main) 512.475.3445 (Docketing) 512.322.2061 (Fax)
6o7
www.soah.state.tx.us
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295
2 I1 F E B 19 P P', 3: 24

APPLICATION OF ENTERGY §§ BEFORE THt STATE OFFICE tf F ti
TEXAS, INC. FOR RATE CASE
EXPENSES PERTAINING TO PUC § OF
DOCKET NO. 39896 §
§ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1

II. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................ 2

III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 2

IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 3

A. Overview .................................................................................................................... 3

B. Cities' Rate Case Expenses ....................................................................................... 4

C. ETI's Rate Case Expenses ........................................................................................ 8

1. Challenges to Specific ETI Rate Case Expenses That are
Relatively Quantifiable ... .............................................................................. 8

a. Costs Associated with Gerald Tucker, ETI's
Consulting Expert ............................................................................ 8
b. Costs Associated with "Lessons Learned" .................................. 10
c. ESI Depreciation Costs .................................................................. 11
d. Miscellaneous Internal Rate Case Expenses ............................... 13
e. Costs Associated with the Calpine-Carville PPA ........................ 13
f. Specific Items That State Agencies Contend Cast Doubt on
ETI's Overall Scrutiny of Its Expenses ....................................... 15

(1) External Legal Fees .......................................................... 16
(2) Meals and Snacks ............................................................. 17
(3) Courier and Taxi Services ............................................... 18
(4) Meals Over $25 ................................................................. 19
(5) Clothing and Laundry Service ........................................ 20
(6) Airfare and Lodging ........................................................ 20
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

2. Challenges to Specific ETI Rate Case Expenses That are Difficult to
Quantify ....................................................................................................... 21

a. Financially-Based Incentive Compensation ................................ 21
b. Transmission Equalization (MSS-2) Expenses ........................... 25
c. Purchased Power Capacity Rider ................................................. 27

3. Proportional Reduction .............................................................................. 28

D. Recovery Method ..................................................................................................... 34

1. Rate Case Expense Allocation and the Recovery Mechanism ................ 34
2. ETI's Request to Earn a Return on the Unpaid Balance of Rate
Case Expenses .............................................................................................. 35

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 36

VI. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
ORDERING PARAGRAPHS .. .......................................................................................... 36

A. Findings of Fact ....................................................................................................... 36

B. Conclusions of Law ................................................................................................. 38

C. Proposed Ordering Paragraphs ............................................................................. 39
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

APPLICATION OF ENTERGY § BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
TEXAS, INC. FOR RATE CASE §
EXPENSES PERTAINING TO PUC § OF
DOCKET NO. 39896 §
§ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

1. BACKGROUND

Entergy Texas, Inc. (ETI) is an investor-owned electric utility with a retail service area
located in southeastern Texas. ETI serves retail and wholesale electric customers in Texas. On
November 28, 2011, ETI filed an application requesting approval of an increase in annual base rate
revenues, a reconciliation of fuel costs, and authority to defer costs for the transition to the Midwest
Independent System Operator (the ETI Application). On November 29, 2011, the Commission
referred the ETI Application, PUC Docket No. 39896, to SOAH (Docket 39896). On April 4, 2012,
the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) presiding over pocket 39896 issued an order severing from
Docket 39896 the issues relating to ETI's request to recover its rate case expenses and creating this
docket, Docket 40295, for consideration of the rate case expenses.

In this Proposal for Decision (PFD), the ALJ recommends as follows:

That Cities' be allowed to recover from ETI a total of $1,201,569 in rate case expenses
(representing $1,125,769 in rate case expenses incurred through August 31, 2012, plus up to
$75,800 in rate case expenses as they are incurred after August 31, 2012); and

• That ETI be allowed to recover a total of $7,344,113 in rate case expenses.

` The Cities are: the Cities of Anahuac, Beaumont, Bridge City, Cleveland, Conroe, Dayton, Groves, Houston,
Huntsville, Montgomery, Navasota, Nederland, Oak Ridge North, Orange, Pine Forest, Rose City, Pinehurst, Port Arthur,
Port Neches, Shenandoah, Silsbee, Sour Lake, Splendora, Vidor, and West Orange.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 2
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

II. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission or PUC) has jurisdiction over ETI and
this rate case expenses hearing pursuant to Texas Utility Code, Public Utility Regulatory Act
(PURA) §§ 32.001, 33.002, and 35.004. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) has
jurisdiction over the contested case hearing, including the preparation of the proposal for decision
(PFD) pursuant to PURA § 14.053 and Texas Government Code § 2003.049(b). ETI's notice of its
application and notice of the hearing were not contested and, therefore, do not require further
discussion here but will be addressed in the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The hearing on the merits in Docket 39896 was held in April-May, 2012. The PFD was
issued on July 6, 2012. A Final Order in Docket 39896 was issued by the Commission on September
14, 2012. In response to motions for rehearing submitted by multiple parties, the Commission issued
an Order on Rehearing on November 2, 2012, in Docket 39896.2

The hearing on the merits in the present docket, Docket 40295, was held on
November 28, 2012. The record remained open for the filing of post-hearing briefs. The record
closed on December 21, 2012.

III. PARTIES

In addition to ETI, the following entities were granted party status in this case: Texas
Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC); State of Texas agencies and institutions of higher education
(State Agencies); Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC); Cities; and the staff of the Public Utility
Commission (Staff).

2 Multiple second motions for rehearing were denied by the Commission on December 4, 2012.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 3
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

The following is a list of the parties who participated in the hearing and their counsel:

PARTIES REPRESENTATIVES
ETI Steven H. Neinast, Wajiha Rizvi, and George Hoyt
Cities Stephen Mack
TIEC Meghan Griffiths
State Agencies Susan Kelley
OPC Sarah Ferris
Staff Brennan Foley

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Overview

In the ETI Application, ETI requested, among other things, approval of an increase in annual
revenues of approximately $104.8 million, proposed tariff schedules including new riders to recover
costs related to purchased-power capacity and renewable-energy credit requirements, and final
reconciliation of its fuel costs. Prior to the hearing, the Commission effectively denied ETI's request
for a purchased-power capacity rider by removing it as an issue to be addressed in the hearing on the
ETI Application. In their PFD, the ALJs recommended an overall rate increase for ETI of
$28.3 million, did not recommend approving the renewable-energy credit rider sought by ETI, and
recommended approving ETI's request to reconcile fuel and purchased power costs during the
Reconciliation Period.3 Ultimately, the Commission largely followed the recommendations
contained in the PFD, but reduced the overall rate increase to $27.7 million.4

In this docket, Michael P. Considine, a Manager in the Regulatory Accounting Department of
Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), ETI's service company affiliate, testified in support of the company's
claim for recovery of rate case expenses. He explained that ETI is seeking authority to recover its

3 Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision (July 6, 2012).
4 Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Order on Rehearing (November 1, 2012).
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 4
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

rate case expenses over a three-year period, while earning a return on the unamortized balance.' ETI
seeks to recover $8,752,5456 in rate case expenses associated with Docket 39896 that were incurred
and paid as of September 30, 2012.7 Of that total, $7,635,236 was incurred by ETI and $1,117,309
was incurred by Cities. Of the total amount, ETI classifies $3,908,214 as "external" rate case
expenses (i.e., those expenses paid to outside accounting services, outside counsel, and outside
consultants), and $4,844,362 as "internal" rate case expenses (i.e., those expenses related to direct
expenses, payroll, benefits, and taxes of ETI and Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), an affiliated company
of ETI).8 Mr. Considine offered the opinion that all of ETI's internal rate case expenses were
reasonable and necessary.9 Another ETI witness, Stephen F. Morris, offered his opinion that all of
ETI's external rate case expenses were reasonable and necessary.10 Mr. Morris is an attorney and
certified public accountant who was retained by ETI to review the company's external rate case
expenses.' l ETI also seeks authority to defer until its next rate case all rate case expenses incurred in
Docket 39896 after September 30, 2012.12

B. Cities' Rate Case Expenses

Pursuant to PURA § 33.023, any municipality participating in a ratemaking proceeding may
engage attorneys, consultants, and others to assist it, and the electric utility "shall" reimburse the
municipality for its "reasonable cost" of participating in the ratemaking proceeding "to the extent the
[Commission] determines is reasonable."

5 ETI Ex. 1 (Considine Direct) at 62.
6 Initially, ETI sought recovery of $8,752,576. In its briefing, however, ETI explains that it is reducing the amount it
seeks to $8,752,545 (a reduction of $31) to account for two excessive charges for meals. ETI Init. Br. at 1 n. 1.
7 ETI Ex. 6 (Considine Supp.) at 1.
8 ETI Ex. 6 (Considine Supp.) at 3, 5, and attachment MPC-SD-5. The $1,117,309 in expenses incurred by Cities is
included as part of ETI's "internal" expenses.

9 ETI Ex. 6 (Considine Supp.) at 7.
10 ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 18.
11
ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 1-2.
12 Transcript from Hearing on the Merits (Tr.) at 17.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 5
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

In this case, Cities seek reimbursement for rate case expenses totaling $1,201,568.61. Cities
identify this amount as the "total actual and estimated rate case expenses" incurred by Cities in four
forums: (1) ETI's base rate cases before the municipalities; (2) participation in Docket 39896;
(3) participation in any appeals of Docket 39896; and (4) participation in the present case,
Docket 40295.13 Of the $1,201,568.61 total, $1,125,768.61 represents actual expenses incurred by
Cities through August 31, 2012, while $75,800 represents Cities' estimated expenses through
completion of Dockets 39896 and 40295, and any appeal. 14 Cities offered the expert testimony of
Amalija "Amy" Hodgins, a former ALJ, who opined that these expenses were reasonable and should
be reimbursed. 15

No party challenged the reasonableness of Cities' expenditures through August 31, 2012
(i.e., $1,125,768.61), and the AU can find no reason to do so either.

Staff challenges, however, Cities' attempt to recover their estimated expenses after that date
(i.e., $75,800). Cities seek to be reimbursed for these estimated expenses only "if and when they

occur," up to the maximum of $75,800.16 Ms. Hodgins offered her opinion that the amount of the
estimated expenses is reasonable. 17 In reliance upon Commission precedent from 2005,
Ms. Hodgins argued that estimated rate case expenses are reimbursable. Ms. Hodgins testified as
follows:

Projected rate case expenses can be, and routinely have been, found reasonable and
reimbursable by this Commission. The fact that a municipality's rate case expenses
have not all been incurred, as of the date of the determination of the reasonableness
of rate case expenses, does not render them unreasonable. Expenses need only be
reasonable and incurred to be recoverable.

13
Cities Init. Br. at 2.
14
Cities Init. Br. at 5.

15 See Cities Ex. No. 1(Hodgins Direct) and Ex. No. 2 (Hodgins Supp.).
16
Cities Ex. 2 (Hodgins Supp.) at n. 6.
17 Cities Ex. 2 (Hodgins Supp.) at 13-14.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 6
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

The future activities and corresponding costs, that are the subject of estimation, are
necessary to complete a proceeding before the Commission. The Commission in
CenterPoint's CTC case found estimated costs to complete a case were recoverable
once the estimated expenses were incurred and known and measurable. ...
Accordingly, it is reasonable for the Commission, in this proceeding, to consider and
allow the Cities to recover the estimated costs to complete this proceeding, including
possible judicial appeals, if and when those expenses are incurred.18

Staff argues, based upon Commission precedent, that Cities are not entitled to reimbursement
for estimated future rate case expenses.19 Staff does not challenge the reasonableness of the amount
of estimated expenses, nor does any other party. Rather, Staff asserts that the Commission precedent
relied upon by Ms. Hodgins has been superseded by more recent precedent. Specifically, in 2010,
the Commission decided a case in which it disallowed estimated rate case expenses. In
Docket 37772, the Commission disallowed recovery of estimated expenses, holding that "approving
estimated rate-case expenses is not in the public interest," but allowed the cities involved in that case
to seek "recovery of actual rate-case expenses included in the estimates in [the utility's] next rate
case."20 Thus, Staff argues that Cities' attempt to obtain its estimated expenses should be disallowed.

Staff further argues that Cities should not be entitled to recover the expenses associated with
the preparation of the portion of Ms. Hodgins' testimony in which she advocates in support of the
recovery of Cities' estimated expenses. By Staffs calculation, this reduction amounts to $1,208.42
(representing Cities' actual costs for Ms. Hodgins' testimony related to the recovery of estimated
expenses).21 No other party joins Staff in its opposition to Cities' estimated expenses.

The ALJ recommends that Cities' request with regard to its estimated expenses be granted.
Pursuant to Section 33.023 of PURA, Cities are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses

18 Cities Ex. 1(Hodgins Direct) at 6-7; citing Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLCfor Competition
Transition Charge, Docket No. 30706, Order at 31 and FOFs 72-74 (Jul. 14, 2005)(Docket 30706).
19 Staff Init. Br. at 6.
20 Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Rate Case Expenses Pertaining to Docket No. 37364,
Docket 37772, Order at 1-2 (Oct. 21, 2010)(emphasis in original)(Docket 37772).
21
Staff Init. Br. at 7.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 7
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

reasonably incurred in this case. As noted above, no party challenged the reasonableness of Cities'
estimation that its expenses after August 2012 would total $75,800. The ALJ concludes that the
estimate is reasonable.22 Most importantly, the ALJ notes that Cities are not actually seeking
reimbursement of estimated rate case expenses. Rather, Cities asks for: (1) approval now of the
reasonableness of its estimated expenses; but (2) reimbursement of those expenses only after they are
incurred, and only up to the estimated amount of $75,800. Cities argue that, from a policy
standpoint, it is more economical and efficient for Cities to request reimbursement of reasonable
estimated rate case expenses to the extent they are incurred in this case, rather than requiring Cities
to wait and ask for reimbursement of those expenses when ETI files a new rate case at some point in
the future, a contingency which might not occur for many years. The ALJ agrees. The ALJ further
believes that it would be unfair if Cities were obligated to wait until ETI files a new rate case in order
to recover its estimated expenses from the present case. Any such arrangement would delay,
potentially for years, Cities' recovery of its actual expenses in the present rate case, a result which
seems contrary to the clear intent expressed in PURA § 33.023 that municipalities are entitled to
reimbursement for their reasonable rate cases expenses. Moreover, such an arrangement would
obligate Cities to participate in a future ETI rate case that they might otherwise have no interest in
becoming a party to.

For these reasons, the ALJ recommends:

(1) that Cities' rate case expenses be found to be reasonable in the amount of
$1,201,568.61 (consisting of $1,125,768.61 in actual expenses incurred by Cities
through August 31, 2012, and $75,800 in estimated expenses to be incurred by Cities
after August 31, 2012 through completion of Dockets 39896 and 40295, and any
appeal);

(2) that ETI be ordered to reimburse Cities for $1,125,768.61 in actual expenses incurred
by Cities through August 31, 2012; and

22 Indeed, the ALJ notes that Cities attached to their Reply Brief an affidavit from Ms. Hodgins attesting to the fact that,
from September through November 2012, Cities actually incurred expenses of $43,525.45 (or 57% of the estimated
$75,800). Cities Reply Br. at 4-5, and attached affidavit.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 8
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

(3) that ETI be ordered to reimburse Cities for actual expenses incurred by Cities after
August 31, 2012, through completion of Dockets 39896 and 40295 and any appeal up
to a maximum possible amount of $75,800.

C. ETI's Rate Case Expenses

Pursuant to PURA Section 36.061(b), the Commission "may" allow a utility to recover its
"reasonable costs of participating in a [ratemaking proceeding] not to exceed that amount approved"
by the Commission.

ETI seeks recovery of $8,752,545 in rate case expenses associated with Docket 39896 that
were incurred and paid as of September 30, 2012. However, that total includes only the
$1,125,768.61 in expenses incurred by Cities through August 31, 2012, but does not also include the
$75,800 in expenses estimated for Cities as discussed above. Because the ALJ is recommending that

Cities' estimated expenses be approved as outlined above, the ALJ deems ETI's overall request to
have been increased by $75,800 to a total amount of $8,828,345.

The parties other than ETI challenged various components of ETI's rate case expenses.
Those challenges are discussed as follows.

1. Challenges to Specific ETI Rate Case Expenses That are Relatively Quantifiable

a. Costs Associated with Gerald Tucker, ETI's Consulting Expert

In Docket 39896, ETI retained Gerald Tucker as a consulting expert to assist in the
preparation of the utility's case dealing with affiliate transactions. Mr. Tucker is an accountant who
has experience regarding affiliate costs in Commission rate cases and who has commonly assisted
ETI in its rate cases.23

23
ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 29-30.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 9
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

State Agencies contend that Mr. Tucker's fees should be disallowed. No party other than
State Agencies challenged Mr. Tucker's expenses. State Agencies complain that Mr. Tucker: (1) did
not testify; (2) provided services that were described by ETI in only "the most general terms;" and
(3) provided services (such as reviewing witness testimony, reviewing discovery responses,
benchmarking, and assisting in preparing witnesses for deposition) that were duplicative of services
provided by ETI's legal counsel or other consultants. Accordingly, State Agencies argue that the
$116,119 representing Mr. Tucker's fees should be excluded from rate case expenses.24

ETI responds by contending that, over the last 20 years or so, the Commission has, at times,
disallowed large percentages of utility companies' affiliate expenses, based upon the fact that ALJs
and the Commissioners have had difficulty understanding the complex information supplied by
utilities concerning affiliate transactions. In light of that history, ETI contends that it reasonably
relied upon the expertise and accounting experience of Mr. Tucker to assist it in preparing and
presenting information about the company's affiliate transactions in order to assure that it was
understandable. According to ETI, Mr. Tucker has been involved in all rate cases of ETI and its

predecessor since in 1997. ETI contends that Mr. Tucker's participation in Docket 39896 enabled
the company to present clearer and more accurate information about its affiliate transactions.
Moreover, ETI disputes that Mr. Tucker's work was duplicative of the work performed by the
company's attorneys, pointing out that Mr. Tucker provided expertise from the accounting
perspective, rather than from the legal perspective.25

The AU recommends that Mr. Tucker's fees be included in the rate case expenses. State
Agencies are essentially arguing that it was solely the job of ETI's attorneys and its testifying experts
to prepare the case regarding affiliate transactions and, therefore, any work performed by Mr. Tucker
with regard to affiliate transactions was purely duplicative. The AU disagrees. As pointed out by
ETI, the notion that multiple people with varied expertise cannot provide valuable input on a
complex issue like affiliate transactions is overly simplistic. ETI demonstrated that Mr. Tucker

24
State Agencies Init. Br. at 18-19.
25
ETI Init. Br. at 10-11; ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Supp.) at 9-10.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 10
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

provided real expertise that benefited the company in the presentation of its case. In other words,
ETI proved the reasonableness of Mr. Tucker's expenses.

b. Costs Associated with "Lessons Learned"

In Docket 39896, ETI included several charges from its law firm, Duggins, Wren, Mann &
Romero (Duggins Wren), for "lessons learned," as shown in a July 26, 2011 invoice from the law
firm. The charges total $5,743.50.26 According to ETI, the charges relate to a memo provided to
ETI by the firm which contained a "detailed analysis of developments in ETI's last rate case as well
as developments in four recent pertinent cases at the PUCT that had taken place since the last ETI
rate case."27 The memo identified procedural and substantive issues for ETI to consider while
preparing its rate case in Docket 39896.28

State Agencies contend that any "lessons learned" should have already been learned in the
prior rate case and, therefore, any "refreshing [ofJ the learning curve ... should be a shareholder, not
ratepayer, expense. Bringing one's attorneys `up to speed' for the third rate case filed in five years
ought to be regarded as the legal equivalent of a`luxury item. `29 No party other than State Agencies
challenged the "lessons learned" expenses.

ETI responds by contending that State Agencies are essentially seeking to punish the
company for its efforts to learn from the past. ETI also contends that State Agencies' argument
would have the perverse effect of increasing, rather than decreasing rate case expenses. According to
ETI:

26
ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 29-30.
27 ETI Ex. 12 (Morris Rebuttal) at 28-29 (Attachment SFM-R-3).
28 ETI Ex. 12 (Morris Rebuttal) at 28-29 (Attachment SFM-R-3).
29 State Agencies Init. Br. at 19.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Incurring these costs to analyze lessons learned from litigating prior rate cases and
important aspects of non-ETI Commission rate cases, if anything, reduces overall rate
case expenses by supporting a more efficient case presentation and avoiding prior
issues that lead to contention among the parties.30

The ALJ agrees and recommends that the "lessons learned" expenses be included in the rate
case expenses. ETI demonstrated that the expenses were reasonable because they benefited the
company in the presentation of its case.

c. ESI Depreciation Costs

ETI identified, as part of its "internal" rate case expenses, $207,683 in "Depreciation &
Amort" expenses. 31 As explained by ETI witness Considine, the expenses are for the depreciation of
assets (apparently office equipment) used by ESI employees who participated in the rate case.32
Mr. Considine further testified that the costs were a reasonable and necessary part of ESI providing
services for the rate case.33

State Agencies contend that recovery of such depreciation expenses should be denied
because: (1) such a recovery is unprecedented; (2) ETI has failed to prove that the expenses were
reasonable and necessary; and (3) the expenses were not "incurred" for the rate case. As to the last
point, State Agencies explains: "ESI's depreciable property exists, and is presumably depreciated,
whether or not proceedings in Texas take place. As such, this `cost' was not necessary for ETI's
participation in the rate case and should be disallowed."34 No party other than State Agencies
challenged the depreciation expenses.

30 ETI Init. Br. at 13.
31
ETI Ex. 7(Considine Rebuttal) at 9-11 and Attachment MPC-R-1.
32 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at 11.
33 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine
Rebuttal) at 11.
34 State Agencies Init. Br. at 20.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

ETI responds by explaining that the costs at issue are "a loader to ESI labor costs covering
depreciation on office expenses and capital." Notably, however, ETI also concedes that such costs
would "typically [be] embedded in a vendor's labor costs billed to the Company. ,35

The AU recommends that the depreciation expenses be disallowed. ETI has not cited to any
precedent which would justify the recovery of these apparently unusual rate case expenses.
Moreover, ETI has failed to prove the reasonableness of the expenses under the more stringent
standards that are applicable to affiliate expenses. As explained in Railroad Comm 'n v. Rio Grande
Valley Gas Company, unlike arms-length transactions, affiliate transactions "are clearly tainted with
the possibility of self-dealing."36 The Commission and the courts have consistently placed a greater
burden of proof upon a utility company to prove the reasonableness of transactions with its affiliated
companies because of the potential for self-dealing.

In this case, ETI is seeking reimbursement of $2.9 million for payments it made to its
affiliate, ESI, for work done by ESI employees relevant to Docket 39896, plus $207,683 for
depreciation of the assets used by the ESI employees in their work. 37 This is in stark contrast to its
arms-length dealings with outside consultants. For example, ETI is seeking reimbursement for
$2.4 million in expenses from Duggins Wren, but it is not also seeking to recover depreciation
expenses for Duggins Wren's equipment. If the work done by ESI employees had, instead, been
done by outside consultants, it is very doubtful that the outside consultants would also have expected
an ETI payment for the depreciation of their equipment. Thus, the very nature of ETI's depreciation
request calls its validity into question. Simply put, ETI has failed to establish that it is entitled to
recover a depreciation expense related to an affiliate transaction because it would not similarly
recover such an expense in an arms-length transaction with an unaffiliated company.

3s
ETI Init. Br. at 12.
36
683 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Tex. App.-Austin 1985, no pet.).
37 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at Attachment MPC-R-1.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

d. Miscellaneous Internal Rate Case Expenses

Under the heading of "Internal Rate Case Expenses (Non-Payroll)," ETI seeks recovery of a
number of categories of expenses. State Agencies challenge the following four categories:

• "business meals/entertainment" in the amount of $3,852;
• "other employee expenses" in the amount of $3,423;
• "employee mtgs/functions" in the amount of $7,762; and
• "utility bills" in the amount of $2,518.38

According to State Agencies, the justification for these charges has not been explained, nor are they
reasonable and necessary. No other party challenged these expenses.

ETI responds by explaining, in great detail, where the supporting documentation can be
found, within the company's exhibits, to justify each of the expenses.39 Without repeating that
discussion here, the ALJ is convinced that the evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the
expenses are reasonable and should be recovered by ETI.

e. Costs Associated with the Calpine-Carville PPA

In a "Recommendation" filed prior to the hearing in this matter, OPUC argued that the
Commission should disallow the recovery of any rate case expenses associated with the regulatory
approval of the Calpine-Carville Purchased Power Agreement (the Calpine-Carville PPA). In
Docket 39896, ETI sought, and obtained, regulatory approval of the Calpine-Carville PPA.
The affiliate expenses related to the contract were assigned to Project F3PPWET308. The
Project F3PPWET308 costs were approved for recovery in Docket 39896.40 As a result, OPUC

38 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at Attachment MPC-R-1; see also State Agencies Init. Br. at 21.
39
ETI Reply Br. at 23-24.
40
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision at 236 (July 6, 2012).
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

contends that ETI has already recovered its expenses associated with the Calpine-Carville PPA and,
if it were allowed to recovery those expenses again, it would be receiving a double recovery.a'
OPUC did not identify a specific dollar amount that it believes should be disallowed. Moreover,
OPUC did not discuss this issue in any of its post-hearing briefing. In their post-hearing briefing,
State Agencies "concurred" with OPUC's recommendation, but provided no discussion of the
issue.42

ETI did discuss this issue in its post-hearing briefing. The company points out, correctly, that
the Commission has already specifically rejected OPUC's double recovery argument. In

Docket 39896, OPUC argued that the costs ETI sought related to the Calpine-Carville PPA should
have been denied in that docket because they were, among other things, rate case expenses. The
Commission specifically disagreed and allowed recovery of the costs in that docket.43 In other
words, because the Commission has already concluded that ETI did not recover any rate case
expenses associated with the Calpine-Carville PPA in Docket 39896, the company will not be
receiving a double recovery if it recovers such expenses in this docket.

Further, as explained by ETI witness Considine, costs were charged to Project F3PPWET308

(the internal project code for the Calpine-Carville PPA development costs) as the contract was being
developed. Those costs were recovered in Docket 39896. On the other hand, costs were charged to
Project F5PPETX011 (the internal project code for the rate case in Docket 39896) as testimony or
other hearing-related work was performed for pocket 39896. According to ETI, it is only the latter
costs, associated with Project F5PPETX011, that are being sought here. As a result, no double
recovery will occur.44 The ALJ concludes that ETI has the better argument on this issue, and

41
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Rate Case Expenses Pertaining to PUC Docket No. 39896, Docket 40295,
OPUC's Recommendation and Request for Hearing at 2-3 (November 6, 2012).
42
State Agencies Reply Br. at 20.
43
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision at 236 (July 6, 2012).
44 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at 7-9.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 15
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

recommends that ETI be allowed to recover its rate case expenses associated with the
Calpine-Carville PPA.

f. Specific Items That State Agencies Contend Cast Doubt on ETI's
Overall Scrutiny of Its Expenses

State Agencies performed what they described as a number of "spot check" reviews of ETI's
costs and identified several errors or items that they contend should be disallowed. Moreover, State
Agencies contend that it is not only these specific items which should be disallowed. Rather, they
argue that the flaws they have identified should cast doubt on the overall adequacy of the internal
review process utilized by ETI in quantifying its rate case expenses. According to State Agencies,
"[i]dentification of these questionable costs underscores the need for conservative, rather than
liberal, standards for allowing rate case expenses.s45 Similarly, State Agencies argue that these items
demonstrate ETI's "lack of diligence in exercising basic economic restraint. ,46

Staff agrees that State Agencies' examination of these issues "call[s] into question the
thoroughness of ETI's review of its rate case expenses."47 Staff further points out that, because the

testimony of ETI witness Considine (who was the company's prime witness supporting the
reasonableness of its internal rate case expenses) contained "mistakes that he was engaged to
identify," his testimony "is of limited value."48 In its Reply Brief, Staff reiterates: "Staff shares the
concerns raised by State Agencies regarding the adequacy of ETI's review of its rate case
expenses."49 Similarly, OPUC agrees that State Agencies' examples illustrate that, as to rate case
expenses, ETI did not act as a prudent gatekeeper.so

45
State Agencies Init. Br. at 7.
46
State Agencies Reply Br. at 9.
47 Staff Init. Br. at 12.
48 Staff Init. Br. at 12.
49
Staff Reply Br. at 9.
so
OPUC Init. Br. at 1.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 16
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

(1) External Legal Fees

ETI seeks to recover roughly $2.4 million in legal fees paid to the Duggins Wren law firm.s 1
State Agencies argue that this amount should be reduced. ETI witness Stephen Morris was hired to
review ETI's external legal expenses and testify about the reasonableness of those expenses.52 State
Agencies question the objectivity, quality, and extent of Mr. Morris' review. For example, State
Agencies point out that, rather than being retained by ETI, he was retained by Duggins Wren, the
firm whose fees he was to review.53 Staff agrees that this arrangement "likely undermined
Mr. Morri s' objectivity. ,54

State Agencies also contend that, based upon his invoices, Mr. Morris spent only a "minimal"
amount of time reviewing Duggins Wren's bills.55 Yet, by State Agencies' own reckoning,
Mr. Morris and his associate spent roughly 21 hours reviewing Duggins Wren bills.56 Mr. Morris
testified as to the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by Duggins Wren. State Agencies
argue, however, that Mr. Morris' focus was too narrow and he should have, instead, been critical of
the fact that too many Duggins Wren attorneys, twelve, were involved in the case.57 State Agencies
are also critical of the fact that Mr. Morris apparently did not scrutinize Duggins Wren's bills for
duplicative legal work. For example, State Agencies point out that on April 25, 2012, a day from the
hearing in Docket 39896, five Duggins Wren attorneys billed a total of 26.3 hours for a hearing day
that lasted less than seven hours and in which in-house ETI lawyers defended many of the witnesses.
On the next day, April 26, six Duggins Wren attorneys billed a total of 24.4 hours for a hearing day
that lasted less than eight hours and in which only three Duggins Wren attorneys participated .51 State

51 ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at Attachment MPC-R-1.
52
ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 2.
53
State Agencies Init. Br. at 10.
54
Staff Reply Br. at 9.
55
State Agencies Init. Br. at 10.
56
State Agencies Init. Br. at 12.
57 State Agencies Init. Br. at 9.
58 State Agencies Init. Br. at 13.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Agencies contend that "a reduction is in order" for the Duggins Wren costs, but do not suggest what
size the reduction should be.

ETI responds by defending the reasonableness of the Duggins Wren costs. For one thing, ETI
points out that the $2.4 million in legal fees paid to Duggins Wren includes fees and expenses for
five consultants billed through Duggins Wren without mark-up.59 Additionally, ETI explains that the
huge scope of the hearing necessitated substantial legal work. ETI presented 39 witnesses who
discussed hundreds of categories of costs. ETI points out that while it used the services of
12 attorneys, they were opposed by 15 attorneys: four for Staff; three for TIEC; three for Cities; and
one each for State Agencies, OPUC, U.S. Department of Energy, Kroger, and Wal-Mart .60

The ALJ is unswayed by State Agencies' arguments. Given the size and complexity of
Docket 39896, the legal costs involved do not appear to be inordinate. Mr. Morris testified, credibly,
that the fees and expenses charged by Duggins Wren were reasonable and necessary. The ALJ does

not recommend any reduction of the fees in response to State Agencies' arguments.

(2) Meals and Snacks

State Agencies identified 19 entries in Duggins Wren invoices whereby the firm charged ETI
for meals or snacks. According to State Agencies, most of these purchases occurred during business
hours and involved only law firm personnel. ETI personnel were only occasionally involved in these
purchases. Almost all of the charges were for meals or snacks delivered to Duggins Wren's offices.
The purchases total $2,723.54.61 State Agencies contend that these costs were not necessary for
participation in Docket 39896 and should be disallowed.

59
ETI Reply Br. at 19; ETI Ex. 6 (Considine Supp.) at 8.
60 ETI Reply Br. at 19.
61
State Agencies Init. Br. at 14-15.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Moreover, State Agencies point out that Duggins Wren is applying a different standard to
itself than it applies to its own contractors. Pursuant to the contract by which Duggins Wren hired
Mr. Morris, meals while he or his staff are located at his office are not reimbursable.62 Thus, State
Agencies conclude that Duggins Wren should be held to the same standard when passing on rate case
expenses for office meals, beverages, and snacks.63

ETI responds by pointing out that the charges were not done routinely, but only when
necessary to enable personnel "to work over lunch and dinner to meet certain deadlines ... and as an
alternative to purchasing reimbursable meals at restaurants when out-of-town members of the rate
case team worked in Austin."64 ETI describes the expenses as a reasonable part of prosecuting a
laborious rate case. The AU agrees and does not recommend any disallowance of these costs.

(3) Courier and Taxi Services

State Agencies identified 20 dates in Duggins Wren invoices whereby the firm charged ETI
for courier, taxi, or Federal Express charges for delivery of documents that State Agencies argue
could have been delivered electronically. The charges total $1,004.52.65 State Agencies contend
that these costs were not necessary for participation in Docket 39896 and should be disallowed.
State Agencies again point out that Duggins Wren is applying a different standard to itself than it
applies to its own contractors. The contract by which Duggins Wren hired Mr. Morris states that
"advances in technology, specifically transmission of information and documentation by e-mail,
scanning, . . . etc. have made routine ... delivery of hard copy documents less critical and, in many

62
State Agencies Ex. 15 at. 3.
63
State Agencies Init. Br. at 14.
64
ETI Reply Br. at 20.
65
State Agencies Init. Br. at 16-17.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

cases, unnecessary."66 Thus, State Agencies conclude that Duggins Wren should be held to the same
standard when passing on rate case expenses for document delivery.67

ETI responds by explaining the context of many of the charges. For example, two of the
three cab fares were for a paralegal to attend and transport voluminous documents to the hearing, and
the third was to transport the same paralegal to the Commission for legal research.68 As to the
courier and FedEx charges, ETI points out that Commission rules require some types of documents

to be physically delivered for filing, and that the use of couriers and FedEx is sometimes entirely
appropriate. ETI argues that it was "completely reasonable" for ETI to have incurred roughly $1,000
in courier and FedEx charges over the course of a rate case of the size and scope of Docket 39896.
The AU agrees and recommends no disallowance of these charges.

(4) Meals Over $25

ETI asserts that its intent was to exclude from its rate case expenses any meals above $25 per
person.69 State Agencies have, however, identified at least six meals above $25 that were

erroneously included as a part of ETI's rate case expenses.70 ETI admits that at least some of these
charges were included in error.71 ETI disputes, however, the notion that these errors should call into
question the overall reliability of its rate case expenses.

The AU agrees with ETI. This was a large case with a large number of expenses. The

relatively few errors with respect to meals uncovered by State Agencies do not lead the ALJ to doubt
the overall accuracy of ETI's accounting. Nevertheless, by the AU's reckoning, the total amount

66
State Agencies Ex. 15 at 4.
67 State Agencies Init. Br. at 16.
68 ETI Reply Br. at 20.
69 State Agencies Ex. 5.
70 State Agencies Exs. 1, 12; State Agencies Reply Br. at Atts. 3, 6.
7' Tr. at 40.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 20
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

that should be disallowed for meals over $25 (i.e., the amount by which the meals exceeded
$25/meal) is $281.04.

(5) Clothing and Laundry Service

State Agencies identified, as part of ETI's requested rate case expenses, a $10.44 invoice
from a Duggins Wren attorney for the purchase of a shirt and socks "due to unexpected extended
stay. ,72 Similarly, OPUC contests a $40.33 laundry charge incurred by the same attorney for the

same reason.73 ETI witness Considine generally agreed that clothing charges by attorneys working
on the rate case should not be passed through to ratepayers as a rate case expense.74

ETI argues that the expenses were reasonable because they were brought about by an
unplanned, but necessary, extension of the attorney's business tri p.75 Mr. Morris testified that such
expenses can be considered reasonable.76 Nevertheless, ETI has agreed to no longer request
reimbursement for the $10.44 clothing charge. Because laundry has to be done regardless of where
one finds oneself, the AU recommends that the $40.33 laundry charge likewise be disallowed.

(6) Airfare and Lodging

State Agencies identify several charges for airfare by ETI employees or consultants that were
in the $500 to $650 range. State Agencies fault ETI for not controlling costs by securing discount, or
at least more economical, fares.77 Similarly, State Agencies complain that, too often, ETI employees
or consultants "went `first class' on accommodations," incurring charges of more than $200 per night

72 State Agencies Ex. 17 at 20.
73 OPUC Init. Br. at 1-2.
74 Tr. at 43.
75 ETI Reply Br. at 22.
76 Tr. at 67-68.
77
State Agencies Reply Br. at 11-12.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 21
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

and, on occasion, $300 per night. State Agencies also complain of inadequate documentation of
lodging charges, pointing to a $479.55 lodging charge without any underlying receipts.78 ETI makes
no response to these complaints.

The ALJ acknowledges that these complaints raise a legitimate concern. It is human nature
to be more carefree with "other people's money" than with one's own. The complaints raised by
State Agencies suggest that ETI may have been more lax with its spending because it believed that
airfare and lodging expenses would ultimately be borne by its ratepayers. Nevertheless, other than
for the $479.55 lodging charge, State Agencies' complaints are too vague and unproven to justify any
specific disallowance recommendations by the ALJ. For example, although it might not always cost
$600 to get from Point A to Point B, such a fare might be unavoidable under certain circumstances.
Without evidence in the record demonstrating that ETI paid $600 for an airfare when a cheaper fare
was available, the AU cannot conclude that the fare was unreasonable. The same logic applies to
the lodging complaints. Accordingly, the AU recommends no large disallowances related to airfare
and lodging charges, but does recommend disallowing the $479.55 lodging charge that is
unsupported by receipts.

2. Challenges to Specific ETI Rate Case Expenses That are Difficult to Quantify

a. Financially-Based Incentive Compensation

One of the hotly contested issues in Docket 39896 concerned ETI's request to recover,
through its rates, incentive compensation paid to its employees that was tied to the company's
financial goals (financially-based incentive compensation). In Docket 39896, all parties, including
ETI, agreed that Commission precedent mandated that financially-based incentive compensation is
not recoverable. Nevertheless, in its application, ETI asked the Commission to reconsider its
precedents on this issue. ETI contended that the reason why cost recovery had been denied for
financially-based incentive compensation in prior rates cases was that, in those prior cases, there was

78 State Agencies Reply Br. at 13-14.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 22
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

a lack of evidence showing sufficient benefits to ratepayers. ETI asserted that it assembled evidence
not previously considered by the Commission showing the benefits to ratepayers of using financial
measures in incentive compensation programs.

All of the other parties in Docket 39896 opposed ETI's efforts to recover the costs of its
financially-based incentive compensation, uniformly agreeing that the Commission has a well-
established and straightforward policy that incentive compensation tied to financial goals is not
recoverable. In the PFD in Docket 39896, the ALJs concluded that ETI should not be entitled to
recover its financially-based incentive compensation costs:

Simply put, the ALJs conclude that ETI has failed to establish a sufficient
justification for overturning the well-established Commission policy that financially
based incentive compensation is not recoverable.79

The Commission agreed and ordered that $6,196,037 plus associated FICA taxes (representing ETI's
financially-based incentive compensation payments) should be removed from ETI's Operating and
Maintenance (O&M) expenses, and $335,752.96 (representing ETI's capitalized incentive
compensation that was financially-based) should be excluded from ETI's rate base.80

In this docket, Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC contend that ETI should not be entitled to
recover any rate case expenses it incurred in attempting to recover its financially-based incentive
costs in Docket 39896. For example, Staff argues that, by challenging "overwhelming Commission
precedent," ETI did not act reasonably when it incurred expenses litigating for recovery of its
financially-based incentive costs.81 Staff contends that the Commission has such an "unequivocal"
history of denying recovery for financially-based incentive payments that "ETI should have known

79 Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision at 236 (July 6, 2012).
80 Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Order on Rehearing at 17-18, 24-25 (November 1, 2012)
81 Staff Reply Br. at 5; see also Staff Init. Br. at 7-10.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 23
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

that litigating a position opposed to [it] was not a reasonable use of resources."82 State Agencies
point out that Docket 39896 was merely the latest of three recent cases in which ETI sought, but
failed to obtain, authority to charge ratepayers for its financially-based incentive costs (the others
being Dockets 34800 and 37744).83

ETI defends its decision to seek to recover financially-based incentive costs in Docket 39896
by contending that the issue of the compensability of such costs is undergoing "continuing
clarification" at the Commission.84 Moreover, ETI suggests that, in open meetings,
"Commissioners" have expressed some concern with the Commission's precedents on this issue and
suggested recovery might be allowed in a "properly organized and evidenced" case.85 Finally, ETI
points to a recent SOAH order in an on-going SWEPCO rate case in which the ALJs denied State
Agencies' attempt to have stricken testimony proffered by SWEPCO regarding financially-based
incentive compensation.86

The AU agrees with Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC. It was obvious throughout the
hearing in Docket 39896 that ETI was taking an aggressive position and making a "long-shot"
argument in seeking recovery for its financially-based incentive compensation.87 In its briefing in the
present case, ETI cites to a number of cases in which, over the years, other utilities have requested
recovery of financially-based incentive compensation. These examples, however, hurt ETI's cause
more than they help it because all of the requests were unanimously denied by the Commission. This
hardly suggests that the issue is undergoing "continuing clarification." Likewise, ETI's suggestion
that "Commissioners" have expressed some concern with the Commission precedent overstates and
distorts the facts. The statements relied upon by ETI came from a single Commissioner,

82 Staff Init. Br. at 8.
83 State Agencies Init. Br. at 7-8.
84 ETI Init. Br. at 7.
85 ETI Init. Br. at 7; ETI Ex. 12 (Morris Rebuttal) at 5-6.

86 Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Authority to Change Rates and Reconcile Fuel Costs,
Docket No. 40443, SOAH Order No. 17 (Dec. 13, 2012).
87 The AU in the present case was also one of the presiding ALJs in Docket 39896.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 24
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Mr. Anderson, not multiple Commissioners. Moreover, in that statement, Commissioner Anderson
only obliquely implied that he might prefer to allow recovery for financially-based incentive costs,
but he agreed that Commission precedent mandates otherwise, and the Commission voted
unanimously to disallow such costs in the case before them. Additionally, Commissioner Anderson
has stated that, if the Commission were to ever discontinue "such a long and accepted precedent," it
should do so through "rulemaking" rather than "do it in a particular case. ,88

Finally, ETI's reliance on the recent SOAH order in the SWEPCO case is similarly
misplaced. In that order, the ALJs effectively held that SWEPCO was not legally precluded from
seeking recovery for its financially-based incentive compensation. It is one thing to acknowledge
that a utility has a legal right to pursue a long-shot theory. It is another thing entirely, however, to
hold that the ratepayers must pay the costs of the utility's pursuit of that long-shot.

Simply put, the AU concludes that ETI did not act reasonably when it incurred expenses
litigating for recovery of its financially-based incentive costs in the face of clear and consistent
precedent to the contrary on the issue. As such, the AU recommends that ETI's expenses be cut by
some amount to account for this issue. The problem then becomes how to quantify the size of the
disallowance. A few of ETI's expenses relating to the pursuit of its financially-based incentive

compensation are clear. ETI utilized the services of Dr. Jay Hartzell as an expert witness on this
issue. In total, ETI paid Dr. Hartzell at least $12,825 in consulting fees, plus $13,680 in legal fees
related to the preparation of his testimony.89 This, however, does not capture ETI's entire cost of
litigating the issue of financially-based incentive compensation. Substantial costs were incurred, for
example, in discussing the issue at the hearing and in post-hearing briefing. These additional
amounts are not in the record. In Section N.C.3 of this PFD, below, the AU discusses various
possible approaches for reducing the amount of rate case expenses recovered by ETI to account for
the financially-based incentive compensation issue.

88 Staff Reply Br. at 6; OPUC Ex. 3; Open Meeting Tr. at 190 (July 30, 2009).
89 ETI Ex. 10 (Morris Supp. Direct) at 15-16; State Agencies Ex. 3.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 25
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

b. Transmission Equalization (MSS-2) Expenses

Another of the hotly contested issues in Docket 39896 concerned ETI's request to recover,
through its rates, roughly $9 million more for transmission equalization payments than it actually
paid in the Test Year. ETI is one of several "Entergy Operating Companies" that shares usage of an
Entergy transmission grid. Payments for use of the grid (the transmission equalization payments) are
made among the Entergy Operating Companies based upon a highly complex formula set out in the
"MSS-2" agreement.

In the Test Year at issue in Docket 39896, ETI made transmission equalization payments
totaling roughly $1.7 million. Rather than seeking to recover only $1.7 million, however, ETI sought
to recover roughly $10.7 million, which it claimed represented its anticipated transmission
equalization payments in the Rate Year. ETI claimed the additional $9 million was based on the
company's estimates of transmission construction projects that were expected to have been
completed by or during the Rate Year.

All other parties in Docket 39896 opposed ETI's effort to recover more than its Test Year
expenses. The ALJs concluded that ETI failed to meet its burden to prove that its proposed Rate
Year MSS-2 costs were known and measurable.90 The Commission agreed and ordered that only
ETI's Test Year costs should be counted.91 The Commission described ETI's projection of its Rate
Year expenses as "uncertain and speculative."92

In this docket, Staff, OPUC, and State Agencies contend that ETI should not be entitled to

recover any rate case expenses it incurred in attempting to recover the additional $9 million in

9' Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision at 116 (July 6, 2012).
91
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Order on Rehearing at 20-2 1, FOFs 87-94 (November 1, 2012).
92
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Order on Rehearing at 20, FOF 90 (November 1, 2012).
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 26
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

projected transmission equalization payments.93 As explained by Staff: "It was clearly unreasonable
for ETI to have sought recovery for [its projected Rate Year costs] due to the exceedingly speculative
nature of those costs, and therefore a disallowance to its requested rate case expense amount should
be imposed."94 OPUC witness Nathan Benedict testified that, by seeking the additional $9 million,
ETI was, in effect, challenging the precedent that post-Test Year adjustments must be known and
measurable. 95

ETI responds by first disputing the notion that it was "challenging precedent" by seeking the
additional $9 million.

ETI did not incur rate case expenses in pursuit of a position contrary to the well-
established `known and measurable' standard for PTYAs [post Test Year
adjustments]. Rather, the Commission disagreed that the evidence put forth by ETI
met that standard. This is a very important distinction. Finding that evidence put
forth by a utility did not meet an established standard does not equate to a finding that
the utility unreasonably contested the applicability of such standard.96

ETI further points out that the evidence in the record supported its contention that its actual post-Test

Year transmission equalization payments were on an upward trend.97

The ALJ recommends that ETI's rate case expenses associated with its pursuit of the
additional $9 million for post-Test Year transmission equalization payments be disallowed. The AU
acknowledges the distinction made by ETI: It sought not to challenge the "known and measurable"
precedent, but merely failed to meet the standard. In this regard, ETI's position as to transmission
equalization payments was perhaps less controversial than its position as to financially-based
incentive compensation. Nevertheless, ETI took another "long-shot" position as to its transmission
equalization payments. Its claim was based on future transmission construction projects that might

93
OPUC Init. Br. at 9-10, 12; Staff Init. Br. at 13; State Agencies Reply Br. at 17.
94
Staff Init. Br. at 13.
95
OPUC Ex. 1 (Benedict Direct) at 7-8.
96
ETI Init. Br. at 8 (emphasis in original, footnotes omitted).
97 ETI Reply Br. at 16.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 27
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

never be undertaken and that were found by the Commission to have been speculative. Accordingly,
the AU concludes that ETI did not act reasonably when it litigated the issue, and recommends that
ETI's expenses related to this issue not be passed on to the ratepayers.

Having concluded that these rate case expenses should not be paid by the ratepayers, the
problem again becomes how to quantify the expenses. ETI did not structure its rate case expenses in
such a manner as to make it possible to determine how much of the expenses were incurred in
pursuing the additional $9 million in transmission equalization payments.98 In Section IV.C.3 of this
PFD, below, the AU discusses various possible approaches for reducing the amount of rate case
expenses recovered by ETI to account for the transmission equalization payments issue.

c. Purchased Power Capacity Rider

In Docket 39896, ETI initially requested a Purchased Power Capacity Rider (PPCR), instead
of including purchased capacity costs in base rates. The Commission, however, rejected the PPCR
request in a Supplemental Preliminary Order on the grounds that the Commission already had a
then-pending rulemaking effort underway to determine the structure of such a rider for all generating
utilities.99

In this docket, Staff, OPUC, and State Agencies argue that ETI should not be entitled to

recover any rate case expenses it incurred in attempting to secure a PPCR because it was too
speculative in light of the pending rulemaking effort. 100

ETI responds by contending that the mere fact that there was a rulemaking effort underway
with respect to PPCRs did not mean that ETI was somehow precluded from seeking a PPCR through
its application. Moreover, ETI notes that, in briefing during Docket 39896, Staff, State Agencies,

98 Tr. at 45-46.
99
Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred
Accounting Treatment, Docket 39896, Supplemental Preliminary Order at 2 (Jan. 9, 2012).
ioo
OPUC Init. Br. at 10; Staff Init. Br. at 14 and Reply Br. at 8-9; State Agencies Reply Br. at 17.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 28
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

and TIEC all took the position that there was no legal impediment to ETI's seeking a PPCR in the
rate case.lol

The ALJ agrees with ETI and does not recommend any disallowances in relation to the PPCR
request. The fact that there was a pending proposed rule at the time ETI asked for the rider should
not be viewed as precluding ETI's request. Indeed, the very uncertainty inherent in the rulemaking
process suggested that the accepted practices with regard to purchased capacity costs were in a state
of flux and, therefore, it was reasonable for ETI to pursue the rider.

3. Proportional Reduction

In addition to the above challenges to specific items of expense incurred by ETI, a number of
parties raised more generic concerns about the company's rate case expenses. State Agencies
expressed concern that, as a general matter, rate case expenses in cases before the Commission
appear to be "getting out of hand." 102 Staff "firmly agrees" with this concern. 103 State Agencies
worry that utilities have no incentive to minimize the number of rate case proceedings or the
efficiency of rate case presentation because they assume their costs will simply be passed on to
ratepayers. loa State Agencies urge the Commission to allocate rate case expenses in such a way that
incentivizes utilities to more productively and efficiently use their time in rate cases. 105 OPUC
agrees that the standard for evaluating the amount of rate cases expenses to be reimbursed ought to
be structured so as to give a utility pause before deciding to pursue overly aggressive or novel
arguments. 106

lol
ETI Reply Br. at 16-17.
I
02 State Agencies Init. Br. at 1-2.
103
Staff Reply Br. at 13.
104
State Agencies Init. Br. at 1-2.
105
State Agencies Init. Br. at 5.
116
OPUC Init. Br. at 8.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 29
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Along these same lines, Staff and OPUC expressed concern about the frequency of ETI rate
cases over recent years. Docket 39896 was the third ETI rate case in four years. Each case resulted
in a rate increase and an obligation for the ratepayers to pay ETI's rate case expenses.107 Staff and
OPUC also expressed concern about the overall size of the rate case expenses in relation to the
outcome of the underlying rate case. Total rate case expenses ($8.8 million) equal roughly one-third
of the total approved rate increase ($27.7 million).108 Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC all expressed
the concern that ETI did not provide good stewardship in incurring rate case expenses.109

In order to address these concerns, the parties have suggested a number of methodologies for
reducing the rate case expenses.

The 50/50 approach. State Agencies advocate two approaches for reducing the level
of recovery of rate case expenses. State Agencies' primary recommendation is that
ratepayers be charged for only 50% of total rate case expenses. State Agencies argue
that this approach would recognize that shareholders, who reap benefits from a rate
increase, ought to also share in the cost of obtaining that rate increase.' 10

The Results-Obtained Approach. Alternatively, State Agencies advocate allowing
ETI to recover only 26.4% of its rate case expenses, which is the ratio between the
rate increase obtained in Docket 39896 ( $27.7 million) and the increase sought by
ETI ($104.8 million). In other words, because ETI obtained only 26.4% of the rate
increase it sought, State Agencies contend that ETI similarly ought to be reimbursed
for only 26.4% of its rate case expenses.' 11 OPUC also advocates this approach.' 12

• The Issue-Specific Reduction Approach. Alternatively, OPUC and Staff advocate
an approach whereby ETI's recovery of rate case expenses is reduced by the ratio
between the amounts unsuccessfully sought by ETI for financially-based incentive
payments and transmission equalization payments and the rate increase sought by
ETI. ETI unsuccessfully sought financially-based incentive payments of $6.5

107 Stafflnit. Br. at 3; OPUC Init. Br. at 2-3, 7-8.
108
Staff Init. Br. at 4; OPUC Init. Br. at 7.
1 °9
See, e.g., Staff Reply Br. at 13.
I10
State Agencies Init. Br. at 3,
1 11 State Agencies Init. Br. at 3, 22.
112
OPUC Init. Br. at 11.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 30
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

million, and transmission equalization payments of $9 million, for a total of
$15.5 million. ETI sought a total rate increase of $104.8 million. Under this
approach, $15.5 million would be divided by $104.8 million to arrive at a reduction
factor of 14.8%. Thus, ETI's rate case expenses would be reduced by 14.8%.113

Not surprisingly, ETI vigorously opposes all of these approaches.

The ALJ agrees with the general concerns raised by Staff, State Agencies, and OPUC, and

believes that a substantial cut to ETI's rate case expenses is warranted. Before evaluating the merits
of the various approaches, however, it is helpful to revisit the applicable law relative to rate case
expenses.

As noted previously, pursuant to PURA Section 36.061(b), the Commission "may" allow a
utility to recover its "reasonable costs of participating in a [ratemaking proceeding] not to exceed the
amount approved" by the Commission. This verbiage indicates that the Commission can approve
some amount that is less than the reasonable costs. Section 36.061(b) vests the Commission with

"broad discretion" to determine the amount of rate cases expenses that should be recovered,' 14 and its
determination can be set aside only if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles.lls
There is precedent, albeit from a different agency, suggesting that it is within the agency's discretion
to find overall rate case expenses to be unreasonable even if the underlying individual cost items are
found to be reasonable.' 16 Because Section 36.061(b) states that rate case expenses "may" be
recovered, OPUC contends (and the ALJ agrees) that the Commission is not required to grant

"3 OPUC Init. Br. at 12; Staff Reply Br. at 3. OPUC identifies the reduction factor as 14.5%. However, the ALJ
believes this is in error. OPUC witness Benedict testified that the financially-based incentive payments were $6.2 million
and the transmission equalization payments were $9 million, for a total of $15.2 million. Tr. at 85-86. By dividing
$15.2 million by $104.8 million, one arrives at a reduction factor of 14.5%. However, the Commission disallowed
$6.2 million in financially-based incentive compensation, plus $336,000 of ETI's capitalized financially-based incentive
compensation, for a total of $6.5 million in disallowances related to financially-based incentive payments. Application of
Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates, Reconcile Fuel Costs, and Obtain Deferred Accounting Treatment,
Docket 39896, Order on Rehearing at 17-18, 24-25 (November 1, 2012).
lia
City ofEl Paso v. Public Util. Comm'n, 916 S.W.2d 515, 522 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995, writ dism'd by agr.).
115
City ofAmarillo v. Railroad Comm 'n of Texas, 894 S.W.2d 491, 495 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995, writ den.).
116
City ofPort Neches v. Railroad Comm 'n of Texas, 212 S.W.3d 565, 581 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, no pet.)
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 31
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

recovery of every reasonable expense and can take into account other considerations. As explained
by OPUC, "[w]ithout this discretion, rate case expense proceedings would be rendered into mere
accounting exercises."117 A number of factors--such as the time and labor required; the nature of the
case; the size of the interest at stake; and the benefits to the client--have been deemed relevant to
determining the reasonableness of rate case expenses.118 Moreover, the parties agree that
Rule 1.04(b) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct also provides a number of
factors that can be considered when determining reasonableness of rate case expenses.' 19

With these basic parameters in mind, the AU turns to evaluating the three approaches
outlined above. The ALJ begins by rejecting the 50/50 Approach. ETI and Staff argue that the
approach is contrary to Commission precedent.120 The AU agrees. Given that there are clear
Commission precedents rejecting this approach, the AU recommends that it be rejected here.

The AU also recommends rejection of the Results-Obtained Approach, while acknowledging
that it has some strong arguments in its favor. ETI argues that the approach is counter to
Commission precedent. 12 1 However, according to Staff, the approach has been neither adopted nor
rejected by the Commission. In other words, it is an issue of first impression.122 OPUC and State
Agencies support the use of this approach. It is unclear whether Staff explicitly supports this
approach. However, Staff describes it as an "appealing" methodology "because it would provide a
utility an incentive not to overreach in its rate increase request. ,123 Moreover, Staff argues that the

methodology is akin to the performance-based standards regarding generation plant performance that

11^
OPUC Init. Br. at 11.
1's
City ofEl Paso, 916 S.W.2d at 522.
119 ETI Ex. 8 (Morris Direct) at 18-19.

120 Staff Init. Br. at 10; ETI Init. Br. at 19-20
121
ETI Init. Br. at 14.
122
Staff Init. Br. at 10.
123
Staff Init. Br. at 12.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 32
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

the Commission has approved in the past. For these reasons, Staff concludes that the Commission
has the legal authority to apply the Results-Obtained Approach in this case. 124

ETI complains, however, that it is a punitive and hindsight-driven approach to cost recovery,
rather than basing cost recovery on whether a utility acted reasonably at the time it incurred such
Costs. 125
This is the primary reason why the AU recommends against the Results-Obtained
Approach. Because it is an issue of first impression, ETI had no prior notice that its rate case

expenses might be subject to such a standard. The AU simply believes it would be unacceptably
draconian to slash ETI's rate case expenses by 73.6% based upon a standard that ETI could not have
known, beforehand, would be applied to it.

The AU recommends adoption of the Issue-Specific Reduction Approach in this case. Staff,
OPUC, and State Agencies all support its use. ETI argues that use of the approach is
unprecedented.126 Staff counters (and the AU agrees) that, far from being unprecedented, the

approach is entirely consistent with Commission precedent because the disallowance is a result of
specific, unreasonable actions by ETI.127

ETI argues that the Issue-Specific Reduction Approach is improper because there is no
evidence that the 14.8% reduction equals the amount of expenses it incurred pursuing financially-
based incentive costs and transmission equalization payments.128 Staff counters (and the ALJ agrees)
that ETI bore the burden of proving its reasonable expenses, and that burden necessarily requires that
it separate out any unreasonable expenses. Having failed to do so with respect to financially-based

124
Staff Init. Br. at 11.
12s
ETI Init. Br. at 17.
126 ETI Init. Br. at 19.
127
Staff Init. Br. at 14.
128
ETI Init. Br. at 18.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 33
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

incentives and transmission equalization payments, it is reasonable for the Commission to use the
Issue-Specific Reduction Approach as a proxy for calculating those expenses.129

There is also a point of disagreement as to the proper application of the Issue-Specific
Reduction Approach. ETI argues that the proponents of the approach are using the wrong
denominator in its formulation. Rather than dividing $15.5 million by $104.8 million (the size of the
rate increase sought by ETI), ETI asserts that $15.5 million ought to be divided by $2.1 billion (the
size of all of ETI's costs). ETI explains that, in Docket 39896, it was obligated to prove all of its

costs, not just the amount of the increase it sought. Under such a formula, the reduction factor would
be less than 1%.130 As pointed out by Staff and OPUC,131 ETI's reasoning is flawed. The entire
purpose of this proceeding was for ETI to obtain a rate increase, not to preserve its preexisting rates.
Indeed, the petition is styled "Application ... for Authority to Change Rates ...."132 There would

have been no need for a rate case if ETI merely sought approval of the same level of revenue
approved in the last rate case. Because a revenue increase was the driving factor for this case, the
amount of revenue increase requested is the appropriate benchmark to compare against
disallowances.

Having concluded that the Issue-Specific Reduction Approach should be utilized in this case,
the ALJ now discusses the application of the formula to the rate case expenses. As explained in the
second paragraph of Section IV.C of this PFD, in order to take into account the $75,800 of estimated
expenses for Cities, the ALJ recommends increasing ETI's overall rate case expenses request to
$8,828,345. From that amount, the ALJ subtracts the specific disallowances discussed in
Section IV.C.1 of this PFD:

121
Staff Init. Br. at 15.
13o
ETI Init. Br. at 18.
131
Staff Reply Br. at 12; OPUC Reply Br. at 4-5.
132
Emphasis added.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 34
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

• $207,683 for depreciation;
• $281 meals over $25;
• $10 for clothing;
• $40 for laundry service; and
• $480 lodging.

This leaves a balance of $8,619,851. When that balance is reduced by 14.8%, the remainder is
$7,344,113. It is this amount of rate case expenses that the AU recommends ETI be allowed to
recover.

D. Recovery Method

1. Rate Case Expense Allocation and the Recovery Mechanism

ETI proposes to allocate the approved rate case expenses among its retail classes using a
revenue allocator based upon ETI's pro forma Test Year revenues. Staff proposes, instead, that the
allocation be based on each retail rate classes's revenue requirement as approved by the Commission.
Staff argues that its approach would be more consistent with recent Commission precedent.133
Staff's specific recommendation is as follows:

[T]hat ETI's Schedule RCE-2 rates be set in the compliance phase of this
proceeding by multiplying the approved total amount by Staffs recommended
class allocator and dividing the resulting class share both by ETI's proposed
three-year amortization period and also by ETI's proposed class billing
determinants. 134

133
Staff Init. Br. at 17; Staff Ex. 1(Murphy Direct) at 4-5.
134
Staff Ex. 1(Murphy Direct) at 5.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 35
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

Staff further recommends that ETI be required to track its collections on Rider RCE and

terminate billing in the month in which the approved amount has been billed. 13s ETI does not object
to Staff's approach to allocation, so long as the Commission's final order includes standard language
allowing the company to seek recovery of any additional rate case expenses incurred after September
30, 2012, in its subsequent rate case.136 Staff does not object to this request by ETL137 No other

party objects to this approach, and the ALJ can find no reason to do so either.

2. ETI's Request to Earn a Return on the Unpaid Balance of Rate Case
Expenses

ETI asks that it be allowed to recover its rate case expenses over three years, and that it be

allowed to recover a return on the unpaid balance of the expenses during that time.138 No party
objects to the three-year duration, but Staff opposes ETI's request to earn interest on its rate case
expenses, contending that the Commission has consistently refused the recovery of a return on
unamortized rate case expenses. 139 State Agencies agree with Staff. 141

ETI responds by arguing that it is simply seeking to recover a necessary component of a cost
that is amortized over a period of time. According to ETI, the request for a return on the unpaid
balance merely represents the time value of money and the cost of the company's lost opportunity to
use the funds elsewhere.141 ETI cites to several Commission precedents in which a utility was
allowed to recover interest on various cost-of-service items, including Docket 39896, in which ETI
was allowed to earn a return on the unamortized balance of its Hurricane Rita Regulatory Asset over

'3s
Staff Ex. 1(Murphy Direct) at 5.
136
ETI Ex. 7 (Considine Rebuttal) at 5.
137 Staff Init. Br. at 18.
138 ETI Ex. 5 (Considine Rebuttal) at 7.
139
Staff's Init. Br., pp. 5-6.
140
State Agencies' Reply Br., pp. 3, 16.
141
ETI's Reply Br., pp. 23-24.
 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 36
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

five years.'42 ETI does not, however, cite to any Commission precedent specifically authorizing a
return on unpaid rate case expenses.

Staff has the better argument. In Docket 30706, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric
(CenterPoint) sought to recover its rate case expenses over three years with a return on the unpaid
balance. The Commission rejected CenterPoint's request for a return, explicitly noting its "practice
of not permitting utilities to receive interest on unpaid rate-case expenses."143 Consistent with this
clear Commission precedent, the ALJ recommends that ETI's request to recover a return on the
unpaid balance of its rate case expenses during the three-year payoff period be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

The ALJ recommends that the Commission implement the findings of the ALJ set forth in the
discussion above by adopting the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the
Commission's final order.

VI. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
ORDERING PARAGRAPHS

A. Findings of Fact

1. Entergy Texas, Inc. (ETI or the Company) is an investor-owned electric utility with a retail
service area located in southeastern Texas.

2. On November 28, 2011, ETI filed an application (the ETI Application) requesting, among
other things, approval of a proposed increase in annual base rate revenues of approximately
$111.8 million over adjusted test year revenues, and a new rider for recovery of costs related
to purchased power capacity.

112
Docket 39896, Proposal for Decision at 17-23; see also, Petition ofTexas-New Mexico Power CompanyforApproval
of Regulatory Asset Treatment of Expenses Related to System Benefit Fund Payments, Docket No. 26942, Order at 4
(Findings of Fact 26-29)(Aug. 22, 2003).
143
Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLCfor a Competition Transition Charge, Docket No. 30706,
Order at 32 (Jul. 14, 2005).
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 37
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

3. On November 29, 2011, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission or PUC)
referred the ETI Application to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for a
hearing and the matter was assigned docket number 39896 (Docket 39896).

4. On April 4, 2012, in Docket 39896, the ALJs issued SOAH Order No. 13 severing rate case
expense issues into a new docket, the case at issue here, Application ofEntergy Texas, Inc.
for Rate Case Expenses Severed from PUC Docket No. 39896, Docket No. 40295.

5. The hearing on the merits in Docket 39896 was held in April-May 2012.

6. The Proposal for Decision ( PFD) in Docket 39896 was issued July 6, 2012.

7. The Commission issued its final order in Docket 39896 on November 2, 2012.

8. The hearing on the merits in the present docket, Docket 40295, was held on November 28,
2012. The record closed on December 21, 2012, following the filing of post-hearing briefs.

9. The following parties were granted intervenor status in this docket: Office of Public Utility
Counsel (OPUC); the cities of Anahuac, Beaumont, Bridge City, Cleveland, Conroe, Dayton,
Groves, Houston, Huntsville, Montgomery, Navasota, Nederland, Oak Ridge North, Orange,
Pine Forest, Rose City, Pinehurst, Port Arthur, Port Neches, Shenandoah, Silsbee, Sour Lake,
Splendora, Vidor, and West Orange (Cities); State Agencies (State Agencies); and Texas
Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC). The staff (Staff) of the Commission was also a
participant in this docket.

10. In Docket 39896, ETI adjusted its request for a proposed increase in annual base rate
revenues to approximately $104.8 million over adjusted Test Year revenues.

11. In the PFD in Docket 39896, the ALJs recommended an overall rate increase of
$28.3 million.

12. In its final order in Docket 39896, the Commission largely followed the recommendations
contained in the PFD, but reduced ETI's overall rate increase to $27.7 million.

13. In this docket, ETI seeks to recover $8.8 million in rate case expenses associated with
Docket 39896.

14. Of that total, $7.6 million was incurred by ETI and $1.2 million was incurred by Cities.

15. Cities proved that, through August 31, 2012, they reasonably incurred rate case expenses of
$1,125,768.61 in Docket 39896 and this docket.

16. Cities reasonably estimated that their total rate case expenses in Docket 39896 and this
docket after August 31, 2012 will total $75,800.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 38
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

17. The amount of rate case expenses sought by ETI ($8.8 million) is high, both in absolute
terms, and in relation to the rate increase ultimately obtained by ETI in Docket 39896
($27.7 million).

18. Rate case expenses for ETI in the amount of $7,344,113 are reasonable and necessary and
should be allowed as a cost or expense by the Company. This amount is calculated by
reducing the requested amount by the amounts listed and for the reasons stated below:

a. $207,683 in depreciation of office equipment owned by Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI)
(an affiliated company of ETI) and used by ESI employees for their work in
Docket 39896 is not reasonable and is properly disallowed.

b. $281 for meals over $25 was erroneously sought by ETI, is not reasonable, and is
properly disallowed.

c. $10 for clothing purchased by an attorney for ETI is not reasonable and is properly
disallowed.

d. $40 for laundry charges by an attorney for ETI is not reasonable and is properly
disallowed.

e. $480 for a lodging charge unsupported by receipts is not reasonable and is properly
disallowed.

f. $1,275,738 attributable to unreasonable and overly aggressive arguments pursued by
ETI in Docket 39896 related to financially-based incentive compensation and
transmission equalization payments is properly disallowed.

B. Conclusions of Law

ETI is a "public utility" as that term is defined in the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA)
§ 11.004(1) and an "electric utility" as that term is defined in PURA § 31.002(6).

2. The Commission exercises regulatory authority over ETI and jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this application pursuant to PURA §§ 32.001, 32.101, 33.002, 33.051, and
36.101-111.

3. SOAH has jurisdiction over matters related to the conduct of the hearing and the preparation
of a proposal for decision in this docket, pursuant to PURA § 14.053 and Tex. Gov't Code
§ 2003.049.

4. This docket was processed in accordance with the requirements of PURA and the Texas
Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't Code Chapter 2001.
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 39
PUC DOCKET NO. 40295

5. Pursuant to PURA § 33.051, the Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal from a
municipality's rate proceeding.

6. Cities bore the burden to prove that the rate case expenses they incurred were reasonable.
PURA § 33.023.

7. Cities are entitled to reimbursement by ETI for:

a. rate case expenses of $1,125,768.61 incurred in Docket 39896 and this docket
through August 31, 2012; and

b. actual expenses incurred by Cities in Docket 39896 and this docket after August 31,
2012, including any appeals, up to a maximum possible amount of $75,800.

8. ETI bore the burden of proving that the rate case expenses it incurred in Docket 39896 were
reasonable. PURA § 36.061(b).

9. ETI proved the reasonableness of its rate case expenses in the amount of $7,344.113, and
is entitled to claim that amount as a cost.

C. Proposed Ordering Paragraphs

In accordance with these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission issues the
following orders:

1. The Proposal for Decision prepared by the SOAH ALJs is adopted to the extent consistent
with this Order.

2. All other motions, requests for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied.

3. Cities' and ETI's requests to recover rate case expenses are granted to the extent consistent
with this Order.

SIGNED February 19, 2013.

,17^- 9--,
HHUNTE11 BURI TER
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
 APPENDIX C

Chart of PUC Dockets Addressing the Two-Bucket
Incentive Compensation Policy Statutes
 Chart of PUC Dockets Addressing the Two-Bucket Incentive Compensation Policy

Docket Date Proceeding Decision
28840 2005.08.15 Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, AEP Final Order
Texas Central Co. Application
for Authority to Change Rates, FF 169: The financial measures are of more
Docket immediate benefit to shareholders, and the
http://interchange.puc.texas.g operating measures are of more immediate benefit
ov/WebApp/Interchange/appli to ratepayers.
cation/dbapps/filings/pgSearc
h_Results.asp?TXT_CNTR_N FF 170: Incentives to achieve operational measures
O=28840&TXT_ITEM_NO=8 are necessary and reasonable to provide T&D utility
78 services, but those to achieve financial measures
are not.

CL 40: The Applicant met its burden of proof with
regard to incentive compensation but only with
respect to that portion relating to Operational
Measures; the amount includible in the cost of
service is 34% of $4.42 million.

33309 2008.03.04 Application of AEP Texas Order on Rehearing
Central Company for Authority
to Change Rates FF 82: TCC’s inclusion of annual and long-term
http://interchange.puc.state.tx incentive compensation related to financial
.us/WebApp/Interchange/Doc incentives in cost of service is unreasonable
uments/33309_769_577453.P because it is not necessary for the provision of T&D
DF utility services.

34800 2009.03.16 Application of Entergy Gulf Final Order
States, Inc. for Authority to Based on contested stipulation
Change Rates
And to Reconcile Fuel Costs FF 46. The stipulated revenue requirement does
http://interchange.puc.state.tx not include any amounts for financial based
.us/WebApp/Interchange/Doc incentive compensation.
uments/34800_2046_611798.
PDF
35717 2009.11.30 Application of Oncor Electric Order on Rehearing
Delivery Company, LLC for FF 92. Incentive compensation based on financial
Authority to Change Rates measures or goals is of more immediate benefit to
http://interchange.puc.state.tx shareholders.
.us/WebApp/Interchange/Doc FF 93. Of the amount Oncor requested for incentive
uments/36530_65_630084.P compensation, $5,082,326 should be removed
DF because it is related to financial measures that are
unreasonable and unnecessary for the provision of
T&D utility services.
38339 2011.06.23 Application of CenterPoint Order on Rehearing
Electric Delivery Company, FF81. The evidence demonstrates that
LLC, for Authority to Change CenterPoint's short-term incentive compensation
Rates plan (STI) is a reasonable and necessary
http://interchange.puc.state.tx component of a total compensation package
.us/WebApp/Interchange/Doc required to recruit, retain, and motivate employees.
uments/38339_906_701290.P FF 82. CenterPoint's long-term incentive-
DF compensation plan (LTI) is not a reasonable and
necessary component of CenterPoint's total
compensation package.
FF 83. The corporate and financial goals of STI are
directly tied to metrics such as customer service
and safety.

PFD at 66:
The core of the intervenors' argument is that
CenterPoint's LTI (and, in the case of TIEC, over
half of its STI) violates Commission precedent
because it is tied to financial measures. The
intervenors argue that substantial precedent exists
requiring a disallowance of CenterPoint's financial-
based incentive compensation. In Docket No.
28840, the Commission adopted the ALJs' findings
that the portions of American Electric Power
Company's (AEP) incentive compensation program
that were tied to operational performance measures
are recoverable through rates but that portions tied
to financial performance measures are not. The
ALJs examined AEP's "CIP" incentive
compensation program and determined that 66
percent of the program was tied to financial [67]
measures. The Commission agreed with the ALJs
that these measures "are of more immediate benefit
to shareholders" and are not "necessary and
reasonable to provide T&D utility service."
40443 2014.03.06 Application of Southwestern Order on Rehearing p. 13
Electric Power Company for Therefore, the Commission modifies finding of fact
Authority to Change Rates and 147 to clarify that the portion of SWEPCO's annual
Reconcile Fuel Costs and long-term incentive payments that are
Order on Rehearing capitalized and that are financially-based are
http://interchange.puc.state.tx excluded from SWEPCO's rate base because the
.us/WebApp/Interchange/Doc benefits of such payments inure most immediately
uments/40443_1155_782838. and predominantly to SWEPCO's shareholders,
PDF rather than its electric customers. Also, an error in
finding of fact 220 is corrected to reflect that, of
SWEPCO's annual incentive compensation of
$10,728,117, $3,523,732 is disallowed as financial
goals. These same findings are clarified to reflect
that the part of the long-term incentive
compensation program that includes performance
units is disallowed as being based on financial
measures, and the part that includes restricted
stock units is allowed - $3,130,757 is disallowed
from the $5,175,829 in long-term incentive
compensation.

FF 214. SWEPCO sought to recover in rate base a
total amount of $10,728,117 paid as annual
incentive compensation to its employees and
$5,175,829 paid for long-term incentive
compensation.
FF 215. The PUC permits a utility to recover in its
base rate incentives that are designed to achieve
"operational measures" and that are necessary and
reasonable to provide utility services, but not
incentive programs that are designed to achieve
"financial measures."
FF 216. Operational measures are those designed to
encourage a utility's employees to meet goals and
standards relating to the efficient operation of the
utility, a benefit to shareholders
and ratepayers alike.
FF 217. Financial measures are those designed to
encourage employees to achieve financial targets, a
benefit primarily to shareholders.
FF 218. SWEPCO's "Regulatory," "Strategic," and
"Margin Generating" annual incentive goals relate
to financial measures.
FF 219. SWEPCO's long term incentive awards in
the form of performance units relate to financial
measures.
FF 220. Of SWEPCO's annual incentive
compensation of $10,728,117, $3,523,732 should be
disallowed as financial goals. Of SWEPCO's long-
term compensation, all but
$2,045,072 of the total should be disallowed as
financial goals.
 APPENDIX D

Statutes and Rules
Government Code

Sec. 2001.175. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW UNDER SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE RULE OR UNDEFINED SCOPE OF REVIEW.

(a) The procedures of this section apply if the manner of review authorized by law for
the decision in a contested case that is the subject of complaint is other than by trial de
novo.
(b) After service of the petition on a state agency and within the time permitted for
filing an answer or within additional time allowed by the court, the agency shall send to
the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding
under review. The record shall be filed with the clerk of the court. The record may be
shortened by stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings. The court may assess
additional costs against a party who unreasonably refuses to stipulate to limit the
record, unless the party is subject to a rule adopted under Section 2001.177 requiring
payment of all costs of record preparation. The court may require or permit later
corrections or additions to the record.
(c) A party may apply to the court to present additional evidence. If the court is
satisfied that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for
the failure to present it in the proceeding before the state agency, the court may order
that the additional evidence be taken before the agency on conditions determined by the
court. The agency may change its findings and decision by reason of the additional
evidence and shall file the additional evidence and any changes, new findings, or
decisions with the reviewing court.
(d) The party seeking judicial review shall offer, and the reviewing court shall admit,
the state agency record into evidence as an exhibit.
(e) A court shall conduct the review sitting without a jury and is confined to the agency
record, except that the court may receive evidence of procedural irregularities alleged to
have occurred before the agency that are not reflected in the record.
Utilities Code

Sec. 31.001. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; PURPOSE OF SUBTITLE.

(a) This subtitle is enacted to protect the public interest inherent in the rates and
services of electric utilities. The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a comprehensive
and adequate regulatory system for electric utilities to assure rates, operations, and
services that are just and reasonable to the consumers and to the electric utilities.
(b) Electric utilities are by definition monopolies in many of the services provided
and areas they serve. As a result, the normal forces of competition that regulate prices in
a free enterprise society do not always operate. Public agencies regulate electric utility
rates, operations, and services, except as otherwise provided by this subtitle.
(c) The wholesale electric industry, through federal legislative, judicial, and
administrative actions, is becoming a more competitive industry that does not lend itself
to traditional electric utility regulatory rules, policies, and principles. As a result, the
public interest requires that rules, policies, and principles be formulated and applied to
protect the public interest in a more competitive marketplace. The development of a
competitive wholesale electric market that allows for increased participation by electric
utilities and certain nonutilities is in the public interest.

Sec. 36.002. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE.

An electric utility may not charge or receive a rate for utility service except as provided
by this title.

Sec. 36.051. ESTABLISHING OVERALL REVENUES.

In establishing an electric utility's rates, the regulatory authority shall establish the
utility's overall revenues at an amount that will permit the utility a reasonable
opportunity to earn a reasonable return on the utility's invested capital used and useful
in providing service to the public in excess of the utility's reasonable and necessary
operating expenses.
Sec. 36.058. CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT TO AFFILIATE.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the regulatory authority may not allow as
capital cost or as expense a payment to an affiliate for:
(1) the cost of a service, property, right, or other item; or
(2) interest expense.
(b) The regulatory authority may allow a payment described by Subsection (a) only
to the extent that the regulatory authority finds the payment is reasonable and necessary
for each item or class of items as determined by the commission.
(c) A finding under Subsection (b) must include:
(1) a specific finding of the reasonableness and necessity of each item or class of
items allowed; and
(2) a finding that the price to the electric utility is not higher than the prices
charged by the supplying affiliate for the same item or class of items to:
(A) its other affiliates or divisions; or
(B) a nonaffiliated person within the same market area or having the same
market conditions.
(d) In making a finding regarding an affiliate transaction, the regulatory authority
shall:
(1) determine the extent to which the conditions and circumstances of that
transaction are reasonably comparable relative to quantity, terms, date of contract,
and place of delivery; and
(2) allow for appropriate differences based on that determination.
(e) This section does not require a finding to be made before payments made by an
electric utility to an affiliate are included in the utility's charges to consumers if there is a
mechanism for making the charges subject to refund pending the making of the finding.
(f) If the regulatory authority finds that an affiliate expense for the test period is
unreasonable, the regulatory authority shall:
(1) determine the reasonable level of the expense; and
(2) include that expense in determining the electric utility's cost of service.
Sec. 36.061. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES.

(a) The regulatory authority may not allow as a cost or expense for ratemaking
purposes:
(1) an expenditure for legislative advocacy; or
(2) an expenditure described by Section 32.104 that the regulatory authority
determines to be not in the public interest.
(b) The regulatory authority may allow as a cost or expense:
(1) reasonable charitable or civic contributions not to exceed the amount
approved by the regulatory authority; and
(2) reasonable costs of participating in a proceeding under this title not to exceed
the amount approved by the regulatory authority.
(c) An electric utility located in a portion of this state not subject to retail
competition may establish a bill payment assistance program for a customer who is a
military veteran who a medical doctor certifies has a significantly decreased ability to
regulate the individual's body temperature because of severe burns received in combat.
A regulatory authority shall allow as a cost or expense a cost or expense of the bill
payment assistance program. The electric utility is entitled to:
(1) fully recover all costs and expenses related to the bill payment assistance
program;
(2) defer each cost or expense related to the bill payment assistance program not
explicitly included in base rates; and
(3) apply carrying charges at the utility's weighted average cost of capital to the
extent related to the bill payment assistance program.
Sec. 36.062. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES.

The regulatory authority may not consider for ratemaking purposes:
(1) an expenditure for legislative advocacy, made directly or indirectly, including
legislative advocacy expenses included in trade association dues;
(2) a payment made to cover costs of an accident, equipment failure, or negligence at
a utility facility owned by a person or governmental entity not selling power in this state,
other than a payment made under an insurance or risk-sharing arrangement executed
before the date of loss;
(3) an expenditure for costs of processing a refund or credit under Section 36.110; or
(4) any other expenditure, including an executive salary, advertising expense, legal
expense, or civil penalty or fine, the regulatory authority finds to be unreasonable,
unnecessary, or not in the public interest.
 APPENDIX E

Certified Copy of ETI Ex. 41 from Docket 39896

ETI Exhibit 41 from Docket 39896 includes an appendix
of supporting information on a CD. That CD is too
voluminous to be filed electronically. Therefore, the
Commission has copied only those parts of the CD that
it has cited, changed them to PFD format, and attached
them to the body of Exhibit 41. The Commission stands
ready to provide the Court or any other party a copy of
the entire CD on request.
 SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX
PUC Docket No. 39896
ETI 2011 Rate Case
ETI EXHIBIT NO. 41
DOCKET NO. 39896

APPLICATION OF ENTERGY § PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
TEXAS, INC. FOR AUTHORITY §
TO CHANGE RATES AND § OF TEXAS
RECONCILE FUEL COSTS §

DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

STEPHANIE B. TUMMINELLO

ON BEHALF OF

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.

NOVEMBER 2011

201 I ETI Rate Case
 ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF STEPHANIE B. TUMMINELLO
2011 RATE CASE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Name and Qualifications 1
11. Introduction 3

Ill. Background Information Regarding Entergy Corporation and its
Subsidiaries 8

IV. Affiliate Transaction Regulation 15
V. Affiliate Case Layout 25
VI. The Affiliate Billing Process 41

VII. ESI Service Billings 44
A Overview of the ESI Billing Process 44

B. Summary of ESI Billings to Affiliated Companies 55
c. Billing Methods 57
1. Billing Method Overview 57
2. Billing Method Calculations 64
D. Service Company Recipient Allocation (also referred to as
Shared Services Loader) 65
Payroll Loaders 70
Other Affiliate Billings

IK Sponsored Classes of Affiliate Costs

A Overview 74
B. Depreciation Class 76
1. Description of Class 76
 2. Necessity 79

3. Reasonableness 81

4. How Costs are Charged 84

C. Service Company Recipient Offsets (also referred to as
Shared Services loader Offsets) 86
1. Description of Class 86
D. Other Expenses Class 87

1. Description of Class 87

2. Necessity 91

3. Reasonableness 92

4. How Costs are Charged 92

X. Sponsored Affiliate Pro Forma Adjustments 93
XL Benchmarking of ESI COsts 94

XII. Conclusion 98

2011 ETI Rate Case
 EXHIBITS

Exhibit SBT-A Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class and Department

Exhibit SBT-A.1 Roadmap to Exhibit SBT-A

Exhibit SBT-B Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class and Project

Exhibit SBT-B.1 Roadmap to Exhibit SBT-B

Exhibit SBT-C Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class, Department and Project

Exhibit SBT-C.1 Roadmap to Exhibit SBT-C

Exhibit SBT-D Affiliate Billings - Pro Forma Summary - by Witness, Class
and Pro Forma

Exhibit SBT-D.1 Roadmap to Exhibit SBT-D

Exhibit SBT-E Project Summaries

Exhibit SBT-F Electronic Format of SBT Exhibits and Workpapers on
Compact Disc

Exhibit SBT-1 Professional Work Experience

Exhibit SBT-2 Entergy System Subsidiaries Discussion

Exhibit SBT-3 Regulated/Non-Regulated Affiliate Organization Charts

Exhibit SBT-4A Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Texas, Inc.

Exhibit SBT-4B Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Arkansas

Exhibit SBT-4C Service Agreement Between ESI and EGS Holdings, Inc.

Exhibit SBT-4D Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana

Exhibit SBT-4E Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Louisiana
Holdings, Inc.

Exhibit SBT-4F Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Louisiana

Exhibit SBT-4G Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Louisiana
Properties, LLC

n ...., A A
 Exhibit SBT-4H Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Mississippi

Exhibit SBT-41 Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy New Orleans

Exhibit SBT-4J Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Corporation

Exhibit SBT-4K Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Operations

Exhibit SBT-4L Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Power

Exhibit SBT-4M Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy Enterprises

Exhibit SBT-4N Service Agreement Between ESI and System Fuels

Exhibit SBT-40 Service Agreement Between ESI and System Energy

Exhibit SBT-4P Service Agreement Between ESI and Entergy New Nuclear
Utility Development, LLC

Exhibit SBT-5 Functions and Classes

Exhibit SBT-6 Families and Functions

Exhibit SBT-7 Affiliates That Receive Services from ESI

Exhibit SBT-8 ESI Test Year Per Book Billings to Affiliates by Project

Exhibit SBT-9 ESI Annual Billings to Affiliates 2008 - 2010

Exhibit SBT-10A FERC Order Accepting Entergy's Service Company Cost
Allocation Request

Exhibit SBT-108 FERC Order Accepting ESl's October 28, 2010 Filing
Request

Exhibit SBT-11 Affiliate Billing Exclusions by Class

Exhibit SBT-12 Pro Forma Documentation

Exhibit 13 Flow of Test Year Affiliate Costs - G-6 Schedules and
Supporting Information

Exhibit SBT-14 Elements of ETl's Cost of Service

Exhibit SBT-15 Affiliate Billing Process Discussion

2011 ETI Rate Case
Exhibit SBT-16 ESI Time and Expense Training

Exhibit SBT-17 Direct vs. Allocated ESI Test Year Per Book Billings to
Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-18 Definition of Terms - Direct, Indirect, Allocated, and
Overhead

Exhibit SBT-19 ESI Billing Methods - Basis for Calculation and Types of
Costs Allocated Using Billing Methods

Exhibit SBT-20 Entergy Arkansas Test Year Billings to Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-21 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Test Year Billings to Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-22 Entergy Louisiana Test Year Billings to Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-23 Entergy Mississippi Test Year Billings to Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-24 Entergy New Orleans Test Year Billings to Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-25 Entergy Non-Regulated Affiliates Test Year Billings to
Regulated Affiliates

Exhibit SBT-26 ESI Net Book Value of Assets

Exhibit SBT-27 Service Company Property Per Employee with Graph

Exhibit SBT-28A ESI Benchmarking Analysis Peer Group

Exhibit SBT-28B Service Company O&M as a Percentage of Total Company
O&M

Exhibit SBT-28C Service Company O&M as a Percentage of Total Company
Revenue

Service Company O&M as a Percentage of Total Company
Assets

Exhibit SBT-28E Service Company O&M Per Service Company Employee
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 1 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 I. NAME AND QUALIFICATIONS

2 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

3 A My name is Stephanie B. Tumminello. During the Commission's last

4 review in Docket No. 377 44 and during the test period in this case through

5 June 24, 2011, my name was Stephanie B. Neyland. My business

6 address is 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70113.

7

8 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

9 A I am employed by Entergy Services, Inc. ("ESI" or "Entergy Services") as

10 Manager of Affiliate Accounting and Allocations, which was formerly

11 lntrasystem Affiliate Billing ("ISABill"). 1

12

13 Q. ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU TESTIFYING IN THIS PROCEEDING?

14 A I am testifying on behalf of Entergy Texas, Inc. ("ETI" or the "Company").

15

16 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.

17 A I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from the University of

18 New Orleans. I am a Certified Public Accountant licensed in the State of

19

This is distinct from the intra-system bill invoicing process discussed by Company witness
Patrick J. Cicio.

2011 ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 2 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

2 A. I have been employed by ESI for approximately 15 years and have held

3 various positions in the Accounting and Finance organizations. ESI is one

4 of the service companies providing services to Entergy Corporation and its

5 subsidiaries. 2 My work experience is described in more detail in

6 Exhibit SBT-1.

7

8 Q. WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL AREAS OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS

9 MANAGER OF AFFILIATE ACCOUNTING AND ALLOCATIONS?

10 A. I am responsible for the intrasystem affiliate billing processes of the

11 Entergy Service Companies: ESI, Entergy Operations, Inc. ("EOI"),

12 Entergy Enterprises, Inc. ("EEi"), and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

13 ("ENUC"). I oversee these companies' billing processes and procedures

14 to ensure they are in compliance with applicable requirements of the retail

15 regulators of the Entergy Operating Companies, 3 the Public Utility Holding

16 Company Act of 2005 ("PUHCA 2005"), and Federal Energy Regulatory

17 Commission ("FERC") regulations. 4

Each of these subsidiaries is a
I use the name "Entergy·· or Companies" to mean, f'n11.::.f'tnJ<=>
and its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Each of these subsidiaries is a separate legal entity.
The Entergy Operating Companies ("Operating Companies") are: ETI; Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
("EAi'' or "Entergy Arkansas"): Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. L.L.C. ("EGSL." ''EGSLA," or
"Entergy Gulf States Louisiana"); Entergy Louisiana, LLC CELL" or "Entergy Louisiana");
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. ("EMI" or "Entergy Mississippi"); and Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
("ENOI" or "Entergy New Orleans").
4
See Exhibit SBT-2 for a discussion of the regulation of Entergy Corporation's subsidiaries.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 3 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie R Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 My responsibilities also include billings, allocations, approval of

2 billing method assignments on project codes, and updating and

3 maintaining processes for allocations related to the affiliates. I have

4 overall responsibility for all affiliate billing functions.

5 My responsibilities include oversight for the review of the elements

6 of billable project code ("PC") requests and the approval of each billable

7 PC. I am also responsible for analyzing the amounts billed to affiliates to

8 ensure that the billing process is efficient and effective. In addition, I have

9 oversight for the provision of advice and training for ESI employees

10 regarding affiliate billing issues. My accounting responsibility for ESI as a

11 business unit ("BU"; also known as "legal entity" or "LE") includes

12 providing information required for the preparation of the ESI FERC Form

13 60, Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies, as well as the

14 FERC Form 60 reports for EOI, EEi and ENUC.

15

16 II. INTRODUCTION

17 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

18 A. The primary purpose of my testimony is to provide an overview of ETl's

19 affiliate case. also discuss the regulation of affiliate transactions.

addition, I explain affiliate portion the Company's filing is

21 organized. I address several affiliate transaction-related issues, such as

22 the affiliate billing processes used by ESI, the Operating Companies, other

201 I ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 4 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 regulated affiliates, 5 and non-regulated affiliates to collect and bill costs to

2 their affiliates, including ETI, for services rendered. A more detailed

3 discussion of the purpose of my testimony is provided below.

4 Affiliate Case Layout: In the Affiliate Case Layout section of my

5 testimony, I describe how affiliate charges to ETI have been organized

6 into classes, explain how the affiliate case is organized and how it ties to

7 the G-6 schedules and supporting workpapers, 6 and introduce the other

8 affiliate witnesses. I describe how the information in this filing is presented

9 for the purpose of showing:

10 • affiliate costs charged to ETI are necessary;

11 • affiliate costs charged to ETI are reasonable;

12 • the prices charged to ETI for each class of items are no
13 higher than the prices charged to other affiliates, or to
14 non-affiliates, for the same or similar class of items; and

15 • the allocated amounts represent the actual cost of services
16 to ETI.

17 I also explain why the affiliate costs charged to ETI do not include

18 prohibited expenses and that the services provided to ETI by affiliates are

19 not duplicative of services provided internally by ETI or other affiliates.

20 Each affiliate cost witness will provide testimony supporting the

reasonableness classes that or

5
Entergy's regulated affiliates include the Operating Companies as well as System Fuels, Inc.
("SFI" or "System Fuels"); EOI; ESI; System Energy Resources, Inc. ("SERI" or "System
Energy"); and Entergy New Nuclear Utility Development LLC.
Schedule G-6 is a section within the Public Utility Commission of Texas' ("Commission's")
Rate It includes a of test year transactions.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 5 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 she sponsors. These affiliate witnesses will also support the

2 appropriateness of the billing methods that are used for the classes that

3 they address. Exhibits that show, in consistent formats, the affiliate

4 expenses for each class accompany each witness's testimony. As the

5 affiliate overview witness, my testimony collects and assembles all of

6 those individual class exhibits into one exhibit for ease of review.

7 Affiliate Transaction-Related Issues: In connection with my

8 discussion of the affiliate billing processes, I will:

9 (a) provide background information regarding Entergy
10 Corporation and its regulated and non-regulated
11 subsidiaries;

12 (b) describe the affiliate billing process, including
13 discussions regarding project billings, loaned
14 resource billings, co-owner billings, and controls;

15 (c) discuss the ESI service billings, including an overview
16 of the billing process, a summary of ESI charges to
17 affiliated companies, the service company recipient
18 allocation process, billing methods, and allocation
19 rates and statistics;

20 (d) discuss billings to ETI during the test year; and

21 (e) describe the pro forma adjustments associated with
22 the affiliate billings to ETI included in this filing and
23 discuss those pro forma adjustments that I sponsor.

24 In addition to the overview of affiliates charges, I sponsor specific

classes affiliate

26 and amortization of ESI assets used in providing services); (2) Service

27 Company Recipient Offsets (sometimes referred to as "Shared Services

28 Loader Offsets"); and (3) Other Expenses.

201 I ETJ Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 6 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 a. WHAT EXHIBITS ARE YOU INCLUDING AS PART OF YOUR

2 TESTIMONY?

3 A. The exhibits that I am including as part of my testimony appear in the list

4 following the Table of Contents. Because these exhibits are voluminous

5 and include a number of spreadsheets, I have provided all of my exhibits,

6 workpapers, and schedule information on the attached CD, labeled

7 Exhibit SBT-F, rather than in paper form.

8

9 a. DO YOU SPONSOR OR CO-SPONSOR ANY SCHEDULES IN THE

10 RATE FILING PACKAGE?

11 A. Yes, I co-sponsor several Rate Filing Package ("RFP") schedules filed in

12 this proceeding. I am co-sponsoring with other witnesses the following

13 schedules:

14 • Schedule G-6

15 • Schedule G-6.1

16 • Schedule G-6.2

17 I am also co-sponsoring the following workpapers included in

18 support of Schedule G-6 of the RFP:

19

20 (set 1 WP/G-6.1 1 1)

21 WP/G-6 (set 2) WP/G-6.1 (set 2) WP/G-6.2 (set 2)

22 WP/G-6 (set 3) WP/G-6.1 (set 3) WP/G-6.2 (set 3)

4) WP/G-6.1 (set WP/G-6.2 (set 4)
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 7 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 WP/G-6 (set 5) WP/G-6.1 (set 5) WP/G-6.2 (set 5)

2 WP/G-6 (set 6) WP/G-6.1 (set 6) WP/G-6.2 (set 6)

3 These schedules and supporting workpapers were prepared by me

4 or under my direct supervision.

5

6 Q. ON WHAT BASIS WERE THE SCHEDULES THAT YOU JUST

7 MENTIONED PREPARED?

8 A. They were prepared from the books and records of ESI and its affiliates

9 and are accurate summaries of the business records on which they are

10 based. Deloitte & Touche LLP ("D&T"), the independent auditor for

11 Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries, has performed a review of the

12 historical financial information included in Schedules A through W

13 (excluding l and R) of the RFP, and have reported its findings in

14 Schedule S.

15

16 Q. WHAT TEST YEAR IS ETI USING IN THIS FILING?

17 A. The test year in this case is the twelve months ended June 30, 2011.

18

19 Q. WHAT IS DOLLAR AMOUNT

INTHE YEAR COST OF

21 A. RFP Schedule G-6 shows that the Company's "Total ETI Adjusted"

22 amount for affiliate charges for the test year is $78,998,777.

201 J ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 8 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Additionally, there are capitalized affiliate charges included in the

2 ETI capital additions that the Company is seeking to place in rate base.

3 These capital additions are addressed by other witnesses. ESI costs are

4 directly charged or allocated to capital work orders in the same manner as

5 costs are allocated to operations and maintenance expense-based project

6 codes, the latter of which are discussed in detail in my testimony.

7

8 Q. WHAT TYPE OF SYSTEM DO THE ENTERGY COMPANIES USE TO

9 CAPTURE COSTS?

10 A. The Entergy Companies use a project costing application (PowerPlant)

11 that provides a single point of entry for all PCs (that is, "project codes"). A

12 PC is an alpha numeric code that is assigned to individual projects

13 established within organizations (also referred to as "departments"). Each

14 PC is applicable to a specific assignment or activity. For example, a PC

15 would be assigned to a project to develop a specific software application,

16 a specific construction project, an employee training project, or any of a

17 myriad of activities that are necessary to run a utility.

18

19 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING ENTERGY
CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

21 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE ENTERGY CORPORATION.

22 A. Entergy Corporation owns both regulated and non-regulated companies.

23 Exhibit SBT-2 provides a detailed discussion of Entergy Corporation
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 9 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 subsidiaries. Exhibit SBT-3 is an organization chart for Entergy

2 Corporation and its subsidiaries, including both regulated and direct non-

3 regulated companies, as of June 30, 2011.

4

5 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE ENTERGY CORPORATION AND ITS

6 WHOLLY-OWNED REGULATED SUBSIDIARIES.

7 A. Entergy Corporation owns all of the outstanding common stock of six retail

8 Operating Company subsidiaries: ETI, EAi, EGSL, ELL, EMI, and ENOI.

9 As of June 30, 2011, these Operating Companies provided electric service

10 to approximately 2.7 million customers in the states of Arkansas,

11 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

12 Entergy Corporation also owns all of the outstanding common stock

13 of System Energy, ESI, and EOI, which are regulated by the Nuclear

14 Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and/or the FERC. System Energy is a

15 nuclear generating company that sells the generating capacity and energy

16 from its 90% interest in the Grand Gulf nuclear plant at wholesale to its

17 only customers: EAi, ELL, EMI, and ENO!. ESI is a service company

18 established to provide professional services primarily to Entergy's

19 regulated utilities or Operating Companies.

is also a company, and was established to provide

21 nuclear management and operations and maintenance services to

22 Entergy's regulated nuclear plants: Arkansas Nuclear One; River Bend;

201 l ET! Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 10 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Waterford 3; and Grand Gulf. Although these plants are operated by EOI,

2 they are owned by: EAi; EGSL; ELL; and System Energy, respectively.

3

4 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF ENTERGY'S NON-REGULATED

5 SUBSIDIARIES.

6 A. Entergy's non-regulated subsidiaries include, among others, EEi, Entergy

7 Power, LLC ("EPL"), a wholesale power producer that is a subsidiary of

8 Entergy Asset Management, Inc., and ENUC, a service company

g established to provide nuclear management and operations services to

10 Entergy's non-regulated nuclear plants. For a more detailed discussion of

11 Entergy's direct non-regulated affiliates, please refer to Exhibit SBT-2.

12

13 Q. FROM WHICH OF THE ENTERGY SUBSIDIARIES DOES ETI RECEIVE

14 THE MOST SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF AFFILIATE CHARGES?

15 A. ETI receives the most significant level of affiliate charges from ESL In

16 addition to affiliate charges from ESI, ETI receives charges from the other

17 Operating Companies, EOI, and from certain non-regulated affiliates.

18

19 SOURCE MOST CHARGES?

20 A. Centralization of activities through the creation of service companies

21 results in economies of scale and provides a pool of centralized expertise

22 for Entergy Corporation's regulated utility affiliates. As noted previously,

ENUC are the four primary service companies. EOI

f\ 1 CL
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 11 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 provides services to the regulated nuclear plants, and EEi and ENUC

2 provide services to non-regulated affiliates, as more fully described in

3 Exhibit SBT-2. I provide an overview of the services provided by ESL

4

5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF ESI.

6 A. ESI is authorized to conduct business as a service company by a

7 temporary order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission

8 ("SEC") in March 1963, which was made permanent in March 1965. ESI

9 was formed as, and continues to be, primarily a service company for the

10 Operating Companies. Costs incurred by ESI to provide services to all

11 regulated companies, including ETI, are billed at cost and do not produce

12 a profit. ESI also performs services for some of Entergy's non-regulated

13 companies through ESl's Service Agreement with EEi. These services

14 are billed at cost plus 5%. Exhibit SBT-2 provides a more detailed

15 discussion of ESl's purpose and function.

16

17 Q. WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES DOES ESI PROVIDE?

18 A. The services ESI provides to its affiliates include general executive,

19 management, advisory, administrative, human resources, accounting,

legal, regulatory, and engineering services. These services are provided

21 in accordance with Service Agreements entered into by ESI and the

22 respective affiliates to which it provides services. The Service

23 Agreements between ES! and its affiliates are included as Exhibits SBT-

2011 ETJ Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 12 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate

1 4A through SBT-4P. These Service Agreements outline the general types

2 of services that ESI provides.

3 ESI provides services according to functional groupings that reflect

4 the way ESI is organized. See Exhibits SBT-5 and SBT-6 for details,

5 which I discuss in more detail later in my testimony. These groupings are

6 reflected in the presentation of ETl's affiliate expenses in this filing and

7 represent a compilation of the services that are provided to ETI by ESI.

8 The types of services outlined in the Service Agreements between

9 ESI and the affiliates that it serves have been grouped in classes that are

10 discussed later in my testimony for the purpose of presentation in this

11 filing. Exhibit SBT-7 shows the affiliates that receive services from ESI.

12

13 Q. IS THE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ESI AND ETI DIFFERENT

14 IN SUBSTANCE FROM THE SERVICE AGREEMENTS ESI HAS WITH

15 THE OTHER AFFILIATED COMPANIES?

16 A. No. The Service Agreements between ESI and each of the other Entergy

17 affiliates discussed previously are the same in substance. However, the

18 types and amounts of services vary among the companies.

19

20 Q. ARE ALL NON-REGULATED ENTERGY COMPANIES TO

21 SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH ESI?

22 A. No. ESI does not directly provide services to all of the non-regulated

affiliates. however, does provide services directly to EPL and
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 13 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 and has service agreements with these two non-regulated companies.

2 When ESI provides services to EEi, the provision of these services is

3 often the result of a request for services made by a non-regulated

4 company to EEi. When that situation arises, the billing for that service is

5 made by ESI to EEi and, in turn, EEi bills the non-regulated company for

6 the service. As shown on Exhibit SBT-8, total ESI billings to EPL and EEi

7 were .03% and 16.06%, respectively, of ESl's total billings to all affiliates

8 during the test year. 7 As indicated in Exhibit SBT-9, total ESI billings to

9 EPL declined from 2008 to 2010, while billings to EEi increased from 2008

10 to 2010.

11

12 Q. WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY ESI TO THE NON-

13 REGULATED AFFILIATES THROUGH EEi?

14 A Although ESI was formed to serve primarily Entergy Corporation's

15 regulated utility operations, there are three general categories of services

16 that ESI provides to the non-regulated companies through EEi. The first

17 type of services provided by ESI through EEi are those provided solely to

18 EEi or a non-regulated affiliate. For instance, ESI provides services with

19 regard to specific non-routine projects, tax legal issues. or

21 These costs are billed 100% to EEL

Exhibit SBT-8 includes a schedule of ESI to affiliates the test year.

201 i ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 14 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 The second type of services provided by ESI through EEi is the

2 type of services that concurrently are used by both the regulated and

3 non-regulated Entergy affiliates. For example, non-regulated companies

4 participate in certain payroll, human resources, benefits, accounts

5 payable, communications, and support services primarily provided to the

6 regulated companies. However, the level of such services may differ

7 between the regulated and non-regulated affiliates. For example, ESI

8 processes all of the payroll transactions for the regulated affiliates,

9 whereas ESI processes some, but not all, of the non-regulated companies'

10 payroll transactions. In this instance, the billing method for allocating the

11 costs assigned to the associated PC is calculated based on the number of

12 paychecks issued for those companies for which the services are

13 provided.

14 The third type of ESI service provided and billed to EEi is for EEi's

15 allocable share of ESl's overhead and departmental costs. ESI, like any

16 corporation, incurs costs that are necessary to maintain and support its

17 existence. Therefore, ESl's expenses for its own overhead costs, such as

18 accounting, tax, legal, and other support, must be distributed reasonably

19 to all the legal entities that ES! serves, including

20 Further, each department (also referred to as "organization") within

21 ESI must incur costs that are not related to any specific service, but which

22 are costs that are attributable to a department. EEi is billed for a portion

of these These include items such as administrative labor costs
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 15 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 associated with office and general service employees (including not only

2 salaries and wages but also other related employment costs), rent and

3 utilities, depreciation, materials and supplies, telephone use, and postage.

4

5 Q. DOES ESI PROVIDE ANY SERVICES TO THE REGULATED OR NON-

6 REGULATED COMPANIES FREE OF CHARGE OR AT A DISCOUNT?

7 A No. ESI costs incurred to provide services to its regulated affiliates are

8 billed at cost and to non-regulated affiliates at cost plus 5% (in accordance

9 with a June 1999 SEC order).

10

11 IV. AFFILIATE TRANSACTION REGULATION

12 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARDS USED BY THE PUBLIC

13 UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS ("COMMISSION") TO DETERMINE

14 THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH

15 AFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ELIGIBILITY OF SUCH

16 EXPENSES FOR INCLUSION IN COST OF SERVICE?

17 A Yes. I am not an attorney, but part of my job responsibility is to be familiar

18 with the legal standards (rules, statutes, and court cases) governing

19 affiliate transactions and cost recovery Commission proceedings.

2011 ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 16 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Commission of Texas v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Company set forth the

2 affiliate standard applicable to Commission rate proceedings. This

3 standard involves a four-part inquiry that addresses: (1) the necessity of

4 the affiliate services on a class of items basis; (2) the reasonableness of

5 the costs related to the class; (3) the compliance with the "no higher than"

6 standard, which requires that the price for the same or similar services

7 provided be no higher for one affiliate or non-affiliated person than for

8 another affiliate or non-affiliated person; 9 and (4) whether the price

9 charged reasonably approximates (or represents) the actual cost of the

10 services. I also explain that the price charged excludes costs that may not

11 be allowed for ratemaking purposes, and that charges are not duplicated.

12

13 a. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTION (f)

14 OF PURA SECTION 36.058?

15 A. Yes. It is my understanding that if the Commission determines that the

16 requested amount of an affiliate expense during the test period is

17 unreasonable, then, instead of disallowing the entire affiliate expense, the

18 Commission must determine the reasonable level of the affiliate expense

19 and the utility's cost of service.

683 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. App.-Austin 1984 no writ).
ESI does not services to non-affiliated entities.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 17 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q DOES THE COMMISSION'S RFP APPLICABLE TO ETI PROVIDE ANY

2 GUIDANCE REGARDING HOW TO DEMONSTRATE THE

3 REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF AFFILIATE CHARGES?

4 A No. ETI is required to use, and is using for this case, the Electric Utility

5 Rate Filing Package for Generating Utilities (Sept. 9, 1992). This is the

6 RFP for fully-bundled electric utilities such as ETI. Section V of the

7 Commission's RFP for unbundled transmission and distribution utilities, 10

8 however, provides a set of "guiding principles" with illustrative types of

9 evidence that may be used to support the affiliate charges, including

10 historical cost trends, process improvements, benchmarking, outsourcing,

11 third-party reviews, operating statistics, and other metrics. These guiding

12 principles are not, strictly speaking, applicable to this case because ETI is

13 not an "unbundled" transmission and distribution utility. Nonetheless,

14 each Company affiliate cost witness has relied upon these guiding

15 principles to marshal the evidence to support his or her affiliate costs.

16

17 Q. HOW DO THE AFFILIATE COSTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S

18 REVENUE REQUIREMENT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS

19 IN TEXAS STATUTES AND RULES?

affiliate cost witness sponsors testimony supporting his or her

21 specific affiliate classes. Their testimony, in conjunction with my

10
Investor Owned Utility Transmission & Distribution Cost of Service Rate Filing 1-'ac:11"
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 26 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 its affiliate costs for compliance with the affiliate standard. The affiliate

2 costs are a component of the rates the Company is requesting to

3 implement in this docket.

4

5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE COMPANY'S ORGANIZATION OF ITS

6 AFFILIATE CASE.

7 A. The Company's affiliate case is organized to correspond to the way in

8 which ETI and ESI are organized and managed. ESl's business is divided

9 into two basic functional groupings or "families." These families are (1)

10 Corporate Support, and (2) Operations.

11

12 Q. ARE THE TWO FAMILIES FURTHER BROKEN DOWN INTO SMALLER

13 GROUPINGS?

14 A. Yes. Within each of these families, we have more discrete functions or

15 service categories. Thus, for example, as shown in Exhibit SBT-6, entitled

16 "Families and Functions," the "Operations" family (shorthand for Utility

17 Operations Group) is comprised of traditional utility functions such as

18 Generation, Transmission, Distribution, and Customer Service.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 27 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. ARE THESE "FUNCTIONS" THE "CLASSES" THAT THE COMPANY

2 HAS IDENTIFIED FOR PURPOSES OF MEETING THE AFFILIATE

3 STANDARD IN PURA, WHICH REQUIRES COSTS TO BE ORGANIZED

4 ON AN ITEM OR CLASS OF ITEMS BASIS?

5 A Not necessarily. In some cases, there is only one class within a function.

6 But the functions are not always the classes the Company proposes for

7 purposes of proving its compliance with the affiliate standard set forth in

8 PURA The Company determined that some of these functions may be

9 too broad for purposes of meeting the affiliate standard and may not

10 permit the detailed review of affiliate transactions envisioned by the

11 Commission. Further, the Company wanted to ensure that the witnesses

12 who explain the affiliate services provided to ETI have the requisite degree

13 of accountability and technical knowledge to provide sufficient detailed

14 information concerning each class of services (that is "class of items") that

15 they sponsor.

16

17 Q. HOW DID THE COMPANY SEPARATE THESE FUNCTIONS INTO

18 CLASSES OF SERVICES FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING

19 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARD?

Company and focused on the way they organize operate

21 their businesses in order to identify classes of services for purposes of

22 meeting the affiliate standard. Thus, the Company looked at the various

23 departments that compose each and grouped these departments

2011 ETI Rate Case
 Entergy Inc. Page 28 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 into classes based on factors such as the extent to which the departments

2 provided interrelated services or had some other logical connection to

3 each other. For example, departments such as accounts payable and

4 cash operations, payroll, fixed asset operations, revenue operations,

5 external reporting, and Affiliate Accounting and Allocations were included

6 in the Financial Services Class of services. A similar process was

7 followed for identifying classes within each of the functions shown on

8 Exhibit SBT-5. Additionally, some cost items were grouped based on

9 resource code instead of department code 12 (examples of these include

10 depreciation and income taxes) and based on physical location for Nelson

11 6 co-owner costs.

12

13 Q. HOW MANY CLASSES OF AFFILIATE CHARGES ARE THERE IN THE

14 COMPANY'S CASE, AND WHO SPONSORS THEM?

15 A. Affiliate services provided to ETI are grouped into 25 classes of items in

16 the Company's filing. Exhibit SBT-5 shows the functions composing each

17 family as well as the classes that make up each function. For example,

18 Exhibit SBT-5 shows that there are six functions within the Corporate

19 are the classes that compose

20 function and the name of the witness who sponsors that affiliate class of

12
A resource code indicates the type of costs used or consumed in the conduct of work
activities, while a department code indicates which organization provides the services (and
budgets, captures and reports on the related costs for those
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 29 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 services. This exhibit also shows the Total ETI Adjusted amount for each

2 class of affiliate services. For example, the Financial Services class,

3 which is sponsored by Company witness Donna S. Doucet, is in the

4 Finance function. This exhibit does not include the level of test year

5 affiliate charges for capital additions.

6

7 Q. WHAT INFORMATION DOES EACH WITNESS PROVIDE WITH

8 RESPECT TO THE CLASSES OF SERVICES THAT HE OR SHE

9 SPONSORS?

10 A Although the testimony of each of the affiliate witnesses varies depending

11 on subject matter, there are certain common elements that I will explain.

12 Each witness who sponsors a class of services describes why those

13 services are necessary; explains why the costs of those services are

14 reasonable; discusses the billing methods used to ensure that prices paid

15 by ETI are no higher than the prices paid by other Entergy affiliates for the

16 same or similar services; and also explains that the costs paid by ETI

17 represent the actual costs of the services provided. In addition, each

18 affiliate witness has included as exhibits to his or her testimony a

19 schematic highlights by family and

or is supporting, e., an identical my Exhibits SBT-5

21 SBT-6.

2011 FTI lhtP r,.,,,,
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 30 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXHIBITS THAT ARE COMMON TO ALL

2 AFFILIATE WITNESSES?

3 A. Yes. Each affiliate witness sponsors key affiliate cost-related exhibits that

4 are designated by letters (i.e., A, B, C, D) instead of numbers. For ease of

5 reference, I will refer to them as Exhibits A, B, C, and D. For example, the

6 affiliate cost exhibits supporting Company witness Doucet's testimony are

7 labeled Exhibits DSD-A, DSD-B, DSD-C, and DSD-D. These exhibits

8 present the cost of affiliate services in various levels of detail for each

9 class of services included in Schedule G-6 of the Company's Application.

10 For each class of services sponsored by the witness, Exhibits A, B and C

11 include all affiliate billings that originate at ESI, billings to ETI from the

12 other Operating Companies (EAi, EGSL, ELL, EMI, or ENOI), and billings

13 to ETI from other affiliates. In addition, Exhibit D contains information

14 about test year pro forma adjustments, if any, affecting each class of

15 services sponsored by the witness. For the convenience of the parties, I

16 have included my Exhibits SBT-A, SBT-B, SBT-C, and SBT-D, which are

17 compilations of all witnesses' Exhibits A, B, C, and D, respectively. My

18 Exhibit SBT-D differs slightly from the witnesses' Exhibit D in that it
13
19

Workpaper WP/SBT-2 provides, among other things, FERG account information for pro
ctm•=>nTc included on Exhibit SBT-0.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 31 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INFORMATION THAT IS CONTAINED IN

2 EXHIBIT A

3 A Exhibit A is entitled, "Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class and

4 Department." Exhibit A shows for each class of services sponsored by

5 that witness the amounts by department for the test year. The information

6 presented in Exhibit A permits the reviewer to examine which departments

7 had charges within each class of services and the amounts of test year

8 costs for each department within the class.

9

10 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TEST YEAR

11 AMOUNT FOR EACH CLASS OF SERVICES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A

12 OF EACH WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

13 A To calculate the test year amount for a class of service described in

14 Exhibit A, the reviewer need only add Column "E" (ETI Per Books) +

15 Column "F" (Exclusions) + Column "G" (Pro Forma Amount) to arrive at

16 the Total ETI Adjusted amount shown in Column "H," which is the amount,

17 by billing entity, included in the G-6 workpapers for this class of services.

18

19 YOU AN SUMMARIZES

CONTENTS OF COLUMN (EXCLUSIONS) IN EXHIBITS

21 AND D?

22 A. Yes. Exhibit SBT-11, entitled "Affiliate Billing Exclusions by Class," shows

23 function and by class all exclusions from
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 32 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 expenses for the Corporate Support family and the Operations family. As

2 shown in this exhibit, test year exclusions totaled approximately

3 $17.7 million. Exclusions include amounts charged to FERC USofA

4 capital accounts (FERC accounts 107 to 118); other balance sheet

5 accounts (FERC accounts 152 to 242); and below the line accounts

6 (FERC accounts 408202 to 426500). With the exception of amounts

7 charged to certain capital accounts, these exclusions are made in order to

8 arrive at a total cost amount that does not include costs that may not be

9 recovered in rates, such as expenses prohibited from being included in

10 rates by Texas law. Amounts included in the exclusions category do not

11 represent pro forma adjustments.

12

13 Q. HAVE YOU PREPARED AN EXHIBIT TO ASSIST THE REVIEWER IN

14 TRACKING THE DATA PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A?

15 A. Yes. I have prepared Exhibit SBT-A.1 for that purpose. This "roadmap"

16 exhibit illustrates in a brief and easily understandable way, what specific

17 information is provided in each column of Exhibit A.

18

19 B

20 WITNESS' S TESTIMONY.

21 A. Exhibit B is entitled, "Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class and Project."

22 Exhibit B shows for each class of services sponsored by that witness the

(also as a for test The
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 33 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 information presented in Exhibit B permits the reviewer to examine the

2 following: which PCs were charged within each class of services; which

3 billing method was used; and the amounts included in test year costs for

4 each PC within the class. From here, the reviewer can, in turn, refer to the

5 Project Summaries included as Exhibit SBT-E for additional detail

6 concerning each PC included in each class within the Company's filing. I

7 discuss the information presented in the Project Summaries in greater

8 detail later in my testimony.

9

10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE EXHIBIT C.

11 A Exhibit C, which is entitled "Affiliate Billings - by Witness, Class,

12 Department and Project," is a combination of Exhibits A and B. This

13 additional sort of the data, by department and project, allows the reviewer

14 to determine which department charged a particular PC for the particular

15 services. For example, Company witness Doucet's Exhibit DSD-C allows

16 the reviewer to trace a total of $26,678 Total ETI Adjusted test year

17 amount, including proforma adjustments, to the Financial Services Class

18 billings to project code "F3PPF72700. Exhibit DSD-C further shows that

19 these services were by

FA259, FA26A, FN2F1, and RA21A 14

WP/SBT-3 the for each
 Entergy Texas Inc.
1 Page 34 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE EXHIBIT D.

2 A. Exhibit D, entitled "Affiliate Billings - Pro Forma Summary - by Witness,

3 Class and Pro Forma," contains information about test year pro forma

4 adjustments affecting the class or classes that a particular Company

5 witness sponsors. The witnesses' Exhibit D contains a brief description of

6 the nature of the pro forma adjustment, assigns the adjustment an

7 identifying number, shows the billing entity of the transaction, shows which

8 witness supports the pro forma, and presents the amount of the pro forma

g that is included in the "Total" column of Schedule G-6.2. In addition to the

10 items described above, Exhibit SBT-D also contains the FERC account for

11 each pro-forma adjustment.

12

13 Q. HAVE YOU PREPARED ANY DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE PRO

14 FORMA ADJUSTMENTS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT SBT-D?

15 A. Yes. Exhibit SBT-12 includes summary information regarding each pro

16 forma adjustment included in Schedule G-6.2. This Exhibit includes the

17 pro forma number, title, description, ETI pro forma amount, and supporting

18 witness. The main purpose of this exhibit is to accumulate in one place all

19 originating adjustments to test year,

20 additional supporting detail for why the pro forma was made.

21 Also, workpapers WP/SBT-2a through WP/SBT-2s include

22 calculations for each pro forma adjustment. WP/SBT-2 is an index to the
 Entergy Inc. Page 35 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 calculations included to assist the reviewer in locating the calculation for

2 any proforma adjustment listed in Schedule G-6.2.

3

4 Q. HAVE YOU PREPARED ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT WILL

5 ASSIST REVIEWERS IN UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION

6 CONTAINED IN EACH COLUMN OF EXHIBITS B THROUGH D?

7 A Yes. Although the Company believes that the level of detail that it has

8 provided in this filing is more than sufficient to enable the Commission to

9 evaluate the Company's affiliate costs, the Company recognizes that it

10 may be difficult for a reviewer to recall the type of information that is

11 provided in each column of each of these exhibits. For this reason, I have

12 included in my testimony as Exhibits SBT-B.1, SBT-C.1, and SBT-D.1

13 "roadmaps" that show what question is answered by each column in each

14 exhibit, similar to "roadmap" Exhibit SBT-A.1 that I described earlier.

15

16 Q. ARE YOU SPONSORING ALL COSTS CONTAINED IN EXHIBITS

17 SBT-A, SBT-B, SBT-C, AND SBT-D?

18 A No. My Exhibits SBT-A SBT-8, SBT-C, and SBT-D are an aggregation of

19 all the Exhibits C, and D each affiliate witness

20 case. Although the affiliate witnesses have attached their Exhibits A, C,

21 and D to their direct testimony, it may be more convenient for the reviewer

22 to have a single copy of all these exhibits in one place to facilitate review

23 of the Company's filing. I am a co-sponsor these
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 36 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 these cost exhibits include the classes of costs I sponsor (that is, the

2 Depreciation, Service Company Recipient Offsets, and the Other

3 Expenses classes), the exclusions and pro forma adjustments (some of

4 which I sponsor) to the test year affiliate charges for all classes of costs,

5 and the application of the cost allocation methods to the PCs.

6

7 Q. HAVE YOU PREPARED ADDITIONAL WORKPAPERS SUPPORTING

8 EACH OF THE G-6 SCHEDULES?

9 A. Yes. I have prepared six different sorts of the G-6 schedules, which are in

10 addition to the required FERG account presentation contained in

11 Schedules G-6, G-6.1 and G-6.2. The Company is providing this

12 information in its direct filing in this case to facilitate an efficient, timely

13 review of the Company's affiliate case.

14

15 Q. HAS THE COMPANY MADE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN

16 ELECTRONIC FORM?

17 A. Yes. As I explained above, Exhibit SBT-F is a compact disc that includes

18 this information. The Company has invoked Microsoft Excel's "Auto Filter"

19 the help users
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 37 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE VARIOUS WORKPAPERS THAT THE

2 COMPANY HAS PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS SCHEDULES

3 G-6, G-6.1, AND G-6.2.

4 A. There are six variations of Schedules G-6, G-6.1, and G-6.2 included in

5 the workpapers to the G-6 schedules. They are:

6 1) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by billing method and
7 project code (WP/G-6 (set 1); WP/G-6.1 (set 1); and WP/G-
8 6.2 (set 1));

9 2) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by FERG account and
10 class (WP/G-6 (set 2); WP/G-6.1 (set 2); and WP/G-6.2 (set
11 2));

12 3) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by class, project code,
13 and billing method (WP/G-6 (set 3); WP/G-6.1 (set 3); and
14 WP/G-6.2 (set 3));

15 4) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by class, by FERG
16 account, project code, and billing method (WP/G-6 (set 4);
17 WP/G-6.1 (set 4); and WP/G-6.2 (set 4));

18 5) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by FERG account,
19 project code, and billing method (WP/G-6 (set 5); WP/G-6.1
20 (set 5); and WP/G-6.2 (set 5)); and

21 6) Affiliate billings by billing entity to ETI by project code, billing
22 method, and FERG account (WP/G-6 (set 6); WP/G-6.1 (set
23 6); and WP/G-6.2 (set 6)).

24

25 Q WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXHIBITS AND D

26

27 A. The G-6 schedules present the Company's request for all affiliate billings,

28 for the test year, by FERG account and billing entity, as follows:

29 1) Schedule G-6 - Total ETI Adjusted amount of affiliate
billings,
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 38 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 2) Schedule G-6.1 - total per books affiliate billings (after
2 exclusions), and

3 3) Schedule G-6.2 - proforma adjustments to affiliate billings.

4 The Commission's RFP requires the G-6 schedules to be

5 presented by FERC account

6 Exhibits A, B, and C present the same amounts that are in the

7 Schedules G-6, G-6.1, and G-6.2, but in various sorts of detail within each

8 class arranged in a way so that the witnesses can further show that the

9 costs meet the Commission's affiliate standards. As stated previously, the

10 Company has sorted the amounts by department, by project code, and by

11 both department and project code in Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.

12 Exhibit D presents for each class of services additional detail on the pro

13 forma adjustments included in Schedule G-6.2. With the use of the

14 workpaper set WP/G-6 (set 4), the reviewer can follow amounts in Exhibits

15 A through D through to the G-6 schedules, which are presented in the

16 required FERC account format. Thus, for example, the reviewer can trace

17 cost data related to a particular class to a FERC account, to a project

18 code, and to a billing method by referring to WP/G-6 (set 4). Similarly, if a

19 determine what other types of projects or activities

were a a

21 witness's Exhibit C, the reviewer need only turn to WP/G-6 (set 1) in order

22 to ascertain this information. I have prepared a chart illustrating how the

affiliate cost information fits together (see Exhibit SBT-13).
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 39 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ONE WOULD GET FROM YOUR COST

2 EXHIBITS TO THE G-6 SCHEDULES.

3 A. Note that the same process I will describe below can be used for any of

4 the Exhibits A through C. I will use as an example my Depreciation

5 Affiliate Class, which can be found on Exhibit SBT-A. To trace the data

6 into the G-6 schedules, one would first need to obtain the subtotals of the

7 class by billing entity. The subtotal in Column H (Total ETI Adjusted) of

8 $1,777,986 for billing entity ESI agrees with the workpaper set WP/G-6

9 (set 4), which is sorted by billing entity, class, FERC account, project

10 code, and billing method. The Depreciation Class is billed to various

11 FERC accounts, as seen on WP/G-6 (set 4). Each of these FERC

12 account totals for the Depreciation Class can be traced into workpaper set

13 WP/G-6 (set 2), which is sorted by billing entity, FERC account and then

14 by class. On WP/G-6 (set 2), each FERC account is subtotaled.

15

16 Q. HOW COULD A REVIEWER OBTAIN MORE DETAILED INFORMATION

17 ABOUT A PARTICULAR PROJECT CODE?

18 A. For each project code, a reviewer could "drill down" to a very detailed level

19 in the Project

Project Summaries, are supported by al! witnesses of

21 classes that charged to a particular project code, are arranged in project

22 code order and are indexed by page number.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 40 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. WHAT INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN EACH PROJECT SUMMARY?

2 A. Each Project Summary shows the following information for each project

3 code:

4 • test year billings to ETI by FERG account;

5 • test year billings to ETI by class of services;

6 • a statement of the purpose of the project code;

7 • the primary activities encompassed by the project code;

8 • the products or deliverables resulting from the project code;
9 and

10 • the billing method associated with the project code and a
11 justification for that billing method.

12

13 Q. HOW ELSE CAN THE PROJECT SUMMARIES BE USED AS A TOOL

14 FOR REVIEWING AFFILIATE DATA?

15 A. The Project Summaries can be used to trace project code data from the

16 Exhibits Band C into the G-6 Schedules. For example, Financial Services

17 Class costs related to Project Code F3PPF72700, entitled "Cognos

18 Reporting Support," can be found on Exhibit SBT-8. The Total ETI

19 Adjusted amount for the Financial Services Class for this project is

20 $26,678 for the test year. From Exhibit B, one can obtain a good deal of

21 information about the services provided - billing method,

22 description, Total ETI Adjusted amount, etc. For example, Billing Method

23 GENLEDAL is applied to Project Code F3PPF72700. If more detail is

required to verify why Billing Method GENLEDAL is appropriate, or which
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 41 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 other classes may have charged this project, or the types of activities

2 being provided, one could go to the index of Project Summaries included

3 with Exhibit SBT-E and locate the page number for the Project Summary

4 for Project Code F3PPF72700 (page 961 of Exhibit SBT-E). The FERC

5 account amounts for this PC can be traced into workpaper set 5 - billings

6 by FERC account, project code, and billing method (WP/G-6 (set 5),

7 WP/G-6. 1 (set 5), and WP/G-6.2 (set 5)). On WP/G-6 (set 5), each FERC

8 account is subtotaled by billing entity, and this subtotal will agree to

9 Schedule G-6 for that FERC account.

10

11 VI. THE AFFILIATE BILLING PROCESS

12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS THAT

13 PRIMARILY AFFECT ETl'S COST OF SERVICE IN THiS APPLICATION.

14 A. Two categories of affiliate costs affected ETl's cost of service for the test

15 year:

16 • the cost of the services ESI provides that are directly billed
17 or allocated to ETI; and

18 • charges from other Operating Companies and from ETl's
19 other affiliates that are directly billed to for services
20 rendered.

21

22 ETl's cost of service. To understand these categories of affiliate

23 transactions, it is important to understand the affiliate billing process.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 42 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS USED BY THE ENTERGY

2 COMPANIES TO CHARGE AFFILIATES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED.

3 A. ESI and the other Entergy-affiliated companies use three mechanisms to

4 bill affiliates for services rendered: ( 1) project billings; (2) loaned resource

5 billings; and (3) co-owner billings. These mechanisms are included in the

6 affiliate billing process ("billing process"). Project billings are transactions

7 billed to affiliates for services rendered using PCs to determine how costs

8 should be billed to affiliates. Loaned resource billings are transactions

9 that bill charges directly to the Department and/or Business Unit that is the

10 recipient of the services provided. Loaned resource billings include

11 charges for the payroll applicable to "loaned" employees (for example line

12 crews from one Operating Company sent to assist another Operating

13 Company in storm restoration), transportation, and materials and supplies.

14 Co-owner billings include costs incurred by one affiliate for the operation

15 and maintenance of a jointly-owned plant, and subsequently transferred to

16 another affiliate based on their ownership. During the test year, EGSL

17 transferred costs to ETI related to the jointly-owned Nelson 6 plant using

18 the co-owner billing process. The co-owner billing process and the Nelson

9 6 are more the

20 witness Winfred W. Garrison. Service companies such as ESI typically bill

21 via project billings. Other affiliates can only use loaned resource billings

22 or co-owner billings when billing or transferring costs to an affiliate.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 43 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE CONTROLS THAT HAVE BEEN

2 ESTABLISHED TO HELP ENSURE THAT BILLINGS TO AFFILIATES

3 PROPERLY REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST OF AN ITEM OR SERVICE.

4 A There are several controls in place to help ensure that billings to affiliates

5 represent the actual costs of items or services provided to such affiliates.

6 These process controls include:

7 • Multiple Approvals of PCs

8 • Approval of Loaned Resource Billing Transactions

g • Co-owner Allocation Rules

10 • Approval of Source Documentation

11 • Budget Process Activities

12 • Monthly Allocation Results and Billing Analysis

13 • Authorization Required to Access Corporate Applications

14 • Billing Analysis Review Team ("BART") Monthly Reviews of
15 ESI Billings

16 • Employee Training

17 • Internal Reviews of Affiliate Transactions and Processes

18 • External Reviews and Audits of Affiliate Transactions and
19 Processes

20 • Sarbanes-Oxley Controls and Testing

21

22 • Affiliate Transactions Policy

23 Each of the controls is an integral part of a multi-faceted process

24 that is designed to bill the appropriate share of reasonable and necessary
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 44 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 costs to the Operating Companies. A more detailed description of these

2 billing controls is included in Attachment 8 to my Exhibit SBT-15. Exhibit

3 SBT-15 is an exhibit that explains a number of different aspects of the ESI

4 billing process.

5

6 VII. ESI SERVICE BILLINGS

7 A. Overview of the ESI Billing Process

8 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF YOUR EXHIBIT

9 SBT-15: "AFFILIATE BILLING PROCESS DISCUSSION."

10 A. As I discussed earlier, ESI and the other Entergy-affiliated companies use

11 three mechanisms to bill affiliates for services rendered: (1) project

12 billings; (2) loaned resource billings; and (3) co-owner billings. These

13 mechanisms are included in the affiliate biliing process, which is discussed

14 in detail in my Exhibit SBT-15, "Affiliate Billing Process Discussion." For

15 further clarification, I have included nine attachments to Exhibit SBT-15:

16 1) SBT-15 Attachment 1 - Comparison of Affiliate Billing
17 Mechanisms Overview;

18 2) SBT-15 Attachment 2 -Affiliate Billings by Billing Type;

19 SBT-15 Attachment 3 Project Code Set-Up and Use
Flowchart;

21 5 Attachment 4 - '"-"-''UC a
22 Scope Statement;

23 5) SBT-15 Attachment 5 - The Service Company Billing
24 Process Flowchart;

6) SBT-15 Attachment 6 ESI Billing Method Tables;
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 45 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 7) SBT-15 Attachment 7 -Billing Method Summary;

2 8) SBT-15 Attachment 8 - Affiliate Billing Process Controls;
3 and

4 9) SBT-15 Attachment 9 - Deloitte & Touche, LLP's 2010
5 Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon
6 Procedures (dated June 23, 2011).

7

8 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ESI BILLING PROCESS.

9 A As shown in Attachment 2 to Exhibit SBT-15, the vast majority of ESl's

10 billings to ET! are project billings. In order to bill an affiliate for services

11 provided via a project billing, a transaction must have an assigned PC.

12 Each PC is assigned a single billing method that determines how costs

13 captured under the PC will be distributed. The billing method results in

14 either a "direct" billing (billed 100% to one affiliate) or an "allocation" to

15 multiple affiliates. When services are provided to multiple affiliates,

16 charges for services rendered by ES! are allocated using billing methods

17 based on FERG-accepted formulae.

18

19 Q. WHEN IS THE PROJECT CODE ASSIGNED TO A TRANSACTION?

20 A. The PC is assigned at the time the transaction is entered into a source

21 system Payable).

22 submitting the charge is most familiar with the charge, and is responsible

23 for applying the correct PC to the transaction. In addition, the employee's
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 46 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 budget coordinator may assist in determining the correct PC for a

2 specific cost.

3 In addition, several allocations, such as payroll and other loaders,

4 will create additional transactions. They will typically follow the PCs used

5 on the source transactions for which they are based.

6

7 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TIME ENTRY SYSTEMS USED BY THE

8 ENTERGY COMPANIES.

9 A. The Entergy Companies use both the PeopleSoft Time & Labor system

10 and the ESTER system for time entry. ESTER is the acronym for

11 "Entergy's System for Time Entry and Reporting." Both systems are

12 electronic time and attendance systems and are an important part of the

13 Entergy Companies' cost and service tracking process. Employees or

14 timekeepers are responsible for populating electronic timesheets each pay

15 period with appropriate accounting codes, including PCs, and actual hours

16 worked, among other things. At the end of each pay period, the

17 employee's supervisor is responsible for reviewing and approving the

18 timesheet data.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 47 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE CONTROLS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO

2 ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION RECORDED ON

3 THE TIMESHEETS IN TIME & LABOR AND ESTER.

4 A In addition to the individual responsibilities of employees and supervisors

5 described above, both the Time & Labor and ESTER systems have been

6 programmed with certain validation functionality (e.g., validity and

7 compatibility edits for the accounting code input data) and notification

8 procedures to alert the employee when accounting code values, including

9 PCs, are invalid, incompatible, or incomplete. Training on the Time &

10 Labor and ESTER systems is conducted within each department.

11 Assistance is also available through the payroll administrator and through

12 the Financial Processes Help Desk, also referred to as the Financial

13 Operations Center ("FOG") Heip Desk.

14 Each ESI employee is ultimately responsible for charging the costs

15 that he or she incurs to the appropriate PC, and thus appropriately billing

16 the companies receiving the services. As a guide, ESI Time and Expense

17 Training materials are posted on the Affiliate Accounting and Allocations

18 section of the Entergy Companies' internal web. All ESI employees are

19 required to acknowledge their on an

20 annual basis. This training stresses the importance of choosing the

21 correct PC. It also discusses the role of billing methods in billing the

22 appropriate companies for services rendered, and emphasizes that direct

23 billing is preferred over allocating charges possible.
 Inc. Page 48 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 also reviews how to determine which PC should be used for specific

2 services. These ESI Time and Expense Training materials are included

3 as Exhibit SBT-16.

4 As discussed earlier in my testimony, and as discussed in

5 Attachment 8 of Exhibit SBT-15, there are several other controls in place

6 to ensure that billings to affiliates properly reflect the actual cost of an item

7 or service.

8

9 Q. HOW ARE PROJECT CODES INITIATED AND MADE AVAILABLE FOR

10 USE?

11 A As I previously mentioned, the Entergy Companies use a project costing

12 application (PowerPlant) that provides a single point of entry for all PCs.

13 When a particular department determines that a new project or service is

14 being initiated, PowerPlant is used by that department to set up the PC.

15 During set-up, the preparer of the PC request enters several elements to

16 establish a PC. The preparer provides a descriptive title for the PC and

17 determines the appropriate billing method, which may directly bill one

18 affiliate or allocate costs to multiple affiliates. The billing method is

20 The preparer also describes the scope of the PC, including its overall

21 purpose, the primary activities to be performed, the products or

22 deliverables expected, and a justification of the billing method selected.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 49 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 This scope, as well as all of the attributes associated with the PC, are

2 stored in PowerPlant and can be referenced by users as needed.

3 Exhibit SBT-15 includes a more detailed discussion of the project

4 billing process used by ESI. A breakdown of ESl's billings by project code

5 is shown in Exhibit SBT-8.

6

7 Q. DOES THE AFFILIATE BILLING PROCESS ENSURE THAT THE COSTS

8 CHARGED BY ESI TO ETI ARE NO HIGHER THAN THE COSTS

9 CHARGED TO OTHER AFFILIATES FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR

10 ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES?

11 A. Yes. The following features of the billing system help ensure that ESI

12 does not charge a higher unit cost to ETI than to other affiliates for the

13 same or similar activities and services:

14 1) ESI always bills its services to regulated companies at cost,
15 with no profit added, based on cost causation;

16 2) the billing method is selected based on the principle of cost
17 causation to ensure that every affiliate that causes the cost
18 in the PC is appropriately included in the allocation of costs;
19 and

20 3) because each PC has only one billing method associated
21 with it, all affiliates that receive the service are charged at
22 the same unit rate for a given PC; therefore, the cost for a
given of service is equal all affiliates receiving the
service.
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 50 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. HOW DOES THE AFFILIATE BILLING PROCESS ENSURE THAT THE

2 PRICE CHARGED BY ESI TO ETI REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL COST

3 OF SERVICES?

4 A. With respect to direct billings, because ESI charges no more than actual

5 costs for services provided to regulated companies, the price charged to

6 ETI represents the actual cost With respect to allocated costs, because

7 ESI charges the regulated companies at cost and utilizes the principle of

8 cost causation in identifying a billing method, the unit price charged to ETI

9 represents the actual cost.

10

11 Q. DOES YOUR TESTIMONY INCLUDE A SUMMARY OF CONTROLS TO

12 ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESI AFFILIATE BILLINGS?

13 A. Yes. Those controls are generally summarized in the Affiliate Billing

14 Process section of my testimony. In addition, these controls are

15 discussed in more detail in Attachment 8 of Exhibit SBT-15.

16

17 Q ARE THERE ANY REVIEWS OF THE CONTROLS OVER THE

18 ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES AND THE RELATED COSTS THAT ESI

19

20 Yes. Internal Audit reviews the controls and performs tests of transactions

21 and balances related to affiliate billings. Specifically related to the

22 implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Internal Audit reviews the
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 51 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 with the affiliate billing process. Their review includes the related funding,

2 allocations, and intercompany account reconciliation processes

3 associated with the overall affiliate billing process.

4 In addition, external reviews and audits of affiliate transactions and

5 processes are conducted routinely. For instance, D&T performs certain

6 agreed upon procedures annually at the request of the Entergy

7 Companies to satisfy a requirement included in an October 1992

8 Settlement Agreement, as amended, between certain regulators and the

9 Entergy Companies that pertains to billings from affiliates to EEi. D&T

10 selects several intercompany transactions billed to EEi by affiliates to

11 ensure that they were billed in accordance with PUHCA 2005 affiliate

12 billing requirements. O&T's "Independent Accountants' Report on

13 Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures" for the year ended December 31,

14 2010, is included as Attachment 9 to Exhibit SBT-15.

15 In addition, the annual external audit of Entergy Corporation and its

16 subsidiaries' financial statements performed by O& T helps to detect

17 whether the inter-company accounts and billing processes are producing

18 any material misstatements in the financial statements. The Sarbanes-

19 also requires an auditor attest

of the disclosure regarding the effectiveness its

21 internal controls. In this connection, D&T also reviews risks, control

22 activities, and testing of control activities associated with the affiliate

23 billing
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 52 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Further, in its oversight role under PUHCA 2005, the FERC is

2 authorized to conduct audits of Entergy service company transactions. As

3 discussed earlier in my testimony, the most recent FERC audit of the four

4 service companies, including ESI, covered the period January 2006

5 through December 2008.

6

7 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION THAT THE

8 CONTROLS ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY?

9 A. Yes. PwC performed an independent attestation examination of

10 management's assertion on the presentation of costs billed by ESI and

11 other Entergy affiliates to ETI for the twelve-months ended June 30,

12 2011. 15 PwC's attestation examination included, among other things,

13 ( 1) consideration of controls surrounding the affiliate billing process;

14 (2) documentation included in the PC scope statements, including a

15 description of the PC's use and purpose, the activities associated with that

16 particular project, the expected deliverables from activities in the project,

17 and justification for the billing method to be used for billing the costs

18 accumulated in the project; and (3) testing of affiliate service charges

19 year this docket

Workpaper WP/SBT-4 includes ESl's assertion and PwC's report in connection
this attestation examination.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 53 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY "PC SCOPE STATEMENTS."

2 A. A PC scope statement is a narrative description of the work that is to be

3 undertaken to which each PC is assigned. The PC scope statements,

4 included as part of the Project Summaries in my Exhibit SBT-E, provide

5 information regarding the purpose of the project, the primary activities to

6 be undertaken under the project, the primary products or deliverables of

7 the project, the billing method that applies to the project, and the

8 justification for that billing method. I have discussed the contents of these

9 Project Summaries in more detail previously in my testimony.

10

11 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF PWC'S

12 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO AFFILIATE SERVICE CHARGES.

13 A. PwC's independent attestation examination of management's assertion on

14 the presentation of costs allocated by ESI and other affiliates to ETI

15 concluded that management's assertion was fairly stated in all material

16 respects. Management asserted that ESI has allocated costs

17 accumulated in identified PCs on a cost causative basis using billing

18 methods that ensure accurate recording and billing of the costs associated

19 the of the related asserted

that billing methods used allocate costs by ESI ensure that costs

21 charged to ETI reasonably approximate the actual costs of services

22 provided and are no higher than the costs charged to other affiliates for

23 similar
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 54 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF PWC'S

2 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO PC SCOPE STATEMENTS.

3 A PwC concluded that management's assertion regarding the PC scope

4 statements was fairly stated in all material respects, i.e., the PC scope

5 statements adequately described the project purpose, primary activities,

6 products or deliverables, and rationale for billing method assignment.

7

8 Q. DOES THE TOTAL ETI ADJUSTED AMOUNT ON THE G-6

9 SCHEDULES INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PWC AS

10 A RESULT OF ITS ATTESTATION EXAMINATION OF MANAGEMENT'S

11 ASSERTION ON THE PRESENTATION OF COSTS ALLOCATED BY

12 ESI AND OTHER AFFILIATES TO ETI?

13 A Yes. The Total ETI Adjusted amount on the G-6 schedules reflects all of

14 the proforma adjustments on Exhibit SBT-D. This exhibit includes various

15 adjustments due to PC billing method changes (Pro Forma Number AJ21-

16 04). The net effect of these adjustments is an increase in costs billed to

17 ETI of $7,368 which is included in the Total ETI Adjusted amount in test

18 year affiliate charges.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 55 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 B. Summary of ESI Billings to Affiliated Companies

2 Q. WHAT WERE TOTAL BILLINGS fROM ESI TO THE AFFILIATED

3 COMPANIES DURING THE TEST YEAR?

4 A. ESI billed approximately $883 million to its affiliate companies during the

5 test year for services provided. The following exhibits to my testimony

6 contain schedules that present views of ESI billings to affiliates:

7 • Exhibit SBT-8 - ESI Test Year Per Book Billings to Affiliates
8 by Project

9 • Exhibit SBT-17 - Direct vs. Allocated ESI Test Year Per
10 Book Billings to Affiliates

11

12 Q. WHAT HAPPENS TO CHARGES THAT ARE BILLED BY ESI TO THE

13 OTHER SERVICE COMPANIES, SUCH AS EOI AND EEi?

14 A. After ESI bills another service company for services rendered, the billed

15 service company affiliate in turn bills the costs to its affiliates. For

16 instance, when ESI bills EOI for services rendered, EOI will bill one or

17 more of the regulated nuclear plants that it serves (e.g., EGSL's River

18 Bend facility) for the cost. When ESI bills EEi for services rendered, the

19 costs are billed by EEi to one or more of its affiliates. No costs billed by

are subsequently Units

21
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 56 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF CHARGES FROM ESI TO ETI DURING THE

2 TEST YEAR?

3 A. ESI billed ETI approximately $84 million during the test year, or

4 approximately 9.5% of ESl's total billings to all affiliates during the test

5 year (as seen on Exhibit SBT-8). This figure is a total per book number,

6 which includes expense and capital amounts billed to ETI. After taking

7 into account exclusions and pro forma adjustments for ESI charges billed

8 to ETI, the Total ETI Adjusted number is approximately $69 million (the

9 remaining $10 million of the Total Requested amount relates to charges

10 from other Entergy affiliates).

11

12 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES TO THE ESI BILLING PROCESS

13 SINCE THE COMMISSION'S LAST REVIEW OF THE AFFILIATE

14 BILLING PROCESS IN DOCKET NO. 37744?

15 A With the exception of the changes in the Service Company Recipient

16 allocation process discussed later in my testimony, there have been no

17 substantive changes to the ESI billing process since the Commission's

18 last review of ETl's rates in Docket No. 37744.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 57 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 C. Billing Methods

2 1. Billing Method Overview

3 Q. IN SECTION VII.A ABOVE YOU DESCRIBED HOW A BILLING METHOD

4 CHOSEN FOR A PROJECT CODE ENSURES THAT ETI IS BILLED

5 ONLY THOSE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ETI. DO YOU HAVE AN

6 EXHIBIT THAT PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE

7 BILLING METHOD ASSIGNMENT PROCESS?

8 A Yes. As described in the billing process discussion in Exhibit SBT-15,

9 after the preparer of a PC request selects a billing method, it is reviewed

10 for reasonableness by both the intermediate approver of the PC and the

11 Affiliate Accounting and Allocations team that I oversee. If the billing

12 method selected does not appear to reflect cost-causation, the approver

13 may contact the preparer for clarification as to why the billing method was

14 chosen, or may reject the request until the billing method is adequately

15 justified or another billing method is selected to ensure that the billing

16 method is appropriate for the services provided under the PC.

17 Attachment 4 to Exhibit SBT-15 contains guidelines for preparing PC

18 scope statements, including the selection and justification of a cost-

19 causative method.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 58 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ESI DEFINES "DIRECT' VERSUS

2 "ALLOCATED" BILLINGS.

3 A. ESI defines direct billings as those that are billed 100% to one affiliate.

4 Costs included in direct billings are incurred exclusively for the benefit of

5 one affiliate. ESI defines allocated billings as those that are distributed

6 using a formula that allocates costs to two or more affiliates. Costs

7 included in allocated billings are incurred for the benefit of more than

8 one affiliate.

9

10 Q. PLEASE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TERMS "DIRECT,"

11 "ALLOCATED," "INDIRECT," AND "OVERHEAD."

12 A. Each of these terms has been defined by ESI and the FERG. They are

13 also defined within the Service Agreements between ESI and its affiliates

14 that were accepted by the FERG in its December 12, 2006 order in

15 connection with ESl's October 13, 2006 request for review and

16 acceptance of service company cost allocations. ESl's definitions of the

17 terms "direct" and "allocated," as used throughout this testimony, are

18 described in the preceding paragraph. These terms relate to how costs

9 are distributed one affiliate or more than one affiliate

20 (allocated). The term "overhead" refers to costs that include (1) costs

21 necessary for the existence of ESI as an entity, and (2) costs that are

22 attributable to a department but aren't related to any one specific project

is a those are
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 59 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 attributable to the overall operation of a department and not to a specific

2 service. Exhibit SBT-18 is a chart showing how these terms are defined

3 by the three groups (ESI, the FERC, and the Service Agreements

4 accepted by the FERC) listed above.

5

6 Q. DOES ESI BILL DIRECTLY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE

7 REGULATED AFFILIATES WHENEVER APPROPRIATE?

8 A. Yes. The former SEC regulations required that service costs be billed

9 directly to an affiliate as long as such costs can be reasonably identified

10 as caused by an affiliate. Under PUHCA 2005, the FERC adopted this

11 "carryover" SEC provision.

12 However, it is important to note that the fundamental purpose of a

13 service company such as ESI is to achieve benefits from consolidation

14 and economies of scale for multiple companies. Therefore, the bulk of

15 ESl's costs may necessarily be incurred to provide common services

16 required by multiple companies, which require an allocation of costs. For

17 example, there are several filings that are required by regulatory agencies

18 that include information for numerous affiliates. Because one filing often

19 serves legal entities, the employees working on that document

charge time using a PC that employs an allocation factor

21 represents a cost-causative relationship to the work performed.

22 Direct billings from ESI to ETI were 26.36% of ETl's total charges

during the test year. Although each
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 60 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 received a similar mix between allocated and direct billings, ETI had the

2 second highest percentage of direct ESI billings of all Entergy Operating

3 Companies during the test year. Exhibit SBT-17 depicts the percentage of

4 direct versus allocated billings from ESI to each of the affiliates to which

5 ESI provides service.

6

7 Q. DOES ES! DIRECTLY BILL EEi FOR SERVICES PROVIDED TO EEi ON

8 BEHALF OF THE NON-REGULATED AFFILIATES WHENEVER

9 APPROPRIATE?

10 A. Yes. As noted above, the Operating Companies have similar operations,

11 which provide opportunities for consolidation of services provided to them

12 by ESI. Although the provision of similar services by a single provider

13 results in economies of scale, this often requires an allocation of costs

14 instead of direct charging. However, because Entergy Corporation's

15 non-regulated subsidiaries require many services that are not similar to

16 those of the regulated utility Operating Companies, the non-regulated

17 companies are not likely to share as many "consolidated" services as the

18 regulated companies. Instead, because of the variation in requested

19 affiliates, direct the non-

20 regulated affiliates occur more often than direct billings to the Entergy

21 Operating Companies. As shown on Exhibit SBT-17, direct billings to EEi

22 (which receives the majority of non-regulated billings and, in turn, bills the

billings
 Entergy Inc. Page 61 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 As noted above, many services provided by ESI to non-regulated affiliates

2 are billed by ESI to EEi, rather than to the individual non-regulated

3 affiliates that receive those services. This does not mean, however, that

4 ESI is "underbilling" the non-regulated affiliates for the services they

5 receive. The billing methods applied to the project codes applicable to

6 these services ensure that the non-regulated affiliates are paying for their

7 applicable share of these costs (if allocated), or the full cost if the project

8 code direct bills the entire cost to EEi. Exhibit SBT-15 Attachment 6c

9 includes the statistics of each non-regulated company that were included

10 in calculating billing methods.

11

12 Q. DOES ESI EVER USE MORE THAN ONE BILLING METHOD FOR A

13 GIVEN PC?

14 A. No. Because each PC captures a specific service, each PC has only one

15 billing method assigned to it, and the billing method is selected to ensure

16 that every affiliate receiving the service also receives an appropriate

17 allocation. Therefore, the costs related to all services performed under a

18 PC that is not directly billed are allocated among affiliates using the same

19

customers). use of a single billing method ensures that all affiliates

21 causing costs to be incurred and receiving the service pay an appropriate

22 proportion of the costs. This also ensures that the affiliates are, in total,

charged no more and no less than 1 of the
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 62 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 under the PC. Also, the use of a single billing method, which is assigned

2 based on cost causation principles, ensures that each affiliate is paying

3 the same per unit price for the same service, and that the prices charged

4 to ETI are no higher than the prices charged by ESI to the other affiliates

5 for similar services.

6

7 Q. AFTER THE COSTS OF ESl'S SERVICES ARE CAPTURED BY A PC,

8 HOW ARE COSTS ALLOCATED AMONG THE APPROPRIATE

9 COMPANIES?

10 A. One billing method is assigned to each PC for each service company.

11 Depending on the assigned billing method, the cost of services rendered

12 will be billed directly to a single affiliate or allocated among several

13 affiliates. Billing methods are based on allocation formulae. Under

14 PUHCA 2005, these allocation formulae must be reviewed and accepted

15 by the FERG. Each allocation formula is based on data relevant to the

16 affiliated companies.

17 There are approximately 50 formulae currently in use by ESI that

18 are used to derive billing methods. The FERG has reviewed and accepted

19 are: total

20 average number of customers, number of personal computers, and

21 transmission line miles.

22 One allocation formula may be the basis of several billing methods

billing
 Entergy Inc. Page 63 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 methods that use the total number of customers allocation formula,

2 including: Billing Method CUSEOPCO, based on average electric

3 customers for the utility Operating Companies; and Billing Method

4 CUSTEGOP, based on average electric and gas customers for the utility

5 Operating Companies. Billing methods that use a common basis for

6 allocation, such as those mentioned above, are referred to collectively as

7 a "billing method family." Attachment 6b to Exhibit SBT-15 provides the

8 billing methods used during the test year. This exhibit includes each

9 billing method, the title of each billing method, and the percentage of total

10 costs allocated to each affiliate for each billing method.

11

12 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE HOW THE BILLING METHODS WORK.

13 A Services that are provided by ESI to only one affiiiate are billed using

14 direct billing methods, which by definition bill only one affiliate. Services

15 that are provided to more than one affiliate are allocated in accordance

16 with formulae reviewed and accepted by FERG. As previously discussed,

17 billing methods that distribute costs using these formulae are often termed

18 allocation methods. There were 179 direct and allocated billing methods

19 derived bill affiliate costs

20 the affiliated companies during the test year. Of these billing methods,

21 approximately 40% are direct billing methods (one billing method for each

22 business unit ESI serves directly), and the remainder represent variations

23 of the allocation formulae, as discussed above. However, as noted on
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 64 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Attachment 7 of SBT-15, only 74 of the 179 ESI billing methods were used

2 to bill costs to ETI during the test year as reflected in the Total ETI

3 Adjusted amount.

4

5 2. Billing Method Calculations

6 Q. WHAT ARE THE ESI ALLOCATION BILLING METHODS ("ALLOCATION

7 METHODS") THAT WERE USED TO BILL COSTS FOR SERVICES TO

8 ETI DURING THE TEST YEAR?

9 A. Exhibit SBT-19 is a chart that includes each ESI allocation method that

10 was used to bill costs to ETI during the test year. The chart provides the

11 billing method number, the billing method family to which each method is

12 associated, the basis on which the method is calculated, and the types of

13 costs that are allocated using each method.

14

15 Q. DID ESI USE ANY ALLOCATION METHODS TO ALLOCATE COSTS TO

16 ETI DURING THE TEST YEAR OTHER THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN

17 EXHIBIT SBT-19?

18 A No.

19

20 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW EACH ALLOCATION METHOD EMPLOYED

21 BY ESI DURING THE TEST YEAR IS CALCULATED.

22 A. Each allocation method is calculated by taking each business unit's pro

of the cost statistics (such as number of accounts
 Entergy Inc. Page 65 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 payable transactions or number of employees). For each allocation

2 method, Attachment 6 of Exhibit SBT-15 includes the percentages

3 allocated to each affiliate as well as the statistics used to come up with

4 those percentages. For Attachment 6b, all non-regulated percentages

5 and statistics are included in the "EEi" column. Attachment 6c was

6 prepared to provide the individual non-regulated companies included in

7 the statistics for "EEi."

8 Previously required by the SEC under PUHCA 1935 and now

9 recognized by FERG under PUHCA 2005, all ESI services to ETI are

10 billed at cost. The specific billing method chosen for a particular type of

11 charge is selected to provide an appropriate matching of costs with the

12 cost drivers. Every affiliate that causes the cost and receives the service

13 provided is included in the cost allocation.

14

15 D. Service Company Recipient Allocation (also referred to as Shared
16 Services Loader)

17 Q. DOES THE ESI AFFILIATE BILLING PROCESS INCLUDE A

18 MECHANISM THAT CAPTURES AND ALLOCATES THE COSTS

19 ASSOCIATED WITH SERVICES THAT ESI PROVIDES TO ITSELF?

21 provides services to itself so that it, in turn, can provide services to its

22 affiliates. Therefore, under cost causation billing, ESI is also a receiver of

23 costs associated with the services it provides. The mechanism that
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 66 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 allocates the costs associated with the services ESI receives is currently

2 known as the "Service Company Recipient Allocation." This allocation is

3 actually comprised of several types of costs, including information

4 technology, desktops and telephones (discussed more specifically by

5 Company witness Julie F. Brown), facilities-related costs such as rents

6 and space management (discussed more specifically by Company witness

7 Thomas C. Plauche), Human Resources-related costs (discussed more

8 specifically by Company witness Kevin G. Gardner), and the like.

g

10 Q. HOW DOES ESI CAPTURE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ESI

11 SERVICES RECEIVED?

12 A. ESI captures the costs associated with ESI services received by including

13 ESI as one of the legal entities to which ESI costs may be billed.

14 Examples of cost causative allocation methods of which ESI is a recipient

15 are APTRNALL (Accounts Payable Transactions), GENLEDAL (General

16 Ledger Transactions), and PRCHKALL (Payroll Checks Issued). Because

17 ESI creates Accounts Payable ("AP") invoices, has its own General

18 Ledger ("GL") transactions, and has employees who receive payroll

19 a costs are by

20 affiliates, ESI may directly bill costs to itself for services solely caused by

21 ESI using a direct billing method. Examples of costs that may be directly

22 billed to ESI are office supplies, professional fees, and rent associated
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 67 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. WHERE DOES ESI RECORD THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ESI

2 SERVICES THAT ARE BILLED TO ESI?

3 A During the PC billing process, all ESI expenses billed to ESI are deferred

4 on the balance sheet using a clearing account (Account 184SSL). In

5 particular, all of the costs received by ESI in the PC billing process are

6 assigned to Account 184SSL and further separated by the following

7 functions: Information Technology, Support - Operations, Support -

8 Corporate, Supply Power - Nuclear, and President/CEO.

9

10 Q. HOW ARE THE COSTS ACCUMULATED IN ACCOUNT 184SSL

11 ALLOCATED?

12 A A second-tier allocation called Service Company Recipient Allocation

13 clears the Account 184SSL balance and distributes the costs to the

14 affiliates that are using the services of ESI employees. This is also

15 consistent with cost causation principles. It is appropriate to bill

16 companies a pro-rata share of ESI costs based on the amount and type of

17 ESI services they receive because the demand for ESI services drives the

18 costs associated with ESI

19

COMPANY

21 ALLOCATION PROCESS.

22 A. During the PC billing process, both the "pool" and "basis" for the Service

is
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 68 of98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 monthly costs associated with services received by ESI, which occurs

2 when ESI bills itself. Such costs within this pool are identified by function.

3 The basis is the total monthly labor billings to each affiliate to which ESI

4 provides services in a given month. Such billings are also identified by

5 function. Thus, a loader rate for each function can be calculated.

6

7 Q. HOW IS THE LOADER RATE CALCULATED?

8 A. The loader rate for each function is determined by dividing the total

9 amount of costs in the pool for a function for that month by the total

10 amount of labor billings (the basis) to affiliates for each function for the

11 same month. Though typically stable, the monthly loader rates may vary

12 as the functional pool and basis vary. The loader rate then is applied to

13 labor billing results to distribute the costs in the pool. The Affiliate

14 Accounting and Allocations group reviews the pool and basis amounts

15 monthly to ensure that they are reasonable.

16

17 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE SERVICE COMPANY

18 RECIPIENT ALLOCATION PROCESS.

19

20 provides staffing services to the Fossil organization. The HR employees

21 assign their time to a PC that bills based on the number of fossil-fueled

22 generation plant ("Fossil") employees within each Entergy Corporation
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 69 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 the billing, which is assigned to the 184SSL account. This is classified as

2 an overhead cost for ESI Fossil employees. During the same billing

3 process, ESI Fossil employees bill their labor out to those companies

4 receiving their services via the billing method assigned to each PC used.

5 Once the PC billing process described above is complete, the

6 Service Company Recipient Allocation begins. In this second-tier

7 allocation, the total dollar amount that was billed to ESI for services

8 provided to ESI Fossil employees by Human Resources (contained within

9 the Support-Corporate pool) is distributed to the labor amounts that were

10 billed by the ESI Fossil group (the basis), thereby loading the Fossil

11 organization's labor billings with their share of service company

12 recipient charges.

13

14 Q. WHY DOES ESI USE THIS TWO-TIERED APPROACH FOR BILLING?

15 A The two-tiered approach is used to ensure that all the costs (both

16 overhead and direct) are paid for by the affiliates that cause the costs. It

17 is important that ETI be able to determine the total cost associated with its

18 projects and services. The Service Company Recipient Allocation

19 ensures that overheads associated with managing each are

loaded to the projects to which those functional employees charged their

21 time. This enables each project to be fully-loaded with both the direct

22 costs assigned to the project as well as service company

23 recipient charges.
 Entergy Inc. Page 70 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THIS PROCESS SINCE THE

2 COMMISSION'S LAST REVIEW IN DOCKET NO. 37744?

3 A. Yes. The Service Company Recipient Allocation's basis was adjusted in

4 January 2010 to include not only labor billings to ESI affiliates, but also

5 labor costs that remain at ESI such as capital or other balance sheet items

6 maintained at ESI. Prior to the change, the basis included only labor

7 billings to affiliates from ESL As a result of the change, ESl-owned capital

8 projects (not included in cost of service) are loaded with the service

9 company recipient charges as well. In addition, beginning in January

10 2010, the number of functional rates was changed from sixteen to five.

11 This change was implemented to streamline the process so that internal

12 customers could more easily analyze and predict their service company

13 recipient costs.

14

15 E. Payroll Loaders

16 Q. WHAT ARE PAYROLL LOADERS?

17 A. Payroll loaders allocate payroll-related costs, specifically payroll taxes,

18 employee benefits, post-employment benefits, stock options, certain

19 paid

20 own loader. These payroll-related costs are loaded to projects so that

21 each project is fully-loaded with both the direct labor costs and the

22 associated payroll loaders.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 71 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie R Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE PAYROLL LOADERS PROCESS.

2 A. The Human Resources department provides Affiliate Accounting and

3 Allocations with base standard rates for employee benefits, post-

4 employment benefits, and stock options, while the Compensation and

5 Benefits Design department provides the base standard rates for

6 incentives. These base standard rates are based on total payroll. The

7 base standard rate for payroll taxes is calculated by the Affiliate

8 Accounting and Allocations group based on payroll taxes paid during the

9 prior year as a percentage of the total payroll paid during the prior year.

10 Because payroll allocations load only on productive payroll rather than

11 total payroll, the Affiliate Accounting and Allocations group adjusts these

12 base standard rates by productive factors to generate actual loader rates.

13 The actual loader rate for paid time off is also caicuiated by the Affiliate

14 Accounting and Allocations group based on the percentage of non

15 productive payroll to productive payroll.

16 The loader rates for employee benefits, post-employment benefits,

17 stock options, incentives, and paid time off are applied to productive

18 straight-time payroll (excluding overtime) The loader rate for payroll taxes

19 is applied total productive (including All are

assigned the same as the labor, so that they properly follow the same

21 billing distribution as the labor dollars on which they are based As I

22 explained earlier in my testimony, each PC is assigned one billing method
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 72 of98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 that will most appropriately allocate the charges to the companies

2 receiving the services based on cost-causation principles.

3

4 Q. HOW OFTEN ARE LOADER RATES REVIEWED AND ADJUSTED, IF

5 NEEDED?

6 A The loader rates for payroll taxes, employee benefits, post-employment

7 benefits, stock options, incentives, and paid time off, are reviewed for

8 reasonableness by the Affiliate Accounting and Allocations group on a

9 quarterly basis and adjusted, or trued-up, on an annual basis.

10

11 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THIS PROCESS SINCE THE

12 COMMISSION'S LAST REVIEW IN DOCKET NO. 37744?

13 A Yes. In Docket No. 37744 (test period including the twelve months ended

14 June 30, 2009) the payroll loaders included employee benefits, post-

15 employment benefits, incentives, payroll taxes, and paid time off. The

16 post-employment benefits loader was comprised of payroll related costs

17 associated with stock options, pensions, and other post-employment

18 benefits. In July 2010, the payroll related costs associated with stock

19

20 payroll loader was created to identify those costs with a separate, unique

21 resource code. The post-employment benefits loader now excludes the

22 payroll related costs associated with stock options.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 73 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 VIII. OTHER AFFILIATE BILLINGS

2 Q. BESIDES ESI, WHICH ENTERGY COMPANIES BILLED ETI FOR

3 SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE TEST YEAR?

4 A Each of the Operating Companies billed ETI for services rendered. There

5 are several reasons for the Operating Companies to provide services to

6 one another. For instance, materials from the storeroom of one Operating

7 Company are often transferred to another. Also, one Operating Company

8 may assist another in an emergency situation, such as during a storm and

9 subsequent storm restoration. An Operating Company affiliate can also

10 transfer a percentage of the operating costs of a shared plant to another

11 Operating Company affiliate through the co-owner billing process. As

12 noted previously, during the test year, EGSL transferred operating costs to

13 ETI related to the jointly-owned Nelson 6 plant. In addition, certain of

14 Entergy Corporation's non-regulated affiliates also loaned services to ETI.

15 These services primarily relate to loaned labor and material transfers.

16 The following exhibits provide a listing of test year per book billings

17 by project/activity code for each Operating Company to its affiliates and for

18 non-regulated affiliates to the regulated affiliates:

19 • Exhibit SBT-20 - Arkansas Billings Affiliates;

• 1 - States Louisiana Billings to
21 Affiliates;

22 • Exhibit SBT-22 - Entergy Louisiana Billings to Affiliates;

23 • Exhibit SBT-23 - Entergy Mississippi Billings to Affiliates;
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 74 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 • Exhibit SBT-24 - Entergy New Orleans Billings to Affiliates;
2 and

3 • Exhibit SBT-25 - Entergy Non-Regulated Affiliates Billings to
4 Regulated Affiliates

5

6 IX. SPONSORED CLASSES OF AFFILIATE COSTS

7 A. Overview

8 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

9 A. I sponsor the following three classes of affiliate costs:

10 (1) Depreciation. The Depreciation Class includes the cost for
11 the depreciation and amortization of ESI assets. These
12 assets are used by ESI in the provision of services to its
13 affiliate companies;

14 (2) Service Company Recipient Offsets. The Total ETI Adjusted
15 amount for the Service Company Recipient Offsets Class is
16 zero. This class is set up for Accounting purposes only; and

17 (3) Other Expenses. The Other Expenses Class primarily
18 includes payroll-related costs that have not yet been loaded
19 to individual departments, the credit ETI received from the
20 5% upcharge to the non-regulated affiliates, and other
21 miscellaneous costs not associated with other specific
22 classes.

23 As shown on my Exhibits SBT-5 and SBT-6, these three classes

24 are in the Accounting Entries function, which is included in the Corporate

Support family.

27 Q. WITH REGARD TO THE THREE CLASSES THAT YOU SPONSOR, DO

28 THE BILLINGS PROVIDED TO ETI DURING THE TEST YEAR MEET
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 75 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 THE COMMISSION STANDARDS FOR INCLUSION OF SUCH COSTS

2 IN RATES?

3 A Yes. The billings to ETI during the test year in the three classes of costs

4 that I sponsor meet the Commission standards for inclusion of such costs

5 in rates (noting, again, that there are no costs from the Service Company

6 Recipient Offsets Class included in the Total ETI Adjusted amounts in this

7 case). Specifically:

8 1. The charges billed to ETI during the test year were
9 reasonable and necessary for the operation of ETI.

10 2. The amount charged to ETI through the PC billing process,
11 the co-owner billing process, and the loaned resource billing
12 process for each cost or class of costs during the test year
13 are no higher than the amount charged to the other affiliates
14 or non-affiliated persons for these classes of costs.

15 3. The amounts charged to ETI during the test year represent
16 the actual costs of services provided to ETI.

17 4. As with all other classes of affiliate costs, expenses that are
18 not allowed for ratemaking purposes are included in the
19 billed expenses, but are excluded from the Total ET!
20 Adjusted amount as below-the-line expenses in accounts
21 such as Account No. 426, and/or are included in the pro
22 forma adjustments shown on Schedule G-6.2, and,
23 therefore, are not included in cost of service.

24 5 The items charged to ET! are not duplicative of items already
25 provided by or for ETI.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 76 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 B. Depreciation Class

2 1. Description of Class

3 a. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE DEPRECIATION CLASS OF

4 AFFILIATE COSTS.

5 A. This class represents the cost of depreciation and amortization of ESI

6 assets. These assets are used by ESI for the provision of services to its

7 affiliate companies.

8

9 a. WHAT IS THE TOTAL ETI ADJUSTED AMOUNT FOR THIS CLASS OF

10 SERVICES?

11 A. As shown in Exhibits SBT-A, SBT-B, and SBT-C, the Total ETI Adjusted

12 amount for this class of services is $1,777,986. Of this amount, ESI

13 directly billed 27% of the amount, and allocated 73% of the amount, to

14 ETI. The following table summarizes this information for the Depreciation

15 Class. The table shows for each class the following information:
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 77 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie R Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

Total Billings Dollar amount of total Test Year billings and
charges from ESI to all Entergy Business
Units, plus the dollar amount of all other
affiliate charges to ETI that originated from
any Entergy Business Unit. This is the
amount from Column (C) of the cost exhibits
SBT-A, SBT-B, and SBT-C.

Total ETI Adjusted ETl's adjusted amount for electric cost of
service after pro form a adjustments and
exclusions.

% Direct Billed The percentage of the ETI adjusted test year
amount that was billed 100% to ETI.

% Allocated The percentage of the ETI adjusted test year
amount that was allocated to ETI.

Total ETI Adjusted
Class Total Billings Amount % Direct % Allocated

Depreciation $26,406,546 $1,777,986 27% 73%

1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE EXHIBITS THAT SUPPORT THE

2 INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE TABLE ABOVE.

3 A. Please see Exhibits SBT-A, SBT-B, and SBT-C, which I described above

4 in connection with my affiliate overview presentation. For each of these

5 exhibits, the amounts in the columns represent the following information:
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 78 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

Column (A)- Dollar amount of total Test Year billings and
Support charges from ESI to all Entergy Business Units,
plus the dollar amount of all other affiliate
charges to ETI that originated from any Entergy
Business Unit

Column (B)- Dollar amount that was included in the service
Service Company company recipient allocation. Service company
Recipient recipient charges are the cost of services that
ESI provides to itself, which in turn are charged
to affiliates that receive those services. The
service company recipient allocation process is
described earlier in my testimony.

Column (C)- Represents the sum of Columns (A) and (B).
Total

Column (0)- That portion of Column (C) that was billed and
All Other BU's charged to Business Units other than ETI.

Column (E)- Represents the difference between Columns (C)
ETI Per Books and (D).

Column (F)- Represents amounts that are excluded from ETI
Exclusions eiectric cost of service. The exclusions are
described in my testimony.

Column (G)- Pro Forma Amounts include adjustments for
Pro Forma Amount known and measurable changes, and
corrections.

Column (H)- ETI adjusted amount requested for recovery in
Total ETI Adjusted this case for this class (Column (E) plus
Columns (F) and (G)).

F

2 (Exclusions) and Column G (Pro Forma Amount) earlier in my testimony.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 79 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. ARE THERE ANY PRO FORMA ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS CLASS?

2 A. Yes. The proforma adjustments for the Depreciation Class are shown on

3 Exhibit SBT-D, which also indicates the Company witnesses who sponsor

4 those pro forma adjustments, and lists the pro forma adjustments by

5 account. As indicated on Exhibit SBT-D, I sponsor three pro forma

6 adjustments to the Depreciation Class. Exhibit SBT-12 describes the pro

7 forma adjustments to the Depreciation Class in greater detail.

8

9 2. Necessity

10 Q. WHAT KINDS OF ASSETS ARE OWNED BY ESI THAT RESULT IN THE

11 DEPRECIATION THAT IS THEN CHARGED TO THE AFFILIATE

12 COMPANIES?

13 A. In order to provide services to its affiiiate companies, ESi must invest in

14 certain depreciable assets to support its operations. These assets consist

15 primarily of computer equipment, computer software systems,

16 communications equipment, furniture, fixtures, leasehold improvements,

17 and aircraft. However, a pro forma adjustment was made to remove

18 Company aircraft costs, including depreciation on aircraft, from the

19 cost
 Entergy Inc. Page 80 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THE DEPRECIATION OF ESl'S ASSETS IS

2 CALCULATED.

3 A. The purpose of depreciation is to distribute the cost of an asset over its

4 expected useful life. Total depreciation expense over the life of an asset

5 is equal to the asset's cost (less any proceeds realized upon disposal).

6 ESI uses the straight-line method to calculate the annual depreciation

7 expense for its assets. Use of this depreciation method results in the cost

8 of an asset being distributed evenly over the expected useful life of the

9 asset For example, an asset costing $1,000 that has an expected service

10 life of 10 years would result in depreciation expense for this asset of $100

11 per year for a period of 10 years ($1,000 divided by 10 years= $100 per

12 year or 10% a year). This method of calculating depreciation is

13 appropriate under generally accepted accounting principles. The straight-

14 line method is also the most commonly used and accepted depreciation

15 method. According to an American Institute of Certified Public

16 Accountants survey of 544 companies in 2009, 89% use the straight-line

17 method of depreciation versus other methods, which are primarily

18 accelerated methods of depreciation. 16 Exhibit SBT-26 is a summary of

19

20 plant, and the service life used to calculate depreciation.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 81of98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE DEPRECIATION COSTS BILLED TO ETI

2 ARE NECESSARY.

3 A ESI requires certain assets to support the operations that provide services

4 to its affiliates, including ETI. The depreciation cost is the result of

5 distributing the cost of these assets over their expected service lives to the

6 recipients of the services provided by ESL These assets enable ESI to

7 provide the services required by its affiliates, including ETI, in the most

8 efficient, effective, and reliable manner possible. Without such assets to

9 support its operations, ESI could not provide the services that are required

10 by its affiliates, including ETI. Depreciation of those assets is a necessary

11 and proper component of the cost of owning and using the assets to

12 provide services.

13

14 3. Reasonableness

15 Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE DEPRECIATION EXPENSE TO

16 DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHARGES WERE REASONABLE?

17 A Yes. The charges to ETI for the costs I sponsor are reasonable for the

18 operation of ETI because the method of calculating depreciation

19 (straight-line method) is appropriate generally accepted accounting

principles and is the most common method addition, price

21 charged by ESI to ETI for this item represents the actual cost of this item.
 Entergy Inc. Page 82 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate

1 Q. WHAT OBJECTIVE SOURCES SUPPORT YOUR OPINION THAT THE

2 DEPRECIATION COSTS BILLED BY ENTERGY SERVICES TO ETI ARE

3 REASONABLE?

4 A. Exhibit SBT-27 is a benchmarking study prepared under my supervision

5 that compares the dollar amount of assets per employee for ESI to the

6 dollar amount of assets per employee for other PUHCA 2005 service

7 companies. This measure, cost of assets per employee, is appropriate

8 because employees drive the need for assets in service companies.

9 Because the number of employees would be the primary determinant of

10 the level of the assets that would be required, assets per employee is a

11 valid measure. Exhibit SBT-27 compares the service company property

12 per employee of ESI to the service company property per employee of six

13 other PUHCA 2005 service companies with at least $100 million of service

14 company property as of December 31, 2010. This exhibit shows ES l's

15 cost of assets per employee, while slightly higher than the average, is

16 reasonable compared to that of the other PUHCA 2005 service

17 companies. This comparison is based on service company headcount

18 information contained in the respective corporate Forms 10-K and service

19

20 Form 60 Annual Report for the period ending December 31, 2010.

21 However, the service company property for Southern Company

22 Services, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc., Exelon Business Services

on
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 83 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 SBT-27 differs from what was reported on the companies' 2010 FERG

2 Form 60s. These were the only companies that included Transportation

3 Equipment in their Service Company Property. Beginning with the FERG

4 Form 60 Annual Report for the period ending December 31, 2008, the

5 service company property category "Aircraft and Airport Equipment" was

6 eliminated and included in "Transportation Equipment." A pro forma

7 adjustment was made (AJ21-01) to remove Company aircraft costs from

8 the Company's cost of service. Therefore, to be consistent with the costs

9 included in this case, the Transportation Equipment was removed from the

10 total Service Company Property for all companies before the

11 benchmarking study was completed. Because the benchmarking study

12 supports the reasonableness of the level of assets being depreciated, and

13 the procedures used to depreciate the assets are appropriate and

14 consistent with well accepted accounting practices, the ultimate level of

15 depreciation is likewise reasonable.

16 With the exception of depreciation on aircraft, ESI distributes the

17 costs associated with the depreciation and amortization of ES! assets

18 based on the labor cost billed to each affiliate. Distributing ESl's

19 depreciation and amortization this manner is an appropriate

20 allocation of these costs because employee labor is a reasonable

21 measure of the level of services provided by ES! employees to affiliates,

22 and employees and the services they provide drive the need for the assets

23 utilized by in its operations. Depreciation on aircraft is as a
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 84 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 component of total flight costs of ESI aircraft. Flight costs are charged to

2 specific PCs based on the PC( s) associated with the ridership and

3 purpose of a particular flight. However, as noted above, a pro forma

4 adjustment was made to remove Company aircraft costs, including

5 depreciation on aircraft, from the Company's cost of service.

6

7 4. How Costs are Charged

8 Q. DO THE DEPRECIATION COSTS CHARGED BY ENTERGY SERVICES

9 TO ETI UNDER THIS CLASS REASONABLY APPROXIMATE THE

10 COSTS OF THOSE ITEMS?

11 A. Yes. The depreciation costs charged are based on the actual costs of the

12 assets supporting ESl's operations and do not include any profit

13 or markup.

14

15 Q. IS THE PRICE CHARGED TO ETI FOR DEPRECIATION NO HIGHER

16 THAN THE PRICE CHARGED TO OTHER AFFILIATES?

17 A. Yes. The price charged to ET! is no higher than the price charged by ESI

18 to the other affiliates for depreciation on a per unit basis. With the

19

20 onto each ESI labor dollar, and then billed out to affiliates.

21 depreciation loader is assigned the same PC as labor, so that it properly

22 follows the same billing distribution as the labor dollars on which it is

is assigned one billing
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 85 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 method that will most appropriately allocate the charges to the companies

2 receiving the services based on cost-causation principles. Thus,

3 depreciation cost is billed to each affiliate at the same rate for each dollar

4 of labor charged, ensuring that costs are equitably distributed to

5 each affiliate.

6

7 Q. HOW ARE THE COSTS OF THIS CLASS CAPTURED AND BILLED TO

8 ETI?

9 A. With the exception of depreciation on aircraft, the cost associated with this

10 class is initially captured in Project Code F5PCZUDEPX, Depreciation and

11 Amortization, and then these costs are distributed directly to ESI PCs

12 based on the labor charged to the project codes. The receiving PCs then

13 bill the depreciation costs (along with all other costs charged to the PC) to

14 ESl's affiliates based on the assigned billing method for each project.

15 During the test year, projects receiving depreciation costs billed

16 $1,777,986 Total ETI Adjusted, which includes proforma adjustments, to

17 ET!. Exhibit SBT-8 shows the costs included in this class by project code.

18

19 IS

21 ESI?

22 A. As noted, with the exception of depreciation on aircraft, ESI assigned

23 depreciation costs based on projects
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 86 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 billed these costs to affiliates based on the billing method assigned to

2 each project. The use of assets required to support ESI employee service

3 functions results in the depreciation and amortization cost. labor charged

4 to projects is an appropriate allocation for this cost because ESI employee

5 labor is a reasonable measure of the level of services provided by ESI

6 employees to affiliates. This process distributes the depreciation and

7 amortization of assets necessary for the ESI employees to provide

8 services to its affiliates in a manner consistent with the distribution of ESI

9 labor to the affiliates that receive services.

10

11 C. Service Company Recipient Offsets (also referred to as Shared Services
12 loader Offsets)

13 1. Description of Class

14 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THIS CLASS OF AFFILIATE COSTS.

15 A. This class represents the corresponding credit to Service Company

16 Recipient Allocation transactions. As discussed earlier in my testimony,

17 the Service Company Recipient Allocation is the mechanism by which the

18 costs of services provided by ES! employees to operate ESI that are

19 initially billed to through the billing process are distributed to ESl's

affiliates a

21 ESI services received in a "clearing account" on its balance sheet. These

22 costs reside temporarily in this clearing account until they are distributed

to affiliates that are using the services of ESI employees. There are two
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 87 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 components of the Service Company Recipient Allocation process: the

2 recording of costs in the clearing account during the PC billing process;

3 and removal from or credit to the clearing account during the second tier

4 allocation process. Because the costs are distributed to all affiliates based

5 on the labor billings of ESI employees, the allocated costs are reflected in

6 the other affiliate classes. The loader offset, which is charged to a

7 balance sheet clearing account, is reflected in the Service Company

8 Recipient Offsets Class. Because the loader offset is charged to a

9 balance sheet account at ESI, loader offset amounts are not included in

10 the Total ETI Adjusted, as shown on my Exhibits SBT-A, SBT-B, and

11 SBT-C.

12

13 D. Other Expenses Class

14 1. Description of Class

15 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THIS CLASS OF AFFILIATE COSTS.

16 A This class reflects $1,756,009 of costs resulting from certain accounting

17 adjustments. It primarily includes costs related to payroll, the credit from

18 the 5% upcharge to the non-regulated affiliates, and other miscellaneous

19 costs that are not associated any other specific affiliate class.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 88 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE

2 PAYROLL-RELATED COSTS INCLUDED IN THIS CLASS.

3 A. Certain payroll-related adjustments, which resulted in the payroll-related

4 costs in this class, are primarily the result of the use of standard estimated

5 rates throughout the year, which differ from actual recorded charges at the

6 end of the year. The costs resulting from the payroll-related adjustments

7 account for approximately $2.3 million. (As I explain below, there is a

8 credit that offsets this amount by $500,000.) Company witness Gardner

9 discusses the reasonableness of various types of payroll-related costs,

10 including employee benefits, teamsharing, and other incentive

11 compensation and payroll taxes. I address the residual amount of these

12 payroll-related costs that have not been loaded to specific departments.

13

14 Q. BESIDES THESE PAYROLL-RELATED COSTS, WHAT OTHER COSTS

15 ARE INCLUDED IN THE OTHER EXPENSES CLASS?

16 A Also included in the Other Expenses Class is a credit of approximately

17 $500,000 of other expenses. The other expenses within this class are

18 primarily made up of credits related to the 5% upcharge to the non-

9

20 approximately $240,000.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 89 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. WHAT PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL ETI ADJUSTED FOR THIS

2 CLASS WERE DIRECT BILLED AND ALLOCATED TO ETI?

3 A. As shown on Exhibit SBT-A, SBT-B, and SBT-C, the Total ETI Adjusted

4 amount for this class of services is $1,756,009. Of this amount, ESI

5 directly billed the $500,000 credit described above {which is -13.9% of the

6 Total ETI Adjusted amount) and allocated the payroll-related costs (which

7 is 113.9% of the Total ETI Adjusted amount) to ETI. The following table

8 summarizes this information for the Other Expenses Class. I described

9 the column names previously in the Depreciation Class section of my

10 testimony.

Total ETI Adjusted
Class Total Billings Amount % Direct % Allocated
Other Expenses
$36,585,596 $1,756,009 -13.9% 113.9%

11 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE EXHIBITS THAT SUPPORT THE

12 INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE TABLE ABOVE.

13 A. Exhibits SBT-A through SBT-C support the information for this class in the

14 same manner as I discussed earlier my testimony. each exhibit, the

15 amounts the columns represent the same information as described

6 above to Class.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 90 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. ARE THERE ANY PRO FORMA ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS CLASS?

2 A. Yes. The proforma adjustments for the Other Expenses Class are shown

3 on Exhibit SBT-0, which also indicates the Company witnesses who

4 sponsor those pro forma adjustments. As indicated on Exhibit SBT-0,

5 there were eleven pro forma adjustments made to the Other Expenses

6 Class. Exhibit SBT-12 describes the proforma adjustments to this Class

7 in greater detail.

8

9 Q. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR COST COMPONENTS OF THE CHARGES

10 FOR THIS CLASS?

11 A The major cost components for charges from ESI to ETI are as follows:

Cost Com(!onent Dollars % of Total

Payroll and Employee
$2,280,649 129.88%
Costs
Outside Services $112,325 6.4%
Office and Employee
$1 0%
Expenses
Service Company
..
Rec1p1ent
$105,361 I 6%

Other $-742,327 -42.27%

TOTAL $1,756,009 100%

12 Q. WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE COST CATEGORIES?

13 A The foregoing table is common to most affiliate witnesses in this case.

14 directly sponsor the costs shown in this table because they comprise the
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 91of98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Total ETI Adjusted amount for the Other Expenses Class. This breakout

2 of costs provides an additional view of the components of the costs in this

3 class. For example, the table demonstrates that 129.88% of the costs are

4 for compensation, employee benefits, and other labor-related expenses

5 ("Payroll and Employee Costs"). These costs are the result of certain

6 payroll-related adjustments, which I discussed earlier in this section.

7 Company witness Gardner discusses overall payroll and benefits-related

8 structure and practices. The Other expenses in this class, as I previously

9 discussed, include the credits related to the 5% upcharge to the

10 non-regulated affiliates, and other miscellaneous accounting adjustments.

11

12 2. Necessity

13 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT RESULTED IN

14 THE COSTS BILLED TO ETI UNDER THE OTHER EXPENSES CLASS

15 ARE NECESSARY.

16 A. As explained above, the adjustments resulting in the payroll-related costs

17 included in the Other Expenses Class are necessary to reflect costs

18 associated with reasonable and necessary compensation and benefit

19 programs that Company witness discusses direct

were necessary

21 reflect accounting entries in the Company's books in accordance with

generally accepted accounting standards.

0 A'.l'i
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 92 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 3. Reasonableness

2 Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE COSTS IN THE OTHER EXPENSES

3 CLASS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE

4 REASONABLE?

5 A. Yes. The adjustments that result in the payroll-related costs in the Other

6 Expenses Class are reasonable because they were made in accordance

7 with generally accepted accounting standards to reflect timing differences

8 associated with book entries. There is no duplication or over-recovery of

9 actual costs. The reasonableness of the compensation and benefit

10 programs associated with these payroll-related costs are discussed by

11 Company witness Gardner. As stated, the remaining adjustments are

12 reasonable (and necessary) to reflect proper and accepted accounting

13 practices with regard to the Company's books.

14

15 4. How Costs are Charged

16 Q. DO THE COSTS CHARGED BY ES! TO ETI UNDER THE OTHER

17 EXPENSES CLASS REASONABLY APPROXIMATE THE COSTS OF

18 THOSE ITEMS?

19 costs charged under the Expenses

are the result of certain adjustments, are based on actual costs do

21 include any profit or markup.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 93 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. IS THE PRICE CHARGED TO ETI FOR ADJUSTMENTS CHARGED

2 UNDER THIS CLASS NO HIGHER THAN THE PRICE CHARGED TO

3 OTHER AFFILIATES?

4 A Yes. The adjustments that resulted in the costs in this class ensure that

5 the total costs charged to ETI are no higher than the price charged by ESI

6 to the other affiliates for the costs charged under the Other Expenses

7 Class. The adjustments that resulted in the payroll-related costs in this

8 class are part of a true-up process to adjust payroll-related account

9 balances for the use of standard estimated rates during the year. The

10 account balance true-ups follow the same billing distribution as the original

11 payroll loaders with the same PCs used for labor costs. As I explained

12 earlier in my testimony, each PC is assigned one billing method that will

13 most appropriately allocate the charges to the companies receiving the

14 services based on cost-causation principles. This basis of cost allocation

15 ensures that the price charged to ETI is no higher than the price charged

16 to other affiliates.

17

18 X. SPONSORED AFFILIATE PRO FORMA ADJUSTMENTS

19 DO SPONSOR ANY OF PROFORMA

YEAR INCLUDED IN 2?

21 A Yes. Exhibit SBT-12 identifies the proforma adjustments that I sponsor.
 Entergy Inc. Page 94 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie 8. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 a. PLEASE DISCUSS THE PRO FORMA ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TEST

2 YEAR COSTS THAT YOU SPONSOR.

3 A The adjustments to the test year affiliate costs that I sponsor are listed

4 below.

5 • AJ21-04 - PwC Changes in Billing Methods

6 • AJ21-11 - Correct Capital Project Codes

7 • AJ21-14 - Billing Method Change for Project Code
8 F3PCTDOR01

9 These test year pro forma adjustments are described in greater

10 detail in Exhibit SBT-12 and Exhibit SBT-D, which includes details of the

11 pro forma adjustments by account.

12

13 a. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL AFFILIATE PRO FORMA

14 ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TEST YEAR THAT ARE SPONSORED BY

15 SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU?

16 A Yes. Please refer to Exhibit SBT-12 for a listing and description of the

17 affiliate pro forma adjustments to the test year sponsored by other

18 Company witnesses.

19

21 a. ARE ESl'S COSTS OF PROVIDING ITS SUPPORT SERVICES

22 COMPARABLE TO OTHER SERVICE COMPANIES?

costs are generally in line with those of peer service companies.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 95 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. HAVE YOU DONE ANY TYPE OF ANALYSIS TO REACH THE

2 CONCLUSION THAT ESl'S COSTS ARE GENERALLY IN LINE WITH

3 THOSE OF PEER SERVICE COMPANIES?

4 A. Yes, I conducted a benchmarking analysis comparing ESl's costs with the

5 costs of peer service companies using publicly available information in the

6 December 31, 2010 FERC Form 60 for a peer group of service companies

7 and the December 31, 2010 Form 10-K for the related holding companies.

8

9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW YOU DEVELOPED YOUR LIST OF PEER

10 GROUP SERVICE COMPANIES.

11 A. I identified the list of service companies that submitted a December 31,

12 2010 Form 60 to the FERC. The FERC Form 60 is required to be filed by

13 all utility service companies serving multiple jurisdictions. For 2010, 38

14 service companies, including ESI, submitted the FERC Form 60. Several

15 of these companies have multiple service companies that provide specific

16 services that are not comparable to ESI, including those that provide

17 nuclear generation operations. My analysis excluded those service

18 companies that provide specific services that are not comparable to ESI.

19 order ensure direct comparability, my analysis also excluded service

companies with a based parent company and companies with

21 fewer than 1 million customers. To ensure that the analysis was

22 performed among similar companies, I then included only those

companies whose holding company systems were classified as
 Entergy Texas. Inc. Page 96 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Utilities" by the Global Industry Classification Standard. Lastly, I excluded

2 those companies whose service company headcount information is not

3 publicly available in the Form 10-K or whose FERC Form 60 does not

4 include service company property. The resulting 2010 ESI peer group

5 used in my benchmarking analysis includes Allegheny, AEP, Exelon,

6 FirstEnergy, Northeast Utilities, PEPCO, and Southern Company. A high

7 level overview of the peer group selection process is included in

8 Exhibit SBT-28A.

9

10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FERC FORM 60 DATA AND THE FORM 10-K

11 DATA THAT WAS USED IN YOUR BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS.

12 A. My benchmarking analysis captured service company O&M expense as a

13 percentage of total company O&M, service company O&M expense as a

14 percentage of total company revenue, service company O&M expense as

15 a percentage of total company assets, and service company O&M

16 expense per service company employee. The service company O&M

17 expense is publicly available in the FERG Form 60. The total company

18 O&M, total company revenue, total company assets, and service company

19 are available 1

20 were calculated on a per-unit basis rather than a total cost basis due to

21 differing levels of granularity and aggregation in the total costs.
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 97 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 Q. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF YOUR BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS

2 FOR EACH OF THE COST COMPARISONS LISTED ABOVE?

3 A As shown in Exhibit SBT-28B, ESI O&M expense represents 21.50% of

4 total company O&M expense, which is below the peer group average of

5 26.33%. As shown in Exhibit SBT-28C, ESI O&M expense represents

6 9.49% of total company revenue, which is below the peer group average

7 of 10.77%. As shown in Exhibit SBT-28D, ESI O&M expense represents

8 1.79% of total company assets, which is below the peer group average of

9 2.05%. Lastly, as shown in Exhibit SBT-28E, ESI O&M expense is

10 $220,325 per ESI employee, which is below the peer group average of

11 $248, 142 per service company employee.

12

13 Q. HOW SHOULD COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO A

14 PEER GROUP, AS CALCULATED THROUGH BENCHMARKING, BE

15 VIEWED?

16 A In general, service company costs that are at or better than average

17 provide an indication that a company is providing services in a cost

18 effective manner.

19

YOU BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS

21 THAT YOU PERFORMED?

22 A The overall benchmarking analysis indicated that ESI performed slightly

23 better than the peer As a

2011 ETI RatE> Ca""
 Entergy Texas, Inc. Page 98 of 98
Direct Testimony of Stephanie B. Tumminello
2011 Rate Case

1 analysis, I have concluded that ESl's costs are generally in line with those

2 of peer service companies, which supports the conclusion that ESI costs

3 charged to ETI are reasonable.

4

5 XII. CONCLUSION

6 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?

7 A. Yes, at this time.
 Entergy Non-Regulated Exhibit SBT-25
Affiliate Per Book Billings to Regulated Affiliates by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 3
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
Non Regulated - - - - - 163,034 - - 163,034
Non Regulated C1PPFI5207 Payroll Time & Labor - Phase I - - - - - 893 - - 893
Non Regulated C6PCN32144 GRAND GULF EXTENDED POWER UPRA - - - - - 68,512 - - 68,512
Non Regulated C6PCN66105 DRY FUEL STORAGE - STUDY PHASE - - 6,846 - - - - - 6,846
Non Regulated C6PCN70858 RIVER BEND EXTENDED POWER UPRA - 63,312 - - - - - - 63,312
Non Regulated C6PPN32689 Security:SOCA Camera/Video Sys - - - - - 14,625 - - 14,625
Non Regulated C6PPN66800 Misc Security Mods - - - - - 14,625 - - 14,625
Non Regulated C6PPN71535 SECURITY: MISC. SECURITY MODS - - - - - 14,625 - - 14,625
Non Regulated C6PPN71638 B33-PC001A SEAL REPLACEMENT RF - - - - 17,856 - - - 17,856
Non Regulated C6PPN87125 ANOC Monitoring,Detection,CAS/ - - - - - 14,625 - - 14,625
Non Regulated E1PCN01631 U1-General Mechanical 1,084 - - - - - - - 1,084
Non Regulated E1PCN01632 U1-General Electrical 330 - - - - - - - 330
Non Regulated E1PCN01702 U2-Refueling & Fuel Handling - - - - 9,062 - - - 9,062
Non Regulated E1PCN01715 U2-Motor Operated Valves (MOV) - - - - 15,036 - - - 15,036
Non Regulated E1PCN01718 U2-Emergency Diesel Generators 8,120 - - - 19,115 - - - 27,234
Non Regulated E1PCN01721 U2-General Mechanical 35,357 - - - - - - - 35,357
Non Regulated E1PCN01723 U2-General Instruments & Contr - - - - 12,478 - - - 12,478
Non Regulated E1PCN07539 OUTAGE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY - - - - 208 - - - 208
Non Regulated E1PCN07540 OUTAGE IN/OUT PROCESSING - - - - 16,756 - - - 16,756
Non Regulated E1PCN07552 REFUELNG/FUEL HANDLNG - - - - 16,312 - - - 16,312
Non Regulated E1PCN07553 TURBINE GENERATOR & AUXILIARIE - - - - 26,757 - - - 26,757
Non Regulated E1PCN07562 OUTAGE OPERATIONS WORK - - - - 12,481 - - - 12,481
Non Regulated E1PCN07564 OUTAGE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES - 17,867 - - 87,807 - - - 105,673
Non Regulated E1PCN07578 INSERVICE INSPECTION/IWE-IWL P - - - - 2,573 - - - 2,573
Non Regulated E1PCN07579 HEALTH PHYSICS OUTAGE WORK - - - - 24,086 - - - 24,086
Non Regulated E1PCN07580 MECHANICAL OUTAGE WORK - - - - 14,614 - - - 14,614
Non Regulated E1PCN07581 ELECTRICAL OUTAGE WORK - - - - 71,336 - - - 71,336
Non Regulated E1PCN07582 I&C OUTAGE WORK - 8,027 - - 128,794 - - - 136,821
Non Regulated E1PCN08301 REFUELING AND FUEL HANDLING - - 9,606 - 18,897 - - - 28,503
Non Regulated E1PCN08304 MAINTENANCE SUPPORT OUTAGE WOR - - 1,784 - - - - - 1,784
Non Regulated E1PCN08315 REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS / MOTORS - - 30,152 - - - - - 30,152
Non Regulated E1PCN08320 GENERAL CONTAINMENT OUTAGE SUP - - 5,148 - - - - - 5,148
Non Regulated E1PCN08322 OUTAGE IN-PROCESS / OUT-PROCES - - 9,978 - - - - - 9,978
Non Regulated E1PCN08323 OUTAGE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES - - 33,525 - 19,403 - - - 52,928
Non Regulated E1PCN08324 OUTAGE SCAFFOLDING WORK - - 18,470 - - - - - 18,470
Non Regulated E1PCN08325 MECHANICAL OUTAGE WORK - - 4,100 - 10,407 - - - 14,507
Non Regulated E1PCN08326 ELECTRICAL OUTAGE WORK - - 59,973 - 4,231 - - - 64,203
Non Regulated E1PCN08329 HEALTH PHYSICS WORK - - 29,647 - - - - - 29,647
Non Regulated E1PCN08350 STEAM GENERATORS / PRESSURIZER - - 14,707 - - - - - 14,707
Non Regulated E1PCN08353 HEAT EXCHANGER TESTING / MAINT - - - - 15,583 - - - 15,583
Non Regulated E1PCNN5413 NUCLEAR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - - - - - 2,548 - - 2,548
Non Regulated E1PPN01741 U2-Performance Incentive-Staff - - - - 13,785 - - - 13,785
Non Regulated E1PPN01744 U2-Switchyard/Transformers >13 6,129 - - - - - - - 6,129

Exhibit SBT-25
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 3
 Entergy Non-Regulated Exhibit SBT-25
Affiliate Per Book Billings to Regulated Affiliates by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 3
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
Non Regulated E1PPN09155 OUTAGE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE - 241 - - 38,112 - - - 38,353
Non Regulated E1PPN09295 TURBINE ROTOR REPAIR - RF16 - - - - 3,297 - - - 3,297
Non Regulated E1PPNG6768 OUTAGE STAFF PERFORMANCE INCEN - - - - 12,982 - - - 12,982
Non Regulated F3PC380000 MISC. BASE TASK EXPENDITURES 296 97,002 467 - - - - - 97,765
Non Regulated F3PC380347 DOWNPOWERS OVERTIME - - - - - 3,767 - - 3,767
Non Regulated F3PC4R0000 SAP MAPPING DEFAULT 8,292 1,969 4,243 - - - - 1,865 16,368
Non Regulated F3PC5WAREH WAREHOUSE OPERATIONS 3,507 8,122 891 - - - - - 12,520
Non Regulated F3PC6H0026 NORTHEAST MGMT OVERSITE IP2/IP - - - - - 3,055 - - 3,055
Non Regulated F3PC6H00JF DIRECT SUPPORT TO JAF - - - - - 29,135 - - 29,135
Non Regulated F3PC6H00PN DIRECT SUPPORT TO PILGRIM NPS - - - - - 29,707 - - 29,707
Non Regulated F3PC6H00VY VERMONT YANKEE 100% - - - - - 40,584 - - 40,584
Non Regulated F3PC6HENNE ENN EQUAL SPLIT - - - - - 142 - - 142
Non Regulated F3PC7RWRHS JAF MATERIAL CONTROL 2,364 8,832 8,091 - - - - (4,840) 14,447
Non Regulated F3PCCPM001 CORPORATE PERFORMANCE MANAGEME - - - - - 173 - - 173
Non Regulated F3PCF99180 CORP. COMPLIANCE TRACKING SYS - - - - - 91 - - 91
Non Regulated F3PCF99182 RECORDS MANAGEMENT - - - - - 82 - - 82
Non Regulated F3PCFACALL FACILITIES SVCS- ALL COS - - - - - 424 - - 424
Non Regulated F3PCHRSALL HR SERVICES- ALL COMPANIES - - - - - 2,450 - - 2,450
Non Regulated F3PCN07072 RBS MP&C OUTAGE SUPPORT - - - - 26,608 - - - 26,608
Non Regulated F3PCN07096 SECURITY HEIGHTENED AWARENESS - 7 - - - - - - 7
Non Regulated F3PCN07606 RBN GENERAL SUPPORT - 4,185 - - - - - - 4,185
Non Regulated F3PCN20701 ESI NUCLEAR EMPLOYEES 405 405 405 - - - - 405 1,620
Non Regulated F3PCN20707 NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT - UNIT - - - - - 175,409 - - 175,409
Non Regulated F3PCN20780 ESI NUCLEAR EMPLOYEES - ANO 11,411 - - - - 7,409 - - 18,821
Non Regulated F3PCN20781 ESI NUCLEAR EMPLOYEES - GGNS - - - - - 10,102 - - 10,102
Non Regulated F3PCN20782 ESI NUCLEAR EMPLOYEES - RB - - - - - 6,199 - - 6,199
Non Regulated F3PCN20783 ESI NUCLEAR EMPLOYEES - WF3 - - - - - 633 - - 633
Non Regulated F3PCN26004 METHOD 004 - SERI - - - - 48,419 - - - 48,419
Non Regulated F3PCN26031 METHOD 031 - RIVER BEND - - - - 3,616 - - - 3,616
Non Regulated F3PCN90445 Unit 2 Diesel Outages A&B 4,176 - - - - - - - 4,176
Non Regulated F3PCN90726 NRC Graded Force on Force Exer 5,275 - - - - - - - 5,275
Non Regulated F3PCN91075 ANO MP&C ADMINISTRATION 113 - - - 65,278 - - - 65,392
Non Regulated F3PCN91483 INPO/WANO Preps 2,752 - - - - - - - 2,752
Non Regulated F3PCN91590 O & M BUDGETING/COST TRACKING 400 - - - - - - - 400
Non Regulated F3PP6H0PAL Direct Support to Palisades - - - - - 9,073 - - 9,073
Non Regulated F3PP6WAREH MATERIAL CONTROL 2,483 879 9,911 - - - - 464 13,737
Non Regulated F3PPCOO001 CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER - - - - - 10,812 - - 10,812
Non Regulated F3PPINTAUD Internal Audit Services - - - - - 86 - - 86
Non Regulated F3PPIR0001 ST (STRAIGHT TIME) PAYROLL - I - - - - 1,087 - - - 1,087
Non Regulated F3PPM08001 WATERFORD 3 GENERAL SUPPORT - - 2,635 - - - - - 2,635
Non Regulated F3PPM08235 SECURITY SERVICES AT WATERFORD - - 7,987 - - - - - 7,987
Non Regulated F3PPM08268 AWARDS PROGRAM - - - - 405 - - - 405
Non Regulated F3PPM08956 MAINTENANCE TRAINING PROGRAM - - 3,392 - - - - - 3,392

Exhibit SBT-25
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 3
 Entergy Non-Regulated Exhibit SBT-25
Affiliate Per Book Billings to Regulated Affiliates by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 3
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
Non Regulated F3PPN08511 NRC Triennial Force on Force E - - 5,386 - 404 - - - 5,791
Non Regulated F3PPN09260 RBS PO-10-01 RX RECIRC B SEAL- - - - - 1,966 - - - 1,966
Non Regulated F3PPN20713 ESI Nuclear - Site Split - - - - - 20,314 - - 20,314
Non Regulated F3PPN90022 NRC Security Investigation - - - - - 5,193 - - 5,193
Non Regulated F3PPNTLGGG TLG Decom Support for GG - - - - - - - 83,863 83,863
Non Regulated F3PPNTLGRB TLG Decom Support for RBS - 5,448 - - - - - - 5,448
Non Regulated F3PPRES001 Regulated Utility Electric Rel - - - - - 323 - - 323
Non Regulated F3PPTPAL01 Plant Support - - 2,711 - 19,017 - - - 21,727
Non Regulated F3PPTRINVE Inventory Receipt 8,211 6,766 11,731 - - - - 1,261 27,968
Non Regulated F3PPWCBNNE Wholesale Commodity Business - - - - - - 12,883 - - 12,883
Non Regulated F5PC6H0IP2 DIRECT SUPPORT TO IP2 - - - - - 1,086 - - 1,086
Non Regulated F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF - - - - - 13,444 - - 13,444
Non Regulated F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS 32 (60) 200 - 60 1,300 - - 1,533
Non Regulated F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (226) (22) (24) - (168) (719) - - (1,159)
Non Regulated F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 165 276 101 - 144 2,483 - - 3,168
Non Regulated F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS - 254 - - 541 - - - 795
Non Regulated F5PP5PERCX 5% Surcharge (12,992) (8,170) (2,261) (1,274) - - (2,475) (3,739) (30,912)
Non Regulated F5PPFALCON Project Falcon - - - - - 1,010 - - 1,010
Non Regulated F5PPWE0495 Carbon Capture Study - - - - - 272 - - 272
Non Regulated SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - 808 - - 808
Non Regulated SNPCN30001 Capital Overheads - Grand Gulf - - - - 242 - - - 242
Non Regulated SNPCP8SUSP CAPITAL SUSPENSE - ENUCO 80 - - - - - 3,091 - - 3,091
87,684 215,339 279,799 (1,274) 779,586 684,308 (2,475) 79,278 2,122,246

Exhibit SBT-25
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 3
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI BDCW Disconn & Reconn El Met-Nonpay - 1,607 - - - - - - - 1,607
EAI C1PPFI7287 Dist-Gas SCADA Replacement - - - - - - 4,872 - - 4,872
EAI C1PPFI7292 My Account Online-Serv Initiat - - - - - - 87 - - 87
EAI C1PPFIB203 21GTX Replacement 2011 - - - - - - 2,834 - - 2,834
EAI C1PPFIB211 Integrated Voice Solutions-PBX - - - - - - 3,966 - - 3,966
EAI C1PPFIB229 Rplcmnt Low Level NonFiber Equ - - - - - - 750 - - 750
EAI C1PPFIB230 Strategic 1/0 DACS Replacment - - - - - - 1,151 - - 1,151
EAI C1PPFIB231 Voice Mail Expansion & DR-Jack - - - - - - 1,291 - - 1,291
EAI C1PPFIB64A Reliability of DC Power System - - - - - - 35,006 - - 35,006
EAI C1PPFII042 Replacement of Smartzone Radio - - - - - - 646 - - 646
EAI C1PPFII043 Relocate Gretna Telecom Hub - - - - - - 1,604 - - 1,604
EAI C1PPFII056 Backbone Ovebld Expnsn North D - - - - - - 36,795 - - 36,795
EAI C1PPFII061 Video Conferencing Expansion - - - - - - 111 - - 111
EAI C1PPFII26W CFI Jackson - Repl Gretna Voic - - - - - - 7,234 - - 7,234
EAI C1PPFII62P IVS-PBX Replacement - - - - - - 22,969 - - 22,969
EAI C1PPTD3002 2008 NERC Cyber Security Compl - - - - - - 1,478 - - 1,478
EAI C1PPTD3303 LRDC EMS NETWORK (SOC) - - - - - - 355 - - 355
EAI C1PPTD3318 LRDC - TOC Post Cutover Projec - - - - - - 33,512 - - 33,512
EAI C1PPTD3330 SOC-PB SWITCHGEAR INSTALLATION - - - - - - 32,368 - - 32,368
EAI C1PPTD3332 DR SMP CHANNEL BANK EQUIPMT - - - - - - 10,621 - - 10,621
EAI C1PPTD3334 Fire Protection - SOC PB - - - - - - 304 - - 304
EAI C1PPTD3502 DNA Fusion Redundant Server - - - - - - 462 - - 462
EAI C1PPWC218G WPO PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PP5CA20C Installation of Spare Transfor - - - 7,725 - - - - - 7,725
EAI C2PPWC218A IP2 - PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PPWC218B IP3 PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PPWC218C Pilgrim PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PPWC218D JAF PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PPWC218E VY PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C2PPWC218F Palisades PDS Software - - - 23,671 - - - - - 23,671
EAI C5DB476007 INSTALL GAS MAIN AND SERVICES - - - - 571 - - - - 571
EAI C5DB476138 UPPERLINE STCHARLES PART2 - - - - 366 - - - - 366
EAI C5DB476203 5627 MARAIS - - - - 147 - - - - 147
EAI C6DB275195 IMPROVE,STERL.,N1710,BUILD RIV - 91,436 - - - - - - - 91,436
EAI C6DB275248 GEORGETOWN RECONDUCTOR - 46,741 - - - - - - - 46,741
EAI C6DB275295 IMP. HWY RELOC. PROJECT #083-0 - 10,031 - - - - - - - 10,031
EAI C6DB275868 IMPROVE, MONROE, N4203, PLANNI - 16,435 - - - - - - - 16,435
EAI C6DB275937 REV, MONROE, N5004, REROUTE N5 - (9,589) - - - - - - - (9,589)
EAI C6DB276007 IMPROVE,LUNA,N1908,RECONDUCT 2 - 3,033 - - - - - - - 3,033
EAI C6DB276065 REV DUNN N1005 RECONDUCTOR EXI - (2,881) - - - - - - - (2,881)
EAI C6DB276148 CUSTOMER N0254 MINDEN-INSTALL - 53,506 - - - - - - - 53,506
EAI C6DB276153 REV NO256 CAMP MINDEN-RTI CENT - 34,621 - - - - - - - 34,621
EAI C6DB276158 REV NO256 CAMP MINDEN-RTI NORT - 66,514 - - - - - - - 66,514
EAI C6DB276159 REV NO256 CAMP MINDEN-RTI SOUT - 10,201 - - - - - - - 10,201
EAI C6DB276164 REV, MONROE, N4154, UG TO BYER - 29,748 - - - - - - - 29,748
EAI C6DB276166 REV BNVL N4954 CONVERT 3 MILES - 90,616 - - - - - - - 90,616
EAI C6DB276171 REV MON N2705 INSTALL UNDERGOU - 25,383 - - - - - - - 25,383
EAI C6DB276173 REV BNVL N4954 BLD 34.5KV TO S - 41,996 - - - - - - - 41,996
EAI C6DB276180 REV/N1005 AMERICOLD LOGISTICS - 48,222 - - - - - - - 48,222

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI C6DB276182 REV N3005 SERVICE TO PLUM TREE - 16,715 - - - - - - - 16,715
EAI C6DB276197 REV BNVL N4954 INST 3000 KVA 3 - 35,943 - - - - - - - 35,943
EAI C6DB276200 REV RNGGLD N2303 INST 2500KVA - 47,166 - - - - - - - 47,166
EAI C6DB276204 CUST, MONROE, N4166, RELOCATE - 9,819 - - - - - - - 9,819
EAI C6DB276213 TEMP SERVICE TO MYRIANT PLANT- - 10,263 - - - - - - - 10,263
EAI C6DB276238 UGC MO N5053 CHANGING OUT U.G. - 9,355 - - - - - - - 9,355
EAI C6DB276241 REV CHTHM N2208 INST 2500KVA P - 140,070 - - - - - - - 140,070
EAI C6DB276242 REV CHTM N2208 BLD 3 PH SER TO - 7,168 - - - - - - - 7,168
EAI C6DB276243 REV, RAYVILLE, N3005, INSTALL - 24,256 - - - - - - - 24,256
EAI C6DB276245 DENBURY RESOURCES SITE 1-571 A - 6,420 - - - - - - - 6,420
EAI C6DB276251 REV N1308 SERVICE TO VANDEVEN - 33,044 - - - - - - - 33,044
EAI C6DB276252 REV N1308 SERVICE TO VANDEVEN - 31,939 - - - - - - - 31,939
EAI C6DB276257 REV-COLUMBIA-N2004-CONVERT SIN - 8,952 - - - - - - - 8,952
EAI C6DB276260 REV,WM,N3103,Ser. to VERSAILLE - 19,342 - - - - - - - 19,342
EAI C6DB276283 RECABLE SPACES ESTATES UG SUBD - 9,228 - - - - - - - 9,228
EAI C6DB276290 IMPROVE, Delhi, N1006, Install - 27,838 - - - - - - - 27,838
EAI C6DB276302 IMPROVE, DELHI, N1005, RECONDU - 6,530 - - - - - - - 6,530
EAI C6DB276315 BKBN, MONROE, N4154, RELIABILI - 18,899 - - - - - - - 18,899
EAI C6DB276316 REV WINNS N1209 INSTALL SERVIC - 30,769 - - - - - - - 30,769
EAI C6DB276317 BKBN, MONROE, N5055, RELIABILI - 8,960 - - - - - - - 8,960
EAI C6DB276320 REV, MERROUGE, N0903, INSTALL - 35,428 - - - - - - - 35,428
EAI C6DB276385 REV, MONROE, N4103, INSTALL UG - 26,979 - - - - - - - 26,979
EAI C6DB276432 REV-COLUMBIA-N2004-INSTALL 200 - 28,921 - - - - - - - 28,921
EAI C6DB276443 REL DOWNS N3303 AC11-003T INST - 43,593 - - - - - - - 43,593
EAI C6DB276448 REV, MONROE, N5054, INSTALL UG - 18,395 - - - - - - - 18,395
EAI C6DB276453 REV WSTN N4417 PULL 250' A2U I - 3,656 - - - - - - - 3,656
EAI C6DB276468 REV LSVL N6108 INST 250' A10U3 - 3,271 - - - - - - - 3,271
EAI C6DB374344 extending phase - - 8,907 - - - - - - 8,907
EAI C6DB374405 SENATOBIA - JONESTOWN SE10-002 - - 1,496 - - - - - - 1,496
EAI C6DB374407 SH10-005A 2010 PROJECT. LOAD - - 53,930 - - - - - - 53,930
EAI C6DB374428 CONSTRUCT 795 ACSR 12.47 KV LI - - 2,688 - - - - - - 2,688
EAI C6DB374526 REPLACE 3-4/0 ACSR WITH 3-795 - - 31,982 - - - - - - 31,982
EAI C6DB374597 INSTALL URD SERVICE TO VILLAGE - - 17,532 - - - - - - 17,532
EAI C6DB374608 INSTALL UNDERGROUND DISTRIBUTI - - 37,855 - - - - - - 37,855
EAI C6DB374621 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,283 - - - - - - 1,283
EAI C6DB374622 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,171 - - - - - - 1,171
EAI C6DB374623 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,264 - - - - - - 1,264
EAI C6DB374625 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,387 - - - - - - 1,387
EAI C6DB374626 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,007 - - - - - - 1,007
EAI C6DB374627 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 2,638 - - - - - - 2,638
EAI C6DB374628 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,283 - - - - - - 1,283
EAI C6DB374629 MID POINT SWITCHING - INSTALL - - 1,007 - - - - - - 1,007
EAI C6DB374674 REMOVE 45/5, 40/5, INSTALL (2) - - 36,950 - - - - - - 36,950
EAI C6DB374764 PROVIDE NEW SERVICE TO SCHULZ - - 56,671 - - - - - - 56,671
EAI C6DB374765 PROVIDE NEW SERVICE TO SCHULZ - - 95,313 - - - - - - 95,313
EAI C6DB374782 2010 PHASE 3 RELIABILITY-CIRCU - - 2,026 - - - - - - 2,026
EAI C6DB374785 2010 PHASE 3 RELIABILITY - CIR - - 524 - - - - - - 524
EAI C6DB374786 2010 PHASE 3 RELIABILITY-CIRCU - - 3,764 - - - - - - 3,764
EAI C6DB374811 SUNNYBROOK SUB, CONVERT D-LINE - - 166 - - - - - - 166

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI C6DB374826 RELOCATE FACILITIES HWY 4 AND - - 5,188 - - - - - - 5,188
EAI C6DB374832 INSTALL-THREE 333KVA REGULATOR - - 39,328 - - - - - - 39,328
EAI C6DB374833 REMOVE (8) 35/5's, (9) 40/5's, - - 9,942 - - - - - - 9,942
EAI C6DB374837 Install (6) 50-3 wood poles, - - 36,815 - - - - - - 36,815
EAI C6DB374854 INSTALL 3- 328 AMP REGULATORS - - 35,459 - - - - - - 35,459
EAI C6DB374859 2011 CAPACITOR PROJECT - - 6,578 - - - - - - 6,578
EAI C6DB374860 2011 CAPACITOR PROJECT - - 6,578 - - - - - - 6,578
EAI C6DB374862 2011 CAPACITOR PROJECT - - 6,608 - - - - - - 6,608
EAI C6DB374897 Reconductor 1.4 miles of 8A CW - - 9,491 - - - - - - 9,491
EAI C6DB374911 Install 1800 KVAR CAP BANK - - 7,848 - - - - - - 7,848
EAI C6DB374916 INSTALL (1) 1800 KVAR 35KV CAP - - 7,529 - - - - - - 7,529
EAI C6DB374975 OSMOSE POLE REPLACEMENT PROJEC - - 499 - - - - - - 499
EAI C6DB374986 2011 RELIABILITY - PHASE 2 - C - - 6,610 - - - - - - 6,610
EAI C6DB374987 Install U/G 3ph and 1500kva 3p - - 23,204 - - - - - - 23,204
EAI C6DB374992 INSTALL 5 MI. 1/0 SHIELD CIRCU - - 96 - - - - - - 96
EAI C6DB375013 2011 INFRARED REPAIRS - CLINTO - - 40 - - - - - - 40
EAI C6DB375029 REMOVE PRIMARY METERING, 35/5, - - 14,674 - - - - - - 14,674
EAI C6DB771606 WO11-0271, 768AL IN-LINE DISCO - - - - - - - 26 - 26
EAI C6DB869845 GULF HWY. 190SL RECONDUCTOR - 313 - - - - - - - - 313
EAI C6DB869994 REV ZA WINDSOR PLACE 134 - - - - - - - - 134
EAI C6PC249000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - 1,129,935 - - - - - - - 1,129,935
EAI C6PC249020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - 998,471 - - - - - - - 998,471
EAI C6PC249050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - 63,056 - - - - - - - 63,056
EAI C6PC249060 REVENUE PRIVATE AREA LIGHTS - 20,184 - - - - - - - 20,184
EAI C6PC249100 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE R - 291 - - - - - - - 291
EAI C6PC249103 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - 19,369 - - - - - - - 19,369
EAI C6PC249104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - 97,225 - - - - - - - 97,225
EAI C6PC249105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY - 27,708 - - - - - - - 27,708
EAI C6PC249108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ELL - 12,865 - - - - - - - 12,865
EAI C6PC249120 JOINT USE - BELL - 22,102 - - - - - - - 22,102
EAI C6PC249121 JOINT USE - CABLE - 3,657 - - - - - - - 3,657
EAI C6PC249140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - 53,713 - - - - - - - 53,713
EAI C6PC249150 NON-TARGET CIRCUIT BACKBONE IM - 110,502 - - - - - - - 110,502
EAI C6PC249180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - 836,319 - - - - - - - 836,319
EAI C6PC249703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - 1,552 - - - - - - - 1,552
EAI C6PC249708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE - 19,702 - - - - - - - 19,702
EAI C6PC349000 DISB. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 119,369 - - - - - - 119,369
EAI C6PC349020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 463,476 - - - - - - 463,476
EAI C6PC349050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - - 6,308 - - - - - - 6,308
EAI C6PC349060 REVENUE PRIVATE ARE LIGHTS - - 3,143 - - - - - - 3,143
EAI C6PC349103 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - - 5,093 - - - - - - 5,093
EAI C6PC349104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - 64,920 - - - - - - 64,920
EAI C6PC349108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS EMI - - 34,565 - - - - - - 34,565
EAI C6PC349120 JOINT USE - BELL - - 2,403 - - - - - - 2,403
EAI C6PC349140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - - 23,042 - - - - - - 23,042
EAI C6PC349180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - 319,404 - - - - - - 319,404
EAI C6PC349200 DISTB LINES BLANKET-GOVT MAND. - - 263 - - - - - - 263
EAI C6PC349703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - 3,236 - - - - - - 3,236
EAI C6PC349705 ENTERGY RENEWAL-EQUIPMENT MAIN - - 951 - - - - - - 951

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 4 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI C6PC449000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - 1,467 - - - - 1,467
EAI C6PC449020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - 305 - - - - 305
EAI C6PC449102 DISTB LINES-IMP BLANKET-UNDG C - - - - 147 - - - - 147
EAI C6PC449103 DISTB LINES-IMP BLANKET - OTHE - - - - 653 - - - - 653
EAI C6PC449104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - - - 996 - - - - 996
EAI C6PC449706 ENTERGY RENEWAL - LINE MAINTEN - - - - 1,107 - - - - 1,107
EAI C6PC849000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - 5,745 - - - - - - - - 5,745
EAI C6PC849020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - 332 - - - - - - - - 332
EAI C6PC849100 DISTRIBUTION - IMP - POLE REPL 4,154 - - - - - - - - 4,154
EAI C6PC849104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL 886 - - - - - - - - 886
EAI C6PC849106 STREET LIGHTING MAINT BLANKET 214 - - - - - - - - 214
EAI C6PC849108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS LA-EG 450 - - - - - - - - 450
EAI C6PC849180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK (70) - - - - - - - - (70)
EAI C6PC849705 ENTERGY RENEWAL EQUIPMENT MAIN 35 - - - - - - - - 35
EAI C6PP749010 Distr Lines Revenue Blnk Non-D - - - - - - - 4,310 - 4,310
EAI C6PP749030 Distr Line Revenue Blanket Des - - - - - - - 165 - 165
EAI C6PP749113 D-Line Internal Request Improv - - - - - - - 125 - 125
EAI C6PP749114 Distr Lines Failures Blanket T - - - - - - - 584 - 584
EAI C6PP749118 D-Line Customer Requested Proj - - - - - - - 194 - 194
EAI C6PP749713 D-Lines TACTICS Target Line De - - - - - - - 793 - 793
EAI C6PPCAPARK AR Warehouse Capital Improv 20 - 50,008 13,544 - - - - 12,502 - 76,054
EAI C6PPD40220 Crystal Springs: Inst Fiber Eq - - 4,683 - - - - - - 4,683
EAI C6PPD40221 Charity Church: Inst Fiber Equ - - 4,597 - - - - - - 4,597
EAI C6PPD40223 Lula: Inst Fiber Equip - - 2,614 - - - - - - 2,614
EAI C6PPD40261 Clarksdale: Rpl Fld 1W22 Regul - - 148 - - - - - - 148
EAI C6PPERG204 Systemwide Ergonomics Capital - 17,539 - - - - - - - 17,539
EAI C6PPERG206 Systemwide Ergonomics Capital - - 6,465 - - - - - - 6,465
EAI C6PPFIB20A NS ANO - Cabling - - - - - - 2,140 - - 2,140
EAI C6PPFIB20C NS ANO PBX - - - - - - 67,489 - - 67,489
EAI C6PPFIB26K Microwave Replacement EAI 2011 - - - - - - 646 - - 646
EAI C6PPSHOPGS Capture Transformer Costs LG (29,317) - - - - - - - - (29,317)
EAI C6PPSHOPLA Capture Transf Shop Cost LA - (40,741) - - - - - - - (40,741)
EAI C6PPSHOPMS Capture Transformer Cost MS - - 4,188 - - - - - - 4,188
EAI C6PPT60176 Greenville: Inst Fiber Equip - - 3,117 - - - - - - 3,117
EAI C6PPT60180 Horn Lake: Inst Fiber Equip - - 4,100 - - - - - - 4,100
EAI C6PPT60196 Vicksburg: Inst Fiber Equip - - 10,128 - - - - - - 10,128
EAI C6PPTC2001 Waterways-Vicksburg 115 CAP - - 181 - - - - - - 181
EAI C6PPTD3304 LR TOC Mapboard Display (Ph3) - - - - - - 41 - - 41
EAI C6PPTFRSLA Capture Transformer Shop Cost - 22,244 - - - - - - - 22,244
EAI C6PPTFRSMS Capture Transformer Cost MS - - 16,000 - - - - - - 16,000
EAI C6PPTL4236 Inf10: L109 Rilla-Riverton - 112 - - - - - - - 112
EAI C6PPTL4237 Inf10: L110 Standard-Red Gum - 2,665 - - - - - - - 2,665
EAI C6PPTL4238 Inf10: L121 Hodge-Station E - 154 - - - - - - - 154
EAI C6PPTL6969 Shield Rep: Devil Swamp-Port H 12,140 - - - - - - - - 12,140
EAI C6PPTL7175 Sterlington-IPCO 115: Upgrade - 2,402 - - - - - - - 2,402
EAI C6PPTL7176 IPCO-Bastrop 115: Upgrade Line - 2,136 - - - - - - - 2,136
EAI C6PPTL7177 Bastrop-Log Cabin 115: Upgr Li - 6,101 - - - - - - - 6,101
EAI C6PPTL7295 PCue10:L372 Nesser Tap-Harelso 2,710 - - - - - - - - 2,710
EAI C6PPTL9378 El Dor-Longwd: Cut-in Sarepta - 2,740 - - - - - - - 2,740

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 4 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 5 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI C6PPTLG201 CLECO Sellers Road to LUS Labb 1,183 - - - - - - - - 1,183
EAI C6PPTLP183 L183: Install Cut-in to Colleg - - - - - - - 1,158 - 1,158
EAI C6PPTLZ002 Hartburg-McLewis: Upgrade to 7 - - - - - - - 17,563 - 17,563
EAI C6PPTS2194 Lewis Creek: Install Transform - - - - - - - 228 - 228
EAI C6PPTS9370 Sarepta 345kV: Build New Sw. S - 3,656 - - - - - - - 3,656
EAI C6PPTSA707 L.R. West, Repl Breakers on T1 - - - - - - 62 - - 62
EAI C6PPTSA807 Rohwer, Repl fld 115kV Switch - - - - - - 220 - - 220
EAI C6PPTSA951 Ark Grid, Trailer 15kv Mble Bk - - - - - - 60 - - 60
EAI C6PPTSG104 Richard Sub: Install 500kV POD 3,551 - - - - - - - - 3,551
EAI C6PPTSHOPL Capture Transf Shop Cost LA - 33,227 - - - - - - - 33,227
EAI C6PPTSHOPM Capture Transformer Cost MS - - 12,574 - - - - - - 12,574
EAI C6PPTSK107 Sterlington 115: Bus Split/Upg - 264 - - - - - - - 264
EAI C6PPTSK291 SAREPTA PT FAILURE - 2,128 - - - - - - - 2,128
EAI C6PPTSK371 BASTROP CCVT - 6,082 - - - - - - - 6,082
EAI C6PPTSP999 College Station Junction: Buil - - - - - - - 36 - 36
EAI C6PPTSV003 Hamlet: XFMR Upgrade - - - - - - 124 - - 124
EAI C6PPTSX004 Lewis Creek 138kV: Install brk - - - - - - - 1,338 - 1,338
EAI C6PPWGB005 OP3-OUA007 - Off Engine Monito 56,834 - - - - - - - - 56,834
EAI C6PPWGB028 OP3-OUA015.014-HRSG Air Attemp 72,863 - - - - - - - - 72,863
EAI C6PPWHCAPL LA Warehouse Capital Improv 20 - 5,920 - - - - - - - 5,920
EAI C6PPWMD170 GA1 Replace Fire Post Valves - - 2,749 - - - - - - 2,749
EAI C7PPSJ1254 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 5/19-5/2 - - - - - - 88 - - 88
EAI C7PPSJ2452 ELL DIST STORM 06/18 - 06/20/1 - 5,744 - - - - - - - 5,744
EAI C7PPSJ2453 STORM DMG ELL 6/28/10 to 6/29/ - 11,461 - - - - - - - 11,461
EAI C7PPSJ2454 STORM DMG LA 7/16 to 7/17 - 17,600 - - - - - - - 17,600
EAI C7PPSJ2455 STORM DMG ELL 8-4 THRU 8-5-10 - 1,230 - - - - - - - 1,230
EAI C7PPSJ2458 STORM DMG ELL 8/22/10 THRU 8/ - 2,733 - - - - - - - 2,733
EAI C7PPSJ2462 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 1/8/11 I - 8,818 - - - - - - - 8,818
EAI C7PPSJ2463 STORM DMG LA 2-1-11 - 85,326 - - - - - - - 85,326
EAI C7PPSJ2464 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 2/2 - 3,351 - - - - - - - 3,351
EAI C7PPSJ2469 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 3/30 - 425 - - - - - - - 425
EAI C7PPSJ2470 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 4 4 - 4 - 174,902 - - - - - - - 174,902
EAI C7PPSJ2471 STORM DMG LA ELL 4/15/11 - 4/1 - 45,183 - - - - - - - 45,183
EAI C7PPSJ2474 STORM Dmg ELL 4/25 to 4/27/11 - 180,915 - - - - 50 - - 180,965
EAI C7PPSJ2475 ELL-LA STORM (5/13 - 5/14/11) - 13 - - - - - - - 13
EAI C7PPSJ2476 ELL-LA STORM (6/4 - 6/6/11) - 5,089 - - - - - - - 5,089
EAI C7PPSJ2479 STORM DMG LA ELI (Jun 10-13, 2 - 4,065 - - - - - - - 4,065
EAI C7PPSJ2480 STORM DMG LA 6/21-6/22 ELL Sto - 4,681 - - - - - - - 4,681
EAI C7PPSJ3183 EMI 04/24/10 Tornadoes Distr O - - 180 - - - - - - 180
EAI C7PPSJ3185 EMI 08/11/10 Trop Depress5 Dis - - 79,319 - - - - - - 79,319
EAI C7PPSJ3190 EMI July 2010 Storm Dist Ops-M - - 7,847 - - - - - - 7,847
EAI C7PPSJ3195 EMI Oct 2010 Storm Distr Ops-M - - 4,722 - - - - - - 4,722
EAI C7PPSJ3197 EMI Storm DistOps 12/31/10 Tor - - 392 - - - - - - 392
EAI C7PPSJ3198 EMI Storm Distr Ops 1/7/11Wint - - 43,820 - - - - - - 43,820
EAI C7PPSJ3199 EMI February 2011 Storm DistrO - - 10,657 - - - - - - 10,657
EAI C7PPSJ3202 EMI APRIL 2011 Storm Distr Ops - - 99,848 - - - - - - 99,848
EAI C7PPSJ3203 EMI Storm Distr Ops 4/15/11 - - 774 - - - - - - 774
EAI C7PPSJ3204 EMI StormTornadoes DistrOps 4/ - - 97,729 - - - - - - 97,729
EAI C7PPSJ3205 EMIStormMSRiverFlood DistrOp4/ - - 4,887 - - - - - - 4,887

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 5 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 6 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI C7PPSJ3207 EMI MAY 2011 Storm Distr Ops-M - - 752 - - - - - - 752
EAI C7PPSJ3209 EMI JUNE 2011 Storm Distr Ops- - - 31,596 - - - - - - 31,596
EAI C7PPSJ4088 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 35 - - - - 35
EAI C7PPSJ4089 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 62 - - - - 62
EAI C7PPSJ7231 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 1/9/11 - - - - - - - 86 - 86
EAI C7PPSJ7232 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 2/1/11 - - - - - - - 1,208 - 1,208
EAI C7PPSJ7233 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 2/4/11 - - - - - - - 397 - 397
EAI C7PPSJ7234 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 4/26/11 - - - - - - - 725 - 725
EAI C7PPSJ7237 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 6/6/11 - - - - - - - 1,575 - 1,575
EAI C7PPSJ8399 STM DMG TS BONNIE LA DIST OPS 238 - - - - - - - - 238
EAI C7PPSJ8409 WINTER STORM DMG LA 2/3 TO 2/5 189 - - - - - - - - 189
EAI C7PPSJ8413 STORM DMG LA DIST EGSL 4 4 - 4 1,129 - - - - - - - - 1,129
EAI C7PPSJ8414 STORM DMG LA EGSL 4/15/11 - 4/ 122 - - - - - - - - 122
EAI C7PPSJ8415 STM DMG LA EGSL 4/25 - 4/27/11 954 - - - - - 19 - - 973
EAI C7PPSJ8417 STM DMG EGSL 6/4/11 - 6/9/11 753 - - - - - - - - 753
EAI C8PPTL7416 Storm6411: Nelson-Richard 891,048 - - - - - - - - 891,048
EAI E1PCR56226 Sales & Mktg - ALL JURIS - - - - - - 360 - - 360
EAI E1PCR73457 TRAINING & PROCESS IMPROVEMENT - - - - - - 457 - - 457
EAI E2PPSJ3188 T-Grid Storm Damage EMI 1/7/11 - - 2,064 - - - - - - 2,064
EAI E2PPSJSCC1 System Command Center costs - - - - - - 7,372 - - 7,372
EAI F3PC7RWRHS JAF MATERIAL CONTROL - - - 24 - - - - - 24
EAI F3PCE75021 SYSTEM GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS -- - - - - - - 37 - - 37
EAI F3PCE99795 GROUP PRES - UTILITY OPERATION - - - - - - 871 - - 871
EAI F3PCF99180 CORP. COMPLIANCE TRACKING SYS - - - - - - 87 - - 87
EAI F3PCF99182 RECORDS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 44 - - 44
EAI F3PCFACALL FACILITIES SVCS- ALL COS - - - - - - 450 - - 450
EAI F3PCFIBERO OPER. & MAINT. OF FIBER OPTIC - - - - - - 2,318 - - 2,318
EAI F3PCFT9023 ETC FIBER O&M SUPPORT - - - 4,683 - - - - - 4,683
EAI F3PCHRSALL HR SERVICES- ALL COMPANIES - - - - - - 81 - - 81
EAI F3PCN07071 RBS STORES/WAREHOUSE OPERATION 11,004 - - - - - - - - 11,004
EAI F3PCR10360 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING - - - - - - 270 - - 270
EAI F3PCR10362 MAJOR ACCOUNTS BILLING - - - - - - 836 - - 836
EAI F3PCR10370 CUST ACCTG SRVS - EMI WORK ALL - - 148 - - - - - - 148
EAI F3PCR40128 ENTERGY ARKANSAS COMMUNICATION - - - - - - 87 - - 87
EAI F3PCR56240 BILLING & PAYMENT SOLUTIONS - - - - - - - 65 - - 65
EAI F3PCR57265 INTERVAL BILLING DATA - ESI - - - - - - 87 - - 87
EAI F3PCR73320 SYSTEM DEVELOP. & PROJ MGMT - - - - - - 476 - - 476
EAI F3PCR73323 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT, A - - - - - - 90 - - 90
EAI F3PCR73326 CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER SUPPOR - - - - - - 448 - - 448
EAI F3PCR73328 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT - - - - - - - 257 - - 257
EAI F3PCR73330 FIELD METER READING - ELI - 15,910 - - - - - - - 15,910
EAI F3PCR73332 FIELD METER READING - ENOI - - - - - - 1,830 - - 1,830
EAI F3PCR73336 FEILD METER READING - EMI - - 9,044 - - - - - - 9,044
EAI F3PCR73350 LOAD RESEARCH - EAI - - - - - - 451 - - 451
EAI F3PCR73382 West Monroe Customer Service C - - - - - - 141 - - 141
EAI F3PCR73390 CUSTOMER SVS CTL - ENTERGY BUS - - - - - - 13 - - 13
EAI F3PCR73401 FIELD METER READING - EGSI -LA 2,264 - - - - - - - - 2,264
EAI F3PCRCCS03 CCS SYSTEM SUPPORT - - - - - - 224 - - 224
EAI F3PCRNTACA Nat'l Accts Sales & Mktg - EAI - - - - - - 270 - - 270

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 6 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 7 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI F3PCT53062 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - - - - - - 548 - - 548
EAI F3PCT53084 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - ELI - 3,749 - - - - - - - 3,749
EAI F3PCT53085 OPN, MGR, ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT - - - - - - 5,905 - - 5,905
EAI F3PCT53088 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - EMI - - 977 - - - - - - 977
EAI F3PCT53130 OPN,MGR, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 888 - - 888
EAI F3PCT53250 ENVIRN MGMNT TRANS SUPPORT - E - - - - - - 121 - - 121
EAI F3PCT53251 ENVIRN MGMT TRANSMISSION SUPP - - - - - - 13 - - 13
EAI F3PCTDTR08 SKILLS TRAINING - LOUISIANA EL - - - - - - 606 - - 606
EAI F3PCW29608 TRANSMISSION POWER SYSTEM OPER - - - - - - 1,158 - - 1,158
EAI F3PCW58030 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - AR - - - - - - 224 - - 224
EAI F3PCY10395 JACKSON / WEST SUBSTATION, MIS - - 3,041 - - - - - - 3,041
EAI F3PCZGASAG GAS ADMINISTRATIVE - - - - - - 125 - - 125
EAI F3PP361923 General I&C Outage Work - - - 13 - - - - - 13
EAI F3PPCPLITA 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EA - - - - - - 28,348 - - 28,348
EAI F3PPCPLITG 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EG - - - - - - 679 - - 679
EAI F3PPCPLITL 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EL - 11 - - - - 1,580 - - 1,591
EAI F3PPCPLITM 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EM - - 822 - - - 2,108 - - 2,929
EAI F3PPCPLITN Lighting Campaign ENOI - - - - - - 107 - - 107
EAI F3PPCYBERV Cyber Vulnerability Assessment - - - - - - 103 - - 103
EAI F3PPE9974S Utl ECI Continuing Improve ESI - - - - - - 5,179 - - 5,179
EAI F3PPLTTX10 2010 Winter Lighting Promo Tex - - - - - - 91 - - 91
EAI F3PPN91067 Inventory 26,452 139,389 1,579 79,117 - - - - 19,204 265,741
EAI F3PPR103LA CUSTOMER ACCT SVCS- LA (L,LG,N - - - - - - 133 - - 133
EAI F3PPR733CA Central Administration Costs - - - - - - 61,123 - - 61,123
EAI F3PPR733LR Little Rock Customer Service C - - - - - - 16,950 - - 16,950
EAI F3PPREALL2 Residential Market Dev - ALL J - - - - - - 13,469 - - 13,469
EAI F3PPTDDS39 TRANSPORTATION - EAI billing - - - - - - 732 - - 732
EAI F3PPTDERSD MISO Transition ALL OPCO - - - - - - 1,292 - - 1,292
EAI F3PPWE0305 Fossil IT- EAI Support - - - - - - 771 - - 771
EAI F3PPWE0425 Dir. Northwest Region-EAI Foss - - - - - - 90 - - 90
EAI F3PPZG2282 GA 2010 SPRING OUTAGE - - 1,066 - - - - - - 1,066
EAI F3PPZG2532 OP3-GT Bore Scope & Rel Out-Fa 743 - - - - - - - - 743
EAI F3PPZG2534 OP3-GT Spring Reliability Outa 16,068 - - - - - - - - 16,068
EAI F3PPZG2786 BU8 Forced Outage - 3,394 - - - - - - - 3,394
EAI F3PPZG2797 GA1 EMERGENCY OUTAGE: BOILER T - - 536 - - - - - - 536
EAI F3PPZW8193 DL1 UNIT STARTUP - - 4,735 - - - - - - 4,735
EAI F5PCCSS01V PS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT FOR L - 34 - - - - - - - 34
EAI F5PCCSS04C CCS CUSTOMER BILL - LE -CUSTOM - - 443,048 - - - - - - 443,048
EAI F5PCCSS06L CSC non-ESI loaned labor to LE 618,515 1,043,039 653,890 - 290,106 - - 449,778 - 3,055,328
EAI F5PCCSS17L PS MANAGE TRANSPORTATION - 229 - - - - - - - 229
EAI F5PCE13631 GENERAL LITIGATION- EMI - - 2,675 - - - - - - 2,675
EAI F5PCERRMOM EQUIP. REFURBISHMENT & REPAIR - 31 31 - - - - - - 61
EAI F5PCFPR062 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO ET - - - 234 - - - - - 234
EAI F5PCFPR07A 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO IP - - - 1,833 - - - - - 1,833
EAI F5PCFPR080 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - - - 1,184 - - - - - 1,184
EAI F5PCLIHPPC CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAMS - - - - - - 1,798 - - 1,798
EAI F5PCMATCOM MATERIALS TESTING AND COMPLIAN 28,345 259,915 68,728 - - - - 75,923 - 432,910
EAI F5PCSAFTEE SAFTEY TRAINING LOADER ELECTRI - - - - - - 116 - - 116
EAI F5PCSCMMOM SUPPLY CHAIN MATERIALS MGMNT O - 37,699 4,317 - - - - (147) - 41,869

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 7 of 8
 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Exhibit SBT-20
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 8 of 8
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EGSLA ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EAI F5PCZD7387 LAKE CHARLES MGP SITE 10,583 - - - - - - - - 10,583
EAI F5PCZFCTRN REGULATD NON-BACKBONE FIBER - 1,445 - - - - 3,216 - - 4,661
EAI F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF 20 78 1,822 3 1 - 829 68 - 2,819
EAI F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS (389) 755 (1,642) (21) 13 - 1,667 (292) - 91
EAI F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (41) (53) (657) (3) (0) - (218) (106) - (1,079)
EAI F5PCZY323L ROUTINE SPILL RESPONSE(CS-LP&L - 462 - - - - - - - 462
EAI F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 368 122 802 10 3 - 563 457 - 2,324
EAI F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS 610 - 2,081 - - - 1,686 - - 4,376
EAI F5PPACCADM Access Administration - O&M - - - - - - 231 - - 231
EAI F5PPCIPRMP CIP Related Mitigation Plan & - - - - - - 115 - - 115
EAI F5PPCIPUNC General Unclassified CIP Costs - - - - - - 2,721 - - 2,721
EAI F5PPERG100 Systemwide Ergonomics Initiati - - - - - - 62 - - 62
EAI F5PPFPR0NA 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - - - 1,982 - - - - - 1,982
EAI F5PPFPRO57 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - - - 1,884 - - - - - 1,884
EAI F5PPFPRO72 5% Surcharge on Services to EN - - - 1,187 - - - - - 1,187
EAI F5PPFPRO77 5% Surcharge on Svcs to IP3 - - - 3,273 - - - - - 3,273
EAI F5PPFPRO78 5% Surcharge on Svcs to 78 - - - 1,416 - - - - - 1,416
EAI F5PPLOGMON Log Monitoring & Alerting - O& - - - - - - 58 - - 58
EAI F5PPPATCYB Patch of Cyber Assets - O&M - - - - - - 577 - - 577
EAI F5PPPHYACC Physical Access Sys Maint Test - - - - - - 1,369 - - 1,369
EAI F5PPRTUCLT RTU Comm Line Testing & Coor R - - - - - - 23 - - 23
EAI F5PPWE0450 Safety Recognition Program - S 305 450 1,561 - - - - - - 2,316
EAI GINP Purc Gen Invent Items-Passport 122,658 3,539,912 1,899,633 2,594 26,249 - - 273,940 370 5,865,356
EAI MSRM Supervise & Manage Records Mgt - - 1,094 - - - - - - 1,094
EAI MTBS Repair Buildings - - 7,683 - - - - - - 7,683
EAI MTOF Perf Elec Meter Serv Wk-On/Off - 1,418 - - - - - - - 1,418
EAI RENP Process Recpts Not Invoiced-Pp 15,967 - - - - - - - - 15,967
EAI SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - - 2,295 (33) - 2,261
EAI SAPCPCPLGL PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - EGSI - EL (187) - - - - - - - - (187)
EAI SAPCPCPLLP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - 1,471 - - - - - - - 1,471
EAI SAPCPCPLMP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - (339) - - - - - - (339)
EAI SAPCPCPLNE PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - EL - - - - 98 - - - - 98
EAI SAPCPCPLNG PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - GA - - - - 54 - - - - 54
EAI STPCT30030 ELL Capital Suspense Transmiss - 1,888 - - - - - - - 1,888
EAI STPPTD0ELL Capital Suspense T&D Grid ELL - 14,235 - - - - - - - 14,235
EAI STPPTX7900 Texas Trans Capital Suspense - - - - - - - 58 - 58
EAI XLAW Repair Waste Wtr Trt&Setl Sys - - 739 - - - - - - 739
EAI XMCK Maintain Boiler Startup&Hydro - - 793 - - - - - - 793
EAI XMCR Maintain Other Boiler Plant Eq - - 875 - - - - - - 875
EAI XMDP Maintain Feedwater Treating Sy - - 1,813 - - - - - - 1,813
EAI XMDW Maintain Upflow Filter System - - 110 - - - - - - 110
EAI XMDX Maintain Demineralizer System - - 2,125 - - - - - - 2,125
EAI XNAM Maintain Condensate/Hotwell Sy - - 643 - - - - - - 643
EAI XNAP Maintain Circulating Water Sys - - 187 - - - - - - 187
EAI XNAR Maintain Oth Cooling Water Eq - - 625 - - - - - - 625
EAI XVAA Operate & Maintain Fuel Oil Eq - - 216 - - - - - - 216
1,879,878 10,370,950 5,207,982 272,836 322,378 - 446,426 842,657 19,575 19,362,682

Exhibit SBT-20
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 8 of 8
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA AARP Admin Awards & Recog Program - 475 - - - - - - - 475
EGSLA ASAB Reward Safe Behavior - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA ATTR Attend Training - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C1PPFIB175 Strategic 1/0 DCS Rplmt 2010 - - - - - - 426 - - 426
EGSLA C1PPFIB201 Core Router-ASR Router Inserti - - - - - - 1,099 - - 1,099
EGSLA C1PPFIB203 21GTX Replacement 2011 - - - - - - 4,199 - - 4,199
EGSLA C1PPFIB211 Integrated Voice Solutions-PBX - - - - - - 818 - - 818
EGSLA C1PPFIB64A Reliability of DC Power System - - - - - - 11,919 - - 11,919
EGSLA C1PPFIB74A Distributed Network Upgrades 2 - - - - - - 1,659 - - 1,659
EGSLA C1PPFII043 Relocate Gretna Telecom Hub - - - - - - 1,247 - - 1,247
EGSLA C1PPFII26W CFI Jackson - Repl Gretna Voic - - - - - - 2,044 - - 2,044
EGSLA C5DB476270 INSTALL GAS MAIN AND SERVICE O - - - - 524 - - - - 524
EGSLA C5PC449603 GAS MANDATED NON REIMBURSABLE - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C5PC449608 GAS TRUCK STOCK - - - - 68 - - - - 68
EGSLA C6DB276175 INTERNL-COLUMBIA-N2954-TAKE OU - 843 - - - - - - - 843
EGSLA C6DB276191 HWY WK W0713 ALGIERS RELOCATE - 1,424 - - - - - - - 1,424
EGSLA C6DB276234 INT WK W0514 GRETNA RELOCATE F - 569 - - - - - - - 569
EGSLA C6DB374779 Install 3 Phase Intelliruptor - - 2,286 - - - - - - 2,286
EGSLA C6DB770435 INSTALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6DB771616 PROJECT #CN11-051T CONAIR/EGYP - - - - - - - 468 - 468
EGSLA C6PC149000 DISTB LINES REVENUE BLANKET NO 4 - - - - - - - - 4
EGSLA C6PC149020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PC149100 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PC149103 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER 2,857 - - - - - - - - 2,857
EGSLA C6PC149104 DL BATCH JOB FOR FAILURE REPLA 3,996 - - - - - - - - 3,996
EGSLA C6PC149105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY 604 - - - - - - - - 604
EGSLA C6PC149124 JOINT USE - OTHER 232 - - - - - - - - 232
EGSLA C6PC149140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP 636 - - - - - - - - 636
EGSLA C6PC149708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE 36 - - - - - - - - 36
EGSLA C6PC249000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - 1,521 - - - - - - - 1,521
EGSLA C6PC249100 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE R - 80 - - - - - - - 80
EGSLA C6PC249103 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - 530 - - - - - - - 530
EGSLA C6PC249104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - 846 - - - - - - - 846
EGSLA C6PC249108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ELL - 510 - - - - - - - 510
EGSLA C6PC249150 NON-TARGET CIRCUIT BACKBONE IM - 663 - - - - - - - 663
EGSLA C6PC349104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - 2,808 - - - - - - 2,808
EGSLA C6PC349140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - - 74 - - - - - - 74
EGSLA C6PC349703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PC449020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PC449140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - - - - 1,966 - - - - 1,966
EGSLA C6PCTL3744 LOBLOLLY-HAMMOND NEW L-200 230 - 11,973 - - - - - - - 11,973
EGSLA C6PP149141 DL Repair Public Inflicted Dam 985 - - - - - - - - 985
EGSLA C6PP749114 Distr Lines Failures Blanket T - - - - - - - 656 - 656
EGSLA C6PP749713 D-Lines TACTICS Target Line De - - - - - - - 2,044 - 2,044
EGSLA C6PPBB0336 EGS LLC:Replace LTC on Meaux T - - - - - - 831 - - 831
EGSLA C6PPD40221 Charity Church: Inst Fiber Equ - - 406 - - - - - - 406
EGSLA C6PPD40222 Livingston Rd: Inst Fiber Equi - - 772 - - - - - - 772
EGSLA C6PPDW0395 Fort Polk:Feasibility & Map Sy - 126 - - - - - - - 126
EGSLA C6PPFIB14T Microwave Replacement Texas 20 - - - - - - 554 - - 554

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 6
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA C6PPFIB220 Fiber-Backbone North Blvd Dive - - - - - - 2,878 - - 2,878
EGSLA C6PPMR3809 Holiday: repl.Gtype switch wit - 196 - - - - - - - 196
EGSLA C6PPMR3826 Holiday ; replace S3102 with s - 196 - - - - - - - 196
EGSLA C6PPN71159 STX TRANSFORMER REFURBISHMENT - - - - - 418 - - - 418
EGSLA C6PPN71215 CONSTRUCTION LOOP PANELS - - - - - 25,592 - - - 25,592
EGSLA C6PPN71573 FORCE-ON-FORCE PREPARATION - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPSP0045 SPO Real Time Calcasieu RTU - - - - - - 1,373 - - 1,373
EGSLA C6PPT60177 Jackson, South: Inst Fiber Equ - - 1,376 - - - - - - 1,376
EGSLA C6PPTD3265 Voice Recorder - Baton Rouge D - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL1147 Oakville_Alliance:Build 230kV - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4214 Fail09:L115 Springfield-Fr. Se - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4215 Fail09: Golden Meadow-Leeville - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4216 Fail09: L158 Port Nickel-Poydr - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4219 Fail09: L229 9-Mile-Gretna-Har - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4220 Fail09: L148 Golden Meadow-Lee - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4224 LineBase10: L94 Michoud-Gulf O - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4225 LinesBase10: L98 Michoud-Claib - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4234 Mand10: Golden Meadow-Leeville - 7,871 - - - - - - - 7,871
EGSLA C6PPTL4483 Fail10: L186 Willow Glen-Webre - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL4503 SW10: L168 Carlisle-Port Nicke - 4,594 - - - - - - - 4,594
EGSLA C6PPTL4554 WP2010: 9Mile-American Cyanami - (8,856) - - - - - - - (8,856)
EGSLA C6PPTL4555 WP2010: 9Mile-Waggaman - 2,326 - - - - - - - 2,326
EGSLA C6PPTL4563 Imprvment to Bridge City Laydn - 1,134 - - - - - - - 1,134
EGSLA C6PPTL4571 Fail10:L165 Jena-Midway - 4,608 - - - - - - - 4,608
EGSLA C6PPTL4582 Inf11: L158 Port Nickel-Poydra - 461 - - - - - - - 461
EGSLA C6PPTL4583 Inf11: L162 Amite-Gilsburg - 327 - - - - - - - 327
EGSLA C6PPTL5591 Line 591: Upgrade Line - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTL7202 IronMan-Tezcuco: Build New Lin - 1,121 - - - - - - - 1,121
EGSLA C6PPTL7352 INF11: 9Mile-Barataria - 120 - - - - - - - 120
EGSLA C6PPTL7356 INF11: 9Mile-Estelle - 203 - - - - - - - 203
EGSLA C6PPTL7368 MAN11: Arcadia-Trusssell'sCros - 12,760 - - - - - - - 12,760
EGSLA C6PPTL7373 Reimb11: Amite - Gilsburg - 327 - - - - - - - 327
EGSLA C6PPTL7376 INF11: Gretna - 9Mile - 743 - - - - - - - 743
EGSLA C6PPTL7389 Man11: Selman-Canal - 3,500 - - - - - - - 3,500
EGSLA C6PPTL7500 Line 186: Cut In Bayou Labutte - 760 - - - - - - - 760
EGSLA C6PPTL7502 Line 269: Build New 230kV Line - 4,489 - - - - - - - 4,489
EGSLA C6PPTL7504 Line 730: Relocate 230kV Lines - 53 - - - - - - - 53
EGSLA C6PPTL7505 Line 740: Relocate 230kV Line - 1,335 - - - - - - - 1,335
EGSLA C6PPTL8471 L-295 Replace Broken Guys - - - - - - - 326 - 326
EGSLA C6PPTL8472 L-296 Replace Broken Arm - - - - - - - 241 - 241
EGSLA C6PPTLK002 Loblolly to Hammond (ELL porti - 4,084 - - - - - - - 4,084
EGSLA C6PPTLK003 Independence - Yogi, build new - 9,402 - - - - - - - 9,402
EGSLA C6PPTLK004 Behrman - Gretna move poles fo - 671 - - - - - - - 671
EGSLA C6PPTLK005 Behrman-Ptrs Rd move poles for - 671 - - - - - - - 671
EGSLA C6PPTLK006 Bmn-Ptrs Rd move poles for JP- - 654 - - - - - - - 654
EGSLA C6PPTLK007 Bhmn-Port Nickel move poles fo - 1,156 - - - - - - - 1,156
EGSLA C6PPTLM002 Daisy Line- ExxonMobile 69kVPO - - - - - - - 5,450 - 5,450
EGSLA C6PPTLM005 Gladys - Line 114 New 69kV POD - - - - - - - 9,856 - 9,856
EGSLA C6PPTLZ002 Hartburg-McLewis: Upgrade to 7 - - - - - - - 20,326 - 20,326

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 6
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA C6PPTS7618 Total Petrochemicals:Sabine Sw - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTS7636 Fawil: Upgrade Autotransformer - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTSF312 Moril 69KV cap bank & relay pa - - - - - - 407 - - 407
EGSLA C6PPTSF528 Alsen add mos's to line sw's - - - - - - 538 - - 538
EGSLA C6PPTSF536 Northdale add mos to line sw's - - - - - - 538 - - 538
EGSLA C6PPTSF537 seventy second add mos to line - - - - - - 538 - - 538
EGSLA C6PPTSG102 Meaux: Install 400MVA AutoXFMR - - - - - - 1,344 - - 1,344
EGSLA C6PPTSG104 Richard Sub: Install 500kV POD - - - - - - (1) - - (1)
EGSLA C6PPTSK183 Bogue Chitto - Build 500 switc - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTSK250 Bayou Labutte: Build 500kV Sub - 4,531 - - - - - - - 4,531
EGSLA C6PPTSK283 Point Pleasant design oversigh - 7,169 - - - - - - - 7,169
EGSLA C6PPTSK322 Luling Sub - Add two feeders f - 8,382 - - - - - - - 8,382
EGSLA C6PPTSK324 Yogi - Build new substation - 1,879 - - - - - - - 1,879
EGSLA C6PPTSM004 Daisy Sub- ExxonMobile 69kVPOD - - - - - - - 11,360 - 11,360
EGSLA C6PPTSM999 Gladys: Sub 69kv POD - - - - - - - 15,070 - 15,070
EGSLA C6PPTSP292 Federal: Upgrade RTU - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C6PPTSP465 Union: Low Side T1 Bushing - - - - - - - 5,250 - 5,250
EGSLA C6PPTSX003 S.BMT 138KV Replace Breakers a - - - - - - - 754 - 754
EGSLA C6PPTSX008 upgrade 230kv bus Mid -County - - - - - - - 17,092 - 17,092
EGSLA C6PPTSZ006 McLewis: Rpl Switches & Risers - - - - - - - 4,901 - 4,901
EGSLA C7PPSJ1185 ICE STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 01/2 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1196 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 06/10/09 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1212 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 10/29/09 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1214 WINTER STORM DL EAI DIST 01/26 (312) - - - - - - - - (312)
EGSLA C7PPSJ1218 WINTER STORM DL EAI DIST 02/08 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1219 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 03/10/10 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1222 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 04/23/10 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ1244 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 1/7/11 I 1,180 - - - - - - - - 1,180
EGSLA C7PPSJ1247 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 2/24-2/2 651 - - - - - - - - 651
EGSLA C7PPSJ1248 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 4/3/11 1,086 - - - - - - - - 1,086
EGSLA C7PPSJ1250 STORM DL EAI DIST 4/19/11-4/24 151,457 - - - - - - - - 151,457
EGSLA C7PPSJ1251 TORNADOES DL EAI DIST 4/25/11 47,831 - - - - - - - - 47,831
EGSLA C7PPSJ1254 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 5/19-5/2 440 - - - - - - - - 440
EGSLA C7PPSJ2431 STORM DMG ELI 12/24 - 12/27/09 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ2432 STORM DMG ELI 1/4 - 1/5/10 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ2437 Storm dmg La ELI 2 12 10 Snow - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ2441 N La Tornado & Storms 4/23-4/2 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ2444 STM DMG TS Bonnie LA DIST OPS - 19,573 - - - - - - - 19,573
EGSLA C7PPSJ2454 STORM DMG LA 7/16 to 7/17 - 331 - - - - - - - 331
EGSLA C7PPSJ2455 STORM DMG ELL 8-4 THRU 8-5-10 - 5,996 - - - - - - - 5,996
EGSLA C7PPSJ2456 ELL DIST 08/11/10 TROPICAL DEP - 27,577 - - - - - - - 27,577
EGSLA C7PPSJ2462 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 1/8/11 I - 115,191 - - - - - - - 115,191
EGSLA C7PPSJ2463 STORM DMG LA 2-1-11 - 3,117 - - - - - - - 3,117
EGSLA C7PPSJ2464 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 2/2 - 181 - - - - - - - 181
EGSLA C7PPSJ2469 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 3/30 - 50,310 - - - - - - - 50,310
EGSLA C7PPSJ2470 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 4 4 - 4 - 1,293 - - - - - - - 1,293
EGSLA C7PPSJ2474 STORM Dmg ELL 4/25 to 4/27/11 - 399,195 - - - - - - - 399,195
EGSLA C7PPSJ2476 ELL-LA STORM (6/4 - 6/6/11) - 947 - - - - - - - 947
EGSLA C7PPSJ3171 EMI May 2009 Storm Dist Ops-MS - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 6
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 4 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA C7PPSJ3180 EMI 02/11/10 Winter Storm Dist - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA C7PPSJ3183 EMI 04/24/10 Tornadoes Distr O - - 251 - - - - - - 251
EGSLA C7PPSJ3197 EMI Storm DistOps 12/31/10 Tor - - 79 - - - - - - 79
EGSLA C7PPSJ3198 EMI Storm Distr Ops 1/7/11Wint - - 363 - - - - - - 363
EGSLA C7PPSJ3202 EMI APRIL 2011 Storm Distr Ops - - 1,887 - - - - - - 1,887
EGSLA C7PPSJ3203 EMI Storm Distr Ops 4/15/11 - - 82,666 - - - - - - 82,666
EGSLA C7PPSJ3204 EMI StormTornadoes DistrOps 4/ - - 2,382 - - - - - - 2,382
EGSLA C7PPSJ3207 EMI MAY 2011 Storm Distr Ops-M - - 185 - - - - - - 185
EGSLA C7PPSJ3209 EMI JUNE 2011 Storm Distr Ops- - - 102 - - - - - - 102
EGSLA C7PPSJ4088 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 1,792 - - - - 1,792
EGSLA C7PPSJ4089 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 50 - - - - 50
EGSLA C7PPSJ7231 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 1/9/11 - - - - - - - 877 - 877
EGSLA C7PPSJ7234 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 4/26/11 - - - - - - - 357 - 357
EGSLA C7PPSJ7237 Storm Dmg Dist ETI 6/6/11 - - - - - - - 853 - 853
EGSLA C8PPTL4472 North La. Storm: L181 Perrvll- - 11,659 - - - - - - - 11,659
EGSLA C8PPTL4473 NLA Storm10: L212 Tallulah-Dar - 4,769 - - - - - - - 4,769
EGSLA C8PPTSJ002 Keith Lake - Rebuild - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA CONF Suppt Compliance W Env Reg&Per - 2,954 - - - - - - - 2,954
EGSLA E1PCN01722 U2-General Electrical 36 - - - - - - - - 36
EGSLA E1PCN07581 ELECTRICAL OUTAGE WORK - - - - - 91,359 - - - 91,359
EGSLA E1PCR56015 CUSTOM SALES & SERVICE UNIT - - - - - - - 213 - - 213
EGSLA E1PCT00076 PROCESS LEAKING EQUIPMENT FOR - 20,968 - - - - - - - 20,968
EGSLA E1PPN01674 U1-Switchyard/Transformers >13 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA E1PPN09152 SWITCHYARD/TRANSFORMERS >13.8 - - - - - 3,679 - - - 3,679
EGSLA E1PPN09155 OUTAGE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE - - - - - 6,511 - - - 6,511
EGSLA E2PPSJ1221 T-Grid Storm Damage EAI 1/26/1 - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA E2PPSJ2447 T-Grid Storm O&M ELL 1/7/201 I - 2,120 - - - - - - - 2,120
EGSLA E2PPSJ2466 2/4/11 Winter Storm - ELL - 13 - - - - - - - 13
EGSLA E2PPSJ2478 T-Grid Storm - ELL 4/25 - 4/27 - 2,584 - - - - - - - 2,584
EGSLA F3PC5MTCRP MAINTENANCE - REACTOR PLANT - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PC9158X3 POYDRAS SUB TO PORT NICKLE - 3,588 - - - - - - - 3,588
EGSLA F3PC9210X0 BAGATELLE TO BAYOU CONWAY - 951 - - - - - - - 951
EGSLA F3PCCEPLOU CONSUMER ED PROGRAMS - LOUISIA - - - - - - 4,984 - - 4,984
EGSLA F3PCCPM001 CORPORATE PERFORMANCE MANAGEME - - - - - - 829 - - 829
EGSLA F3PCE99750 PRES- ENT. LA-GEN'L OPS-ELI/EG - - - - - - 3,673 - - 3,673
EGSLA F3PCF23442 PAYROLL PROCESSING - - - - - - 522 - - 522
EGSLA F3PCF23941 BUSINESS EVENT PROCESSING-ACCT - - - - - - 506 - - 506
EGSLA F3PCFIBERO OPER. & MAINT. OF FIBER OPTIC - - - 263 - - - - - 263
EGSLA F3PCFT9023 ETC FIBER O&M SUPPORT - - - 13,118 - - - - - 13,118
EGSLA F3PCFT9333 ETC - FIBER CAPITAL COSTS - - - 809 - - - - - 809
EGSLA F3PCG10345 GAS DIVISION DIRECTOR - ENOI E - - - - - - 2,086 - - 2,086
EGSLA F3PCG10347 GAS DIVISION DIRECTOR - EGSI E - - - - - - 2,081 - - 2,081
EGSLA F3PCHRSALL HR SERVICES- ALL COMPANIES - - - - - - 181 - - 181
EGSLA F3PCN07050 EMERGENT WORK ACTIVITIES (UNBU - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCN07071 RBS STORES/WAREHOUSE OPERATION 30,053 100,231 - 149,090 - - 323 816 127,083 407,597
EGSLA F3PCN07606 RBN GENERAL SUPPORT - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCN14999 GRAND GULF GENERAL SUPPORT - - - - - - - - 571 571
EGSLA F3PCN91561 RELAY MAINTENANCE - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCN91683 U1 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE 186 - - - - - - - - 186

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 4 of 6
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 5 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA F3PCR12575 LA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRA - - - - - - 590 - - 590
EGSLA F3PCR29324 REVENUE ASSURANCE - ADM. - - - - - - 341 - - 341
EGSLA F3PCR53013 BATON ROUGE LEAD CSM - ESI - - - - - - 515 - - 515
EGSLA F3PCR56240 BILLING & PAYMENT SOLUTIONS - 56,798 - - - - - - - - 56,798
EGSLA F3PCR56241 BILLING & PAYMENT SOLUTIONS - - 22,068 - - - - - - - 22,068
EGSLA F3PCR56245 BILLING & PAYMENT SOLUTIONS - - - - - - - - 74,869 - 74,869
EGSLA F3PCR73323 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT, A - - - - - - 128 - - 128
EGSLA F3PCR73326 CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER SUPPOR - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCR73330 FIELD METER READING - ELI - - - - - - 41 - - 41
EGSLA F3PCR73372 LOUISIANA CUSTOMER SERVICE CEN - - - - - - 131 - - 131
EGSLA F3PCR73401 FIELD METER READING - EGSI -LA - - - - - - 165 - - 165
EGSLA F3PCT10322 SOUTHERN FRANCHISE DISTR OPER - - - - - - 1,823 - - 1,823
EGSLA F3PCT53062 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - - - - - - 419 - - 419
EGSLA F3PCT53084 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - ELI - 16,811 - - - - - - - 16,811
EGSLA F3PCT53130 OPN,MGR, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 165 - - 165
EGSLA F3PCTDPM01 SYS SERV PROJECT MANAGEMENT - - - - - - - 8,465 - - 8,465
EGSLA F3PCTDS006 PROCESS TRAINING - TEXAS - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCTDS010 PROCESS & SKILLS TRAINING ADMI - - - - - - 17 - - 17
EGSLA F3PCTTDS12 TRANSMISSION LINES O&M EXPENS - - - - - - 8,465 - - 8,465
EGSLA F3PCTTDS17 Substation Maintenance EGSI LA - - - - - - 523 - - 523
EGSLA F3PCTTDS20 SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 12,720 - - 12,720
EGSLA F3PCTTDS30 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXPENSE -EGSI - - - - - - 20 - - 20
EGSLA F3PCTTDS47 DISTR O&M EXPENSE - LOUISIANA - - - - - - 3,329 - - 3,329
EGSLA F3PCWE0057 BRAO & TECH SUPPORT ROUTINE/DI - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCY20621 PARKIN SUBSTATION, ARKANSAS - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PCZGASAG GAS ADMINISTRATIVE - - - - - - 42 - - 42
EGSLA F3PP451921 GENERAL MECHANICAL - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F3PPCPLITA 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EA - - - - - - 1,840 - - 1,840
EGSLA F3PPCPLITG 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EG - - - - - - 10,954 - - 10,954
EGSLA F3PPCPLITL 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EL - - - - - - 2,366 - - 2,366
EGSLA F3PPCPLITM 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EM - - - - - - 1,218 - - 1,218
EGSLA F3PPCPLITN Lighting Campaign ENOI - - - - - - 220 - - 220
EGSLA F3PPLTTX10 2010 Winter Lighting Promo Tex - - - - - - 200 - - 200
EGSLA F3PPM08001 WATERFORD 3 GENERAL SUPPORT - 220 - - - 420 - - - 641
EGSLA F3PPR1031G CUSTOMER RELATIONS - EGSL - - - - - - 171 - - 171
EGSLA F3PPR733BR Baton Rouge Customer Service C - - - - - - 9,422 - - 9,422
EGSLA F3PPREALL2 Residential Market Dev - ALL J - - - - - - 6,209 - - 6,209
EGSLA F3PPZB0241 LGC Fuel Oil Unloading/Handlin - 178 - - - - - - - 178
EGSLA F3PPZG2281 LG2 Turbine Valve& Generator O - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F5PCE13751 GENERAL LITIGATION- EGSI-LA - - - - - - 69 - - 69
EGSLA F5PCFPR062 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO ET - - - 716 - - - - - 716
EGSLA F5PCFPR07A 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO IP - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F5PCSAFTEG SAFTEY TRAINING LOADER GAS CUS - - - - 285 - - - - 285
EGSLA F5PCZFCTRN REGULATD NON-BACKBONE FIBER - - - - - - 609 - - 609
EGSLA F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF (266) (263) (162) (6) (59) (2) 1,662 (123) - 780
EGSLA F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS (3,837) (45,379) 3,821 83 (5,009) (38) (1,923) 2,174 - (50,109)
EGSLA F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (1,643) (2,282) (1,312) (46) (422) (41) (326) (871) - (6,943)
EGSLA F5PCZY323L ROUTINE SPILL RESPONSE(CS-LP&L - 21,059 - - - - - - - 21,059
EGSLA F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 66 994 267 98 13 140 939 1 - 2,517

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 5 of 6
 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. Exhibit SBT-21
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 6 of 6
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI ELL EMI EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI TOTAL
EGSLA F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS 27 1,992 - - - - 422 - - 2,441
EGSLA F5PPFAC009 FAC-009 Mitigation Plan Data A - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F5PPFPR0NA 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - - - 37 - - - - - 37
EGSLA F5PPFPRO57 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - - - 1,860 - - - - - 1,860
EGSLA F5PPFPRO72 5% Surcharge on Services to EN - - - 6 - - - - - 6
EGSLA F5PPFPRO77 5% Surcharge on Svcs to IP3 - - - 5,221 - - - - - 5,221
EGSLA F5PPFPRO78 5% Surcharge on Svcs to 78 - - - 331 - - - - - 331
EGSLA F5PPIBWG10 2010 IBEW-EGSL Contract Negoti - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA F5PPNNELSN NELSON 6 PLANT COSTS - - - - - - - 8,925,811 - 8,925,811
EGSLA F5PPWE0450 Safety Recognition Program - S - 489 - - - - - - - 489
EGSLA F5PPZUWELL Entergy Wellness Program - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA GINP Purc Gen Invent Items-Passport 28,776 93,458 3,543 - 2,176 - - 60,259 - 188,211
EGSLA PCCC Provide Call Center Contact 537,563 562,736 386,966 - 166,521 - - 248,657 - 1,902,443
EGSLA RENP Process Recpts Not Invoiced-Pp - - 20,666 - - - - - - 20,666
EGSLA RTCF Investigate E Servic Diversion - 4,337 - - - - - - - 4,337
EGSLA SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - - (678) 358 - (320)
EGSLA SAPCPCPLAP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL (34) - - - - - - - - (34)
EGSLA SAPCPCPLLP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - (2,872) - - - - - - - (2,872)
EGSLA SAPCPCPLMP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - 14 - - - - - - 14
EGSLA SAPCPCPLNE PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - EL - - - - (189) - - - - (189)
EGSLA SDPCL79005 CAP SUSPENSE, DISTR ESI, LA-G, - - - - - - 119 - - 119
EGSLA SDPCT59005 CAPITAL SUSPENSE, ELEC DISTRIB - - - - 12,209 - - - - 12,209
EGSLA SDPCTA0528 DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL SUSPENSE - - - - - - 26,807 - - 26,807
EGSLA SFPCW30010 FOSSIL CAPITAL SUSPENSE - ELI - 1,651 - - - - - - - 1,651
EGSLA SGPCG59006 GAS DISTRIBUTION ENOI O/H GAS - - - - - - 231 - - 231
EGSLA SGPCR79008 GAS DISTRIBUTION EGSI O/H-CHAR - - - - - - 224 - - 224
EGSLA SJLG Prov Logistics During Maj Stms - - 125 - - - - - - 125
EGSLA SNPCN79003 RIVERBEND SITE OVERHEAD ENG & - - - - - (126) - - - (126)
EGSLA STPCTA0527 TRANSMISSION CAPITAL SUSPENSE - - - - - - 26,814 - - 26,814
EGSLA STPPTD0ELL Capital Suspense T&D Grid ELL - 2,572 - - - - - - - 2,572
EGSLA STPPTDS527 Capital Suspense TGrid ESI all - - - - - - 26,799 - - 26,799
EGSLA XFAB Provide Plant Office Support - - - - - - - 6,333 - 6,333
EGSLA XFAD Manage Genl Plant Operations - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA XKAA Provide Maintenance Supervisn - 14,861 - - - - - - - 14,861
EGSLA XNAA Maintain Accessory Electric Eq - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA XNBC Maintain Generator System - - - - - - - - - -
EGSLA XVAA Operate & Maintain Fuel Oil Eq - - - - - - - - - -
859,408 1,562,606 509,565 171,579 179,925 127,910 200,073 9,414,163 127,654 13,152,884

Exhibit SBT-21
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 6 of 6
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL ASAM Attend Safety Meetings 513 - - - - - - - - - 513
ELL ATTR Attend Training 42,170 - - - 435 - - - - - 42,605
ELL BDGM Disconn/Reconn Gas Meter-Nonpy - - - - 6,987 - - - - - 6,987
ELL CMOH Perf El Dist Corr Mnt O/H Wire - - - - 13 - - - - - 13
ELL EMCO Communicate With Employees - - - 1,820 - - - - - - 1,820
ELL GTOF Perform Gas Met Svc-Turn On/Of - - - - 20,024 - - - - - 20,024
ELL HFMT Repair Elec Meters In Field - - - - 124 - - - - - 124
ELL HVAC Repair HVAC Systems 29 - - - - - - - - - 29
ELL MACO Maintain Condenser 1,542 - - - - - - - - - 1,542
ELL MCEF Monit&Cont Permitted Effluents 1,507 - - - - - - - - - 1,507
ELL MEDG Manage Gas Distribution Oper - - - - 7,471 - - - - - 7,471
ELL MESM Manage Distr Subs Maintenance - - - - 42,328 - - - - - 42,328
ELL MFPT Repair Fire Protection System 20,213 - 2,494 - - - - - - - 22,706
ELL MGMT Manage Stred Matl/Iss Supplies 21,729 - - - - - - - - - 21,729
ELL MTBS Repair Buildings 13,678 - 5,270 - - - - - - - 18,948
ELL MTFC Maintain Misc Facilities & Str 1,935 - - - - - - - - - 1,935
ELL MTFG Repair Yards & Grounds 617 - 4,034 - - - - - - - 4,650
ELL MTOF Perf Elec Meter Serv Wk-On/Off - - - - 474 - - - - - 474
ELL PBUD Prep Budget & Pe (Indiv Org) - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL PEER Peer Group Meetings 54 - - - - - - - - - 54
ELL PUGL Perform Underground Loc Maint - - - - 121,443 - - - - - 121,443
ELL RACM Receive & Check Materials - - - - 444 - - - - - 444
ELL RENP Process Recpts Not Invoiced-Pp - - - - 8,580 - - - - - 8,580
ELL RERD Re-Read Misread Meters - - - - 20,312 - - - - - 20,312
ELL RRDD Reread E Metr-DistField-Not CI - - - - 62 - - - - - 62
ELL RTCF Investigate E Servic Diversion - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL TEDP Troubleshoot El Dist Prob-Cust - - - - 1,306 - - - - - 1,306
ELL TMET Test Electric Meters In Field - - - - 2,288 - - - - - 2,288
ELL WAST Provide Waste Disposal Service 669 - - - - - - - - - 669
ELL XBAA Operate Boiler Plant 601,325 - 95,663 - - - - - - - 696,988
ELL XBAD Operate Water Plant System 11,370 - 2,629 - - - - - - - 13,998
ELL XBAK Operate Environmental Eq& Proc 4,334 - 2,458 - - - - - - - 6,791
ELL XEAA Operate Other Electric Plt Eq 270,450 - 86,638 - 726 - - - - - 357,814
ELL XKAA Provide Maintenance Supervisn 27,957 - 13,980 - - - - - - - 41,938
ELL XLAU Repair Cranes 4,828 - 1,433 - - - - - - - 6,261
ELL XLAW Repair Waste Wtr Trt&Setl Sys 30,653 - 3,876 - - - - - - - 34,530
ELL XMCB Perform Boiler Chemical Clean - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL XMCD Maintain Safety Valves - - 1,429 - - - - - - - 1,429
ELL XMCE Maintain Auxily Startup Boiler - - 11,648 - - - - - - - 11,648
ELL XMCF Maint Waterwall, Casing&Refrac - - 8,116 - - - - - - - 8,116
ELL XMCG Maintain Desuperheater System 593 - 548 - - - - - - - 1,141
ELL XMCH Mnt Deaerator,Flsh Evp&Drum Sy - - 1,717 - - - - - - - 1,717
ELL XMCL Maintain Reheater System - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL XMCR Maintain Other Boiler Plant Eq 1,699 - - - - - - - - - 1,699
ELL XMCU Maintain Forced Draft Air Syst - - 8,219 - - - - - - - 8,219
ELL XMCW Maintain Air Preheater System - - 3,440 - - - - - - - 3,440
ELL XMDH Maint Fuel Oil Tank Farm&Tra E - - 206 - - - - - - - 206
ELL XMDK Maint Gas Supply Line Eq&Contr 4,689 - - - - - - - - - 4,689
ELL XMDM Maintain Condensate Booster Sy 1,711 - 13 - - - - - - - 1,724
ELL XMDP Maintain Feedwater Treating Sy - - 10,738 - - - - - - - 10,738
ELL XMDR Maint Feedwtr Piping&Blowdown - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL XMDT Maintain Other Feedwater Syst 215 - - - - - - - - - 215

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL XMDV Maintain Water Plant System - - 4,631 - - - - - - - 4,631
ELL XMDX Maintain Demineralizer System 13,906 - 7,468 - - - - - - - 21,374
ELL XMDY Maintain Turbine Gas Fuel Syst 1,677 - 978 - - - - - - - 2,655
ELL XNAB Maintain Aux Gen&Stategic Bat 7,092 - 1,640 - - - - - - - 8,733
ELL XNAC Maintain Proc Ctrl&Data Acq Sy 2,851 - 1,068 - - - - - - - 3,919
ELL XNAE Maintain Elec Instr & Controls 2,332 - 232 - - - - - - - 2,564
ELL XNAF Maintain Hrsg, Inst & Controls 8,735 - 5,885 - - - - - - - 14,619
ELL XNAG Maintain Misc E Pl Valves&Pipe 56 - - - - - - - - - 56
ELL XNAK Maintain Cl Cooling Water Syst 766 - 139 - - - - - - - 904
ELL XNAL Maintain Cooling Tower Mech Eq 1,973 - 1,326 - - - - - - - 3,299
ELL XNAM Maintain Condensate/Hotwell Sy 554 - 4,627 - - - - - - - 5,181
ELL XNAN Maintain Cooling Tower Struct 3,182 - 341 - 97 - - - - - 3,620
ELL XNAP Maintain Circulating Water Sys 4,225 - 978 - - - - - - - 5,203
ELL XNAR Maintain Oth Cooling Water Eq - - 128 - - - - - - - 128
ELL XNAT Maintain Gas Turb Hot Section 16,139 - 7,276 - - - - - - - 23,415
ELL XNAU Maintian Gas Turb Compress Sys 2,276 - 1,693 - - - - - - - 3,969
ELL XNAV Maintain Gas Turb Air Intake S 406 - 114 - - - - - - - 520
ELL XNBE Maint Turbine Valve& Governor 721 - 58 - - - - - - - 779
ELL XNBF Maintain Other Turbine Equip 3,515 - 1,218 - - - - - - - 4,733
ELL XNBJ Repair Auxiliary Transform513 6,822 - 1,381 - - - - - - - 8,203
ELL XNBK Maintain Oth Misc Eq Assoc Sto 1,572 - 809 - - - - - - - 2,381
ELL XPAD Maint Tools,Genl Stn&Mobile Eq 3,743 - 1,584 - - - - - - - 5,327
ELL XPAF Maintain Misc Power Plant Eq 10,759 - - - - - - - - - 10,759
ELL XQAA Provide Operations Supervision 363,277 - 154,856 - - - - - - - 518,134
ELL XSAD Provide Mechanical Eq Consult 101 - - - - - - - - - 101
ELL XSAH Provide Plant Proj/Outage Mgmt - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL XWAB Maintain Plant Veh& Mobile Eq 322 - - - - - - - - - 322
ELL XYAA Maintain Main Stepup Transform 2,629 - 1,474 - - - - - - - 4,104
ELL F3PPCPLITG 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EG - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPCPLITL 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EL - - - - - - 18,384 - - - 18,384
ELL F3PPCPLITM 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EM - - - - - - (364) - - - (364)
ELL C6PPDW010N 2010 Cap Tools D-Line ENOI - - - - 70,913 - - - - - 70,913
ELL C6PPDW011N 2011 CA Tools/Equip ENOI Distr - - - - 10,616 - - - - - 10,616
ELL F5PPIBWG11 2011 IBEW-EGSL Contract Negoti - - 2,082 - - - - - - - 2,082
ELL C6DB869894 2011 PLANNED PROJECT. 702ML. - - 2,260 - - - - - - - 2,260
ELL C6DB869885 2011 PLANNED PROJECT.IMPROVE.7 - - 10,234 - - - - - - - 10,234
ELL C6DB869887 2011 PLANNED PROJECT.IMPROVE.9 - - 16,481 - - - - - - - 16,481
ELL C6DB869961 2011 PLANNED PROJECT.IMPROVE.9 - - 34,917 - - - - - - - 34,917
ELL C1PPFIB203 21GTX Replacement 2011 - - - - - - 1,388 - - - 1,388
ELL F5PP5PERCX 5% Surcharge - 7 - - - - - - - - 7
ELL F5PPFPR0NA 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - 105 - - - - - - - - 105
ELL F5PPFPRO57 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EN - 146 - - - - - - - - 146
ELL F5PPFPRO72 5% Surcharge on Services to EN - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F5PCFPR008 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EP - 563 - - - - - - - - 563
ELL F5PCFPR062 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO ET - 156 - - - - - - - - 156
ELL F5PCFPR07A 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO IP - 542 - - - - - - - - 542
ELL F5PPFPRO78 5% Surcharge on Svcs to 78 - 273 - - - - - - - - 273
ELL F5PPFPRO77 5% Surcharge on Svcs to IP3 - 693 - - - - - - - - 693
ELL C1PPHHQ821 639 Interior Upgrades - - - - - - 113 - - - 113
ELL C6DB869866 852 MA. RELOCATE (3) SPANS OF - - 3,188 - - - - - - - 3,188
ELL F3PCFX3350 A/R & BILLING SUPPORT - - - - - - 9 - - - 9
ELL F3PCF23425 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PROCESSING - - - - - - 24 - - - 24

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSF344 Addis 21755 mech failure - - 5,450 - - - - - - - 5,450
ELL C6PPTSF254 Addis L392 replace failed pane - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF593 Addis regasket T4 - - 11,911 - - - - - - - 11,911
ELL C6PPTSF265 Addis Replace DPU 200F - - 10,004 - - - - - - - 10,004
ELL C6PPTSF836 addis replace failed fans - - 3,237 - - - - - - - 3,237
ELL C6PPTSF517 Addis replace failed fans T2 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL AARP Admin Awards & Recog Program - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF563 Air Products replace bushing - - 24,822 - - - - - - - 24,822
ELL C6PPMR3718 Air Products: replace CT's - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSG002 Airline Sub: 230kV DEMCO POD - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF259 Alaska 282F replace DPU - - 3,225 - - - - - - - 3,225
ELL C6PPTSF395 Alaska enable UF feeder 281F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF515 Alchem replace failed fans T1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTLZ005 Alchem-Mono(L397): Upgrade 275 - - 159,529 - - - - - - - 159,529
ELL C6PPMR3798 Almonaster : repl. breaker bus - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PC9096X2 ALMONASTER SUB.TO CURRAN SUB. - - - - 2,677 - - - - - 2,677
ELL F3PCY30006 ALMONASTER SUBSTATION, NEW ORL - - - - 86 - - - - - 86
ELL C6PPRA1253 Almonaster:Replace 6T1-6, - - - - 1,208 - - - - - 1,208
ELL C6PPRA1254 Almonaster:Replace 6T2-6 - - - - 3,303 - - - - - 3,303
ELL C8PPMR3816 Almonaster; minor add; Hurrica - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF528 Alsen add mos's to line sw's - - 17,327 - - - - - - - 17,327
ELL C6DB870052 ALT,NIB,922DU,REPLACE 40 WITH - - 27,343 - - - - - - - 27,343
ELL F3PPAMISTG AMI Strategy Expense - - - - - - 17 - - - 17
ELL F3PCY30980 ANGOLA SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 3,029 - - - - - - - 3,029
ELL C6PPTSV001 ANO PHVII (2010) 1,730 - - - - - - - - - 1,730
ELL F3PPD10128 ARCS/Itron/MV90 Support - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL F3PPZG1900 AT1: Outage - - - 2,176 - - - - - - 2,176
ELL F3PCFX3695 ATPR SUPPORT - - - - - - 7 - - - 7
ELL C5DB476123 AUDUBON BLVD STREET PAVING PRO - - - - 331 - - - - - 331
ELL F3PCY30026 AVENUE C SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEA - - - - 4,607 - - - - - 4,607
ELL C6DB476106 BACKBONE 1010 RELABILITY WALK - - - - 14,891 - - - - - 14,891
ELL C6DB476100 BACKBONE 1702-2 RELABILITY WAL - - - - 5,982 - - - - - 5,982
ELL C6DB476104 BACKBONE 615-2 RELIABILITY WAL - - - - 3,714 - - - - - 3,714
ELL C6DB476103 BACKBONE 627-2 RELABILITY WALK - - - - 7,343 - - - - - 7,343
ELL C1PPFII056 Backbone Ovebld Expnsn North D - - - - - - 10,272 - - - 10,272
ELL C6DB476065 BACKBONE TU 2135 REPAIR PROBLE - - - - 24,623 - - - - - 24,623
ELL C6PPTSF530 Baker add mos sw 14057 - - 7,124 - - - - - - - 7,124
ELL C6PPTSF229 Baker repl ls sws with S&C on - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF615 Baker replace arresters T1 - - 2,482 - - - - - - - 2,482
ELL C6PPTSF616 Baker replace arresters T2 - - 2,482 - - - - - - - 2,482
ELL C6PPTSF833 Baker replace failed fans - - 2,406 - - - - - - - 2,406
ELL F3PCY30998 BAKER SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 346 - - - - - - - 346
ELL F3PPR733BR Baton Rouge Customer Service C - - - - - - 877 - - - 877
ELL C6PPTSK250 Bayou Labutte: Build 500kV Sub - - - - - - 1,216 - - - 1,216
ELL F3PCY32457 BAYOU SAUVAGE NEW ORLEANS EAST - - - - 2,045 - - - - - 2,045
ELL F3PCY31012 BELFAIR SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 5,778 - - - - - - - 5,778
ELL F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS (4,853) (26) (5,136) (421) 1,537 31 93 (124) - (100) (8,997)
ELL C6PPTSJ003 Bentwater - Build 138-34.5 Sub - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPD10129 Billing Determinate Proc/Major - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL C6DB476085 BKB TU 1913 REPAIR PROBLEMS ID - - - - 14,023 - - - - - 14,023
ELL C6DB475821 BKB TU 1923 CP TRAC # TU10-021 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475824 bkb tu 2015 cp trac # tu10-023 - - - - 2,302 - - - - - 2,302

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 4 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6DB476081 BKB TU 2026 REPAIR PROBLEMS ID - - - - 544 - - - - - 544
ELL C6DB476083 BKB TU 2147 REPAIR PROBLEMS ID - - - - 3,849 - - - - - 3,849
ELL C6DB476080 BKBONE 2017 REPAIR PROBLEMS ID - - - - 36,302 - - - - - 36,302
ELL C6DB476146 BKBONE,EO,1002,R/P BAD OR DEFE - - - - 11,049 - - - - - 11,049
ELL C6DB476094 BKBONE,EO,2346,R/P DEFECTIVE E - - - - 21,164 - - - - - 21,164
ELL C6DB476127 BKBONE,EO,611,R/P BAD OR DEFEC - - - - 11,600 - - - - - 11,600
ELL C6DB476128 BKBONE,EO,613,R/P BAD OR DEFEC - - - - 6,041 - - - - - 6,041
ELL C6DB475877 BKBONE,EO,621,622,612,623,R/P - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476068 BKBONE,EO,621,R/P BAD OR DEFEC - - - - 47,729 - - - - - 47,729
ELL C6DB476062 BKBONE,EO,622,R/P BAD EQUIPMEN - - - - 9,915 - - - - - 9,915
ELL C6DB476064 BKBONE,EO,623,R/P BAD OR FAULT - - - - 10,688 - - - - - 10,688
ELL C6DB475820 bkn tu 1914 CP Trac # TU10-020 - - - - 4,313 - - - - - 4,313
ELL C6PPTSF564 Blount replace 13 kv pin & cap - - 5,568 - - - - - - - 5,568
ELL C6PPTSF840 Blount replace contacts bkr 14 - - 12,083 - - - - - - - 12,083
ELL C6PPTSF560 Blount replace contacts ltc t2 - - 10,937 - - - - - - - 10,937
ELL C6PPTSF526 Blount replace failed insulato - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF632 Blount replace failed T1 - - 2,470 - - - - - - - 2,470
ELL F3PCY31020 BLOUNT SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 1,355 - - - - - - - 1,355
ELL C6PPTSF415 BR Relay test set upgrade - - 8,982 - - - - - - - 8,982
ELL C6DB869759 BR REV 700ZO-BURLINGTON LAKES - - 82,445 - - - - - - - 82,445
ELL C6DB869549 BR STREET LIGHTS BLITZ - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869550 BR STREET LIGHTS BLITZ - CONTR - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869515 BR-773PE REV INSTALL UG FACILI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF607 Brady Heights parallel LTC - - 15,805 - - - - - - - 15,805
ELL F3PCY31023 BRADY HEIGHTS SUBSTATION, GSU- - - 8,190 - - - - - - - 8,190
ELL F3PCY31032 BROUSSARD SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 1,069 - - - - - - - 1,069
ELL F3PCY31033 BROWN SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 724 - - - - - - - 724
ELL C6DB869472 BR-REV 728 GARDERE - INSTALL U - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869721 BR-REV 728 GARDERE - INSTALL U - - 70,955 - - - - - - - 70,955
ELL C6DB869809 BR-REV 728 GARDERE - INSTALL U - - 49,583 - - - - - - - 49,583
ELL C6DB869875 BR-REV 728 GARDERE - INSTALL U - - 69,561 - - - - - - - 69,561
ELL C6DB869538 BR-REV-724GR-INSTALL UG FACILI - - 2,091 - - - - - - - 2,091
ELL F3PCF73027 BUDGET SYSTEM MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 19 - - - 19
ELL C6PPTSF474 Bulldog Sub T1 Animal Mitigati - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL F3PCR56136 BUSINESS OFFICE STUDY - ENOI - - - - 3,192 - - - - - 3,192
ELL SDPCM79005 CAP SUSPENSE, DISTR ESI, METRO - - - - - - 10,302 - - - 10,302
ELL STPPTDEGSL Capital Suspense T&D Grid EGSL - - 867 - - - - - - - 867
ELL STPPTDENOI Capital Suspense T&D Grid ENOI - - - - 85,058 - - - - - 85,058
ELL SDPCT30070 CAPITAL SUSPENSE, DISTR WIRES, - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL SDPCT59005 CAPITAL SUSPENSE, ELEC DISTRIB - - - - 76,014 - - - - - 76,014
ELL C6PPSHOPMS Capture Transformer Cost MS - - - (202,988) - - - - - - (202,988)
ELL C6PPTFRSMS Capture Transformer Cost MS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSHOPM Capture Transformer Cost MS - - - (80,364) - - - - - - (80,364)
ELL C6PPTFRSGS Capture Transformer Costs GSU - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSHOPGS Capture Transformer Costs LG - - (84,615) - - - - - - - (84,615)
ELL C6PPTSHOPG Capture Transformer Costs LG - - (65,366) - - - - - - - (65,366)
ELL C6PPSHOPAR Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSHOPNO Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - (47,198) - - - - - (47,198)
ELL C6PPSHOPTX Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - (181,689) - - (181,689)
ELL C6PPTFRSAR Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTFRSNO Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTFRSTX Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 4 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 5 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSHOPA Capture Transformer Shop Cost (2,628) - - - - - - - - - (2,628)
ELL C6PPTSHOPN Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - (17,683) - - - - - (17,683)
ELL C6PPTSHOPT Capture Transformer Shop Cost - - - - - - - (38,665) - - (38,665)
ELL C6PPTSP454 Carlyss 230 - Replace Sws & ju - - 48,473 - - - - - - - 48,473
ELL C6PPTSF404 Carlyss T1 transf life extensi - - 17,391 - - - - - - - 17,391
ELL C6PPTSG305 Carter Upgrade Cap Bank - - 27,415 - - - - - - - 27,415
ELL C6PPDS9846 Casino:Build 69/13.2kV Sub EGL - - (10,199) - - - - - - - (10,199)
ELL C6PPTLF001 Casino-Contraband, Cut in Casi - - (27,306) - - - - - - - (27,306)
ELL C6PPTLF002 Casino-Lake Street, Cut in Cas - - (25,737) - - - - - - - (25,737)
ELL F3PPD10158 CCS Agent Care System - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL C6PPTSF218 Cecelia replace feeder breaker - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF219 Cecelia replace feeder breaker - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869402 CENT-REV 718ZO INSTALL UG FACI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C1PPFII26W CFI Jackson - Repl Gretna Voic - - - - - - 30,739 - - - 30,739
ELL C1PPFII26P CFI-Jackson TelecomApps-Call C - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPD10131 CIS/AIS & Core Support - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL C6PPBU1091 Claiborne - replace OCB N9821 - - - - 28,429 - - - - - 28,429
ELL F3PCY30129 CLAIBORNE SUBSTATION, NEW ORLE - - - - 3,383 - - - - - 3,383
ELL F3PC9091X4 CLAIBORNE TAPTOPATERSON - - - - 5,558 - - - - - 5,558
ELL F3PC9098X4 CLAIBORNE TO DELTA - - - - 52 - - - - - 52
ELL C6PPVS1002 CLAIBORNE: 115KV CAP RELAY UPG - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF535 Claire add mos to line switche - - 5,473 - - - - - - - 5,473
ELL C6PPTLG201 CLECO Sellers Road to LUS Labb - - 821,406 - - - - - - - 821,406
ELL C6PPTSF508 cofel repl failed batteries,ch - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF512 Cofel replace failed fans - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF834 Cohen replace failed fans - - 4,088 - - - - - - - 4,088
ELL C6PPTSF542 cohen replace failed fans t1 - - 5,062 - - - - - - - 5,062
ELL C6PPDSG042 Colton Sub-Site Purchase & Sco - - 3,181 - - - - - - - 3,181
ELL C6PPTSF273 Coly L342 replace Primary rela - - 18,459 - - - - - - - 18,459
ELL C6PPTSF429 Coly L741 Replace relaying - - 416 - - - - - - - 416
ELL C6PPTSF529 Coly replace batterries&charge - - 27,650 - - - - - - - 27,650
ELL C6PPTSF226 Coly Replace failed 500 bushin - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTS2069 Coly sub modify - new 230kV li - - 134,322 - - - - - - - 134,322
ELL F3PCY31082 COLY SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 15,593 - - - - - - - 15,593
ELL C6PPTLH999 Coly-Jones Creek,Relocate 69kV - - 239 - - - - - - - 239
ELL C6PPTL1212 COLY-LOBLOLLY, build new 69kV - - 31,304 - - - - - - - 31,304
ELL C6PPTSF534 Concord replace failed batt ch - - 3,740 - - - - - - - 3,740
ELL F3PCY31084 CONCORD SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 346 - - - - - - - 346
ELL C6PPN71215 CONSTRUCTION LOOP PANELS - - 86,405 - - - - - - - 86,405
ELL F5PCLIHPPC CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAMS - - - - - - 515 - - - 515
ELL E2PPSJCIP1 Contractor Invoice Processing - - - - - - 315 - - - 315
ELL F3PCY31089 CONWAY SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF845 Copol replace failed charger - - 4,127 - - - - - - - 4,127
ELL F3PCY31090 COPOL SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 378 - - - - - - - 378
ELL C1PPFIB201 Core Router-ASR Router Inserti - - - - - - 582 - - - 582
ELL F3PCF21600 CORP RPTG ANALYSIS & POLICY AL - - - - - - 285 - - - 285
ELL F3PCCPM001 CORPORATE PERFORMANCE MANAGEME - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCFX3450 CORPORATE REPORTING SYSTEM SUP - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPTSZ030 Cosmar Cust Control House Relo - - 477 - - - - - - - 477
ELL C6PPTSF598 Cosmar install oil filter T2 l - - 6,734 - - - - - - - 6,734
ELL C6PPTSF832 Cosmar replace failerd fans - - 3,957 - - - - - - - 3,957
ELL F3PCY31094 COSMAR SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 1,037 - - - - - - - 1,037

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 5 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 6 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSF847 Cosmar t2 repl failed ltc cont - - 13,479 - - - - - - - 13,479
ELL C6PPTL9599 Courtableau line cut-in - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31100 CROWN ZELLERBACH SUBSTATION, G - - 2,615 - - - - - - - 2,615
ELL C6PPD40220 Crystal Springs: Inst Fiber Eq - - - 899 - - - - - - 899
ELL F3PCY30160 CURRAN SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 5,717 - - - - - 5,717
ELL C6PPMR3789 Curran: replace VBU - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPRA1294 Curran:Replace Feeder 2215 - - - - 2,803 - - - - - 2,803
ELL C6DB869909 CUST BR 725GR INST NEW FEED AN - - 21,369 - - - - - - - 21,369
ELL C6DB870024 CUST BR 726GR PROVIDE CUSTOMER - - 1,644 - - - - - - - 1,644
ELL C6DB869749 CUST BR RIVER CENTER GALLERIA - - 16,988 - - - - - - - 16,988
ELL C6DB475847 CUST TU 1553 ROUTE FEEDER AROU - - - - 3,357 - - - - - 3,357
ELL C6DB869763 CUST,784DL,DEL,PUT BOAT SLIP C - - 8,784 - - - - - - - 8,784
ELL C6DB476263 Cust. 406 replace TV# 13 with - - - - 1,892 - - - - - 1,892
ELL C6DB476264 Cust. 406 replace TV# 13 with - - - - 1,927 - - - - - 1,927
ELL C6DB476039 CUST. 408 REPLACE TV#21 INSTAL - - - - 2,646 - - - - - 2,646
ELL C6DB475708 CUST. 408 REPLACE TV#21 WITH S - - - - 2,412 - - - - - 2,412
ELL C6DB475816 CUST. 409 TEMPORARY REMOVE UG - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475813 CUST. FDR. 409 INSTALL TEMP. O - - - - 268 - - - - - 268
ELL E1PCR56015 CUSTOM SALES & SERVICE UNIT - - - - - - - 253 - - - 253
ELL F3PCR10360 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPR103LA CUSTOMER ACCT SVCS- LA (L,LG,N - - - - - - 211 - - - 211
ELL F3PPD10130 Customer Care System Interface - - - - - - 8 - - - 8
ELL F3PCD10105 CUSTOMER CARE SYSTEM SUPPORT - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL F3PCR10310 CUSTOMER RELATIONS - SOUTHERN - - - - - - 140 - - - 140
ELL F3PCTDDS26 CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPORT - O&M - - - - - - 338 - - - 338
ELL C6DB475741 CUSTOMR,EO,1001,RELOCATE FACIL - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475942 CUSTOMR,EO,1009/1010,I/S POLES - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475994 CUSTOMR,EO,1010,RE-INSTALL O.H - - - - 210 - - - - - 210
ELL C6DB476235 CUSTOMR,EO,1204,TEMP.RE-ROUTE - - - - 1,184 - - - - - 1,184
ELL F3PCF72271 DATA WAREHOUSE - - - - - - 9 - - - 9
ELL C6PPTS7338 Dell Reactor Replacement 76 - - - - - - - - - 76
ELL C6PPTSF379 Delmont install D400S RTU - - 31,687 - - - - - - - 31,687
ELL F3PCY30174 DELTA SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 10,482 - - - - - 10,482
ELL C6PPRA1264 Delta:Upgrade Market Line Rela - - - - 23,201 - - - - - 23,201
ELL C6PPBU1069 Delta-replace damaged N-side d - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBU1079 Delta-Replace N0213 Ckt Switch - - - - 4,047 - - - - - 4,047
ELL F3PC9091X2 DELTATOCLAIBORNE TAP - - - - 4,013 - - - - - 4,013
ELL F3PCY31113 DENHAM SPRINGS SUBSTATION, GSU - - 1,752 - - - - - - - 1,752
ELL F3PC9097X5 DERBIGNY SUB. TO TRICOU SUB. - - - - 9,277 - - - - - 9,277
ELL F3PCY30176 DERBIGNY SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEA - - - - 6,108 - - - - - 6,108
ELL C6PPRA1266 Derbigny:Ninemile Relay Upgrad - - - - 40,227 - - - - - 40,227
ELL C6PPRA1286 Derbigny:Replace OCB 1554 - - - - 660 - - - - - 660
ELL C6PPRA1261 Derbigny:Upgrade Market Line P - - - - 12,195 - - - - - 12,195
ELL F3PCY31116 DEVIL SWAMP SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 378 - - - - - - - 378
ELL C6PC349000 DISB. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - 7,632 - - - - - - 7,632
ELL C6PPDS9972 Dist Briarwood 230/34.5kV Sub - - 4,410 - - - - - - - 4,410
ELL F3PPD10120 Dist Oper Appl O&M-AM/FM Suppo - - - - - - 22 - - - 22
ELL F3PPD10123 Dist Oper Appl O&M-EPO&SAISO S - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL F3PPD10124 Dist Oper Appl O&M-PDD/ECOS Sp - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPDS9971 Dist Wintz New 230/34.5 EGSILA - - (712) - - - - - - - (712)
ELL F3PPD10119 Dist Work Mgmt O&M-CTS Contrac - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL F3PPD10115 Dist Work Mgmt O&M-DIS/DSS/ADS - - - - - - 19 - - - 19

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 6 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 7 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL F3PPD10146 Dist Work Mgmt-Cyndrus Support - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL C6PC149020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - 3,096 - - - - - - - - - 3,096
ELL C6PC249000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - - - 114 - - - 114
ELL C6PC349020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - 11,363 - - - - - - 11,363
ELL C6PC449000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - 829,057 - - - - - 829,057
ELL C6PC449020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - - - 444,310 - - - - - 444,310
ELL C6PC849000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 755,216 - - - - - - - 755,216
ELL C6PC849020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 1,847,445 - - - - - - - 1,847,445
ELL C6PC449200 DISTB LINES BLANKET-GOVT MAND. - - - - 42,478 - - - - - 42,478
ELL C6PC449100 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE R - - - - 3,917 - - - - - 3,917
ELL C6PC149000 DISTB LINES REVENUE BLANKET NO 5,124 - - - - - - - - - 5,124
ELL C6PC449103 DISTB LINES-IMP BLANKET - OTHE - - - - (22,352) - - - - - (22,352)
ELL C6PC449102 DISTB LINES-IMP BLANKET-UNDG C - - - - 4,030 - - - - - 4,030
ELL C6PC149103 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER (167,716) - - - - - - - - - (167,716)
ELL C6PC349103 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - - - (205,073) - - - - - - (205,073)
ELL C6PC149100 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE 127 - - - - - - - - - 127
ELL C1PPFI7287 Dist-Gas SCADA Replacement - - - - - - 270 - - - 270
ELL C6PP849310 Distr Auto Load Transfer EGSL - - 23,476 - - - - - - - 23,476
ELL C6PP749114 Distr Lines Failures Blanket T - - - - - - - 167 - - 167
ELL C6PP749010 Distr Lines Revenue Blnk Non-D - - - - - - - 3,807 - - 3,807
ELL C6PP749055 Distr Lines Revenue Street Lig - - - - - - - 176 - - 176
ELL F3PCTTDS47 DISTR O&M EXPENSE - LOUISIANA - - - - - - 3,419 - - - 3,419
ELL C6PP849320 Distr Sectionalizing Program E - - 15,771 - - - - - - - 15,771
ELL C6PC849200 DISTRIBUTION - GOV MANDATED(NO - - 7,440 - - - - - - - 7,440
ELL C6PC849100 DISTRIBUTION - IMP - POLE REPL - - 1,016 - - - - - - - 1,016
ELL C6PC849102 DISTRIBUTION - IMP - UG CABLE - - 19,997 - - - - - - - 19,997
ELL C6PC849103 DISTRIBUTION - IMPROVEMENT - O - - (10,092) - - - - - - - (10,092)
ELL C6PC849113 DISTRIBUTION - IMPROVEMENT - O - - - - - - - (1,738) - - (1,738)
ELL F3PCTTDS46 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXP - METRO E - - - - - - 4,298 - - - 4,298
ELL F3PCTTDS30 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXPENSE -EGSI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCTTDS29 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXPENSE -ELI - - - - - - 374 - - - 374
ELL C6PC149180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK 1,770 - - - - - - - - - 1,770
ELL C6PC249180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - - - - - 3,092 - - - 3,092
ELL C6PC349180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - - 1,445 - - - - - - 1,445
ELL C6PC449180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - - - 1,009,657 - - - - - 1,009,657
ELL C6PC849180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - 867,527 - - - - - - - 867,527
ELL C6PC149104 DL BATCH JOB FOR FAILURE REPLA 2,816 - - - - - - - - - 2,816
ELL C6PC349104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - - 1,080 - - - - - - 1,080
ELL C6PC449104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - - - 198,368 - - - - - 198,368
ELL C6PC849104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - 323,890 - - - - - - - 323,890
ELL C6PC149140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP 1,672 - - - - - - - - - 1,672
ELL C6PC349140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PC449140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP - - - - 23,553 - - - - - 23,553
ELL C6PP149141 DL Repair Public Inflicted Dam - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PP749118 D-Line Customer Requested Proj - - - - - - - 1,249 - - 1,249
ELL C6PP749713 D-Lines TACTICS Target Line De - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31127 DOWNTOWN SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 2,564 - - - - - - - 2,564
ELL C6PPTS7590 DOWNTOWN T-2 LOWSIDE INTERUPPT - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF396 Drusilla enable UF 291F & 294F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF841 Drusilla replace contacts bkr - - 8,688 - - - - - - - 8,688
ELL C6PPTSF575 Drusilla replace disc&bypass s - - 19,968 - - - - - - - 19,968
ELL C6PPTS6764 DSG Waggaman: Fdns For New Bus - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 7 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 8 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTL2623 DSG: Gypsy-Claytonia 115kV Upg - - 223,316 - - - - - - - 223,316
ELL C6PPTSF309 Duboin L223 install relay pane - - 13,455 - - - - - - - 13,455
ELL C6PPTSF473 Duboin Sub T1 Animal Mitigatio - - 1,065 - - - - - - - 1,065
ELL C6PPTSF548 Duplesis replace capacitors - - 4,595 - - - - - - - 4,595
ELL C6PPTSF516 Duplesis replace failed fans t - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF394 Duplessis install Feeder Fault - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF472 Duson Sub T1 Animal Mitigation - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL F3PCWE0200 E&C Technical Support-SU1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF809 East replace arrestors - - 2,482 - - - - - - - 2,482
ELL C6PPTSF580 East replace breaker 995 - - 21,875 - - - - - - - 21,875
ELL F3PCY31140 EAST SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 4,021 - - - - - - - 4,021
ELL F3PPE997LA ECI Continue Improve LA (G,L,N - - - - - - 14 - - - 14
ELL F3PCFX2815 EDMS PRODUCT LINE SUPPORT - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL F5PPTEEI02 EEI - LA HYDRO - 6,501 - - - - - - - - 6,501
ELL C6PPBB0413 EGS LLC:Purch 350mcm Grounds - - 51,170 - - - - - - - 51,170
ELL C6PPBB0362 EGS LLC:Refurb 500kV GCB at We - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBB0456 EGS LLC:Refurbish 500/230 Auto - - 21,873 - - - - - - - 21,873
ELL C7PPSJ8406 EGSI DIST 08/11/10 TROPICAL DE - - 8,197 - - - - - - - 8,197
ELL F3PCT00227 EGSI LA OIL AND PCB SPILL RESP - - 677 - - - - - - - 677
ELL C6PCTL6172 EGSI-LA NORTH CROWLEY-RICHARD - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ8402 EGSL_Thunderstorms 5/29-5/31/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBB0361 EL LLC:Repl Fiber CTs at Hooke - - - - - - 10,462 - - - 10,462
ELL F3PPD10132 Electronic Data Interchange Su - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PPWEOLGN ELI-Engineering- Tech Support - - - - - - 2,850 - - - 2,850
ELL STPCT30030 ELL Capital Suspense Transmiss - - - - - - 1,114 - - - 1,114
ELL C7PPSJ2476 ELL-LA STORM (6/4 - 6/6/11) - - - - - - 309 - - - 309
ELL C7PPSJ3183 EMI 04/24/10 Tornadoes Distr O - - - (37) - - - - - - (37)
ELL C7PPSJ3202 EMI APRIL 2011 Storm Distr Ops - - - 3,370 - - - - - - 3,370
ELL STPCT60006 EMI Capital Suspense Transmiss - - - - - - 1,666 - - - 1,666
ELL C7PPSJ3189 EMI June 2010 Storm Distr Ops- - - - 20,476 - - - - - - 20,476
ELL C7PPSJ3198 EMI Storm Distr Ops 1/7/11Wint - - - 253,470 - - - - - - 253,470
ELL C7PPSJ3203 EMI Storm Distr Ops 4/15/11 - - - 149,832 - - - - - - 149,832
ELL C7PPSJ3204 EMI StormTornadoes DistrOps 4/ - - - 1,032 - - - - - - 1,032
ELL F3PCWE0063 EMO APPLICATION SUPPORT - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PP6HHOST ENNE Hosting/server support/SO - - - - - - 8 - - - 8
ELL C6PPAMIN02 ENO AMI: Bsns Proc, Require, D - - - - 4,085 - - - - - 4,085
ELL C6PPAMIN03 ENO AMI: Information Technolog - - - - 14,187 - - - - - 14,187
ELL STPCT59004 ENOI Capital Suspense Transmis - - - - 6,595 - - - - - 6,595
ELL C7PPSJ4086 ENOI DIST 08/11/10 TROPICAL DE - - - - 28,011 - - - - - 28,011
ELL C6PPBB0447 ENOI:Purch spare 145kV GCB - - - - 71,826 - - - - - 71,826
ELL C6PPBB0429 ENOI:Refurbish bushings on XFM - - - - 1,212 - - - - - 1,212
ELL C6PPBB0310 ENOI:Replace Bus Tie Breaker - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCF10445 ENTERGY CONSOLIDATED TAX SERVI - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PC449706 ENTERGY RENEWAL - LINE MAINTEN - - - - 29 - - - - - 29
ELL C6PC849705 ENTERGY RENEWAL EQUIPMENT MAIN - - 38,798 - - - - - - - 38,798
ELL C6PC449705 ENTERGY RENEWAL-EQUIPMENT MAIN - - - - 20,184 - - - - - 20,184
ELL F5PPZUWELL Entergy Wellness Program - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCFCQEAI ENTERPRISE APPLICATION INTEGRA - - - - - - 37 - - - 37
ELL C1PPHHQ548 ENTOT1: FITNESS CENTER BUILD O - - - - - - 3,485 - - - 3,485
ELL F3PCT53095 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - EGSI-L - - 5,161 - - - - - - - 5,161
ELL F3PCT53089 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - ENOI - - - - 40,774 - - - - - 40,774
ELL F3PPD10161 ePlus (Web Self Service) Suppo - - - - - - 17 - - - 17

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 8 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 9 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL F5PCERRMOM EQUIP. REFURBISHMENT & REPAIR 12,298 - 12,598 12,482 3,215 - - 9,478 - - 50,071
ELL F3PCN20528 ERD SUPPORT (MAINTENANCE) - - - - - - 58 - - - 58
ELL F3PCR53291 ESI REMITTANCE PROCESSING - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL F3PCF10414 ESI TAX SERVICES - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPTSF800 Esso install oil filter t1 ltc - - 6,734 - - - - - - - 6,734
ELL C6PPTSF599 Esso install oil filter t2 ltc - - 6,734 - - - - - - - 6,734
ELL C6PPTSF554 Esso replace failed batteies b - - 14,485 - - - - - - - 14,485
ELL F3PCY31157 ESSO SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 3,227 - - - - - - - 3,227
ELL C6DB869479 est dh 470lk relocate existing - - (8,434) - - - - - - - (8,434)
ELL C6DB870046 EST- SUBD. THE BRIARS - - 6,407 - - - - - - - 6,407
ELL C6DB869598 EST- THE GLYNNS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869731 EST. 1 OH .BURGESS RD OUTSIDED - - 1,823 - - - - - - - 1,823
ELL F3PCFX3790 ESTER SUPPORT - - - - - - 9 - - - 9
ELL F3PCFT9023 ETC FIBER O&M SUPPORT - 3,125 - - - - - - - - 3,125
ELL F3PCQ730X0 EVERGREEN TO WILLOW GLENN LINE - - 3,290 - - - - - - - 3,290
ELL F3PCY31722 EXXON PIPELINE SUBSTATION GULF - - 1,037 - - - - - - - 1,037
ELL F4PPGS0462 Fac Sty Georgia Pacific Reloc - - 2,519 - - - - - - - 2,519
ELL F4PPGS0474 Fac Sty PL Olefins LLC Petrolo - - 494 - - - - - - - 494
ELL F4PPTX0053 Fac Sty SWPP Oasis 74597193 & - - - - - - - 164 - - 164
ELL F4PPGS0466 Fac Sty SWPP PID 246 - - 159 - - - - - - - 159
ELL F4PPGS0465 Fac Sty Westlake Vinyls Geisma - - 967 - - - - - - - 967
ELL F5PPFAC009 FAC-009 Mitigation Plan Data A - - - - 70 - - - - - 70
ELL F3PCFACALL FACILITIES SVCS- ALL COS - - - - - - 21 - - - 21
ELL C6PPTL1297 Fail09: L86 Pauger-Pontchartra - - - - 259 - - - - - 259
ELL C6PPTL7302 Fail10: L12 Chlomal-Iowa Tap - - 339 - - - - - - - 339
ELL C6PPTL7300 Fail10: L13 Compton-Elton - - 721 - - - - - - - 721
ELL C6PPTL7279 Fail10: L15 Catalyst-Choupique - - 314 - - - - - - - 314
ELL C6PPTL7308 Fail10: L18 Jennings -Scott - - 276 - - - - - - - 276
ELL C6PPTL7301 Fail10: L220 Cade-New Iberia - - 551 - - - - - - - 551
ELL C6PPTL7307 Fail10: L225 Ceceila-New Iberi - - 325 - - - - - - - 325
ELL C6PPTL7298 Fail10: L232 Scott-Judice - - 127 - - - - - - - 127
ELL C6PPTL7297 Fail10: L249 Meaux-Scott - - 464 - - - - - - - 464
ELL C6PPTL7309 Fail10: L253 Mossville-Alfol - - 184 - - - - - - - 184
ELL C6PPTL7319 Fail10: L254 Lake Charles Bulk - - 325 - - - - - - - 325
ELL C6PPTL7316 Fail10: L300 Willow Glen-Gonza - - 197 - - - - - - - 197
ELL C6PPTL7296 Fail10: L343 Waterford-Willow - - 4,823 - - - - - - - 4,823
ELL C6PPTL7320 Fail10: L611 Jennings-Church - - 298 - - - - - - - 298
ELL C6PPTL7322 Fail10: L612 Champagne-Gulf KS - - 151 - - - - - - - 151
ELL C6PPTL7259 Fail10: L613 East Broad-Solac - - 122 - - - - - - - 122
ELL C6PPTL7306 Fail10: L625 St. Johns-New Ibe - - 325 - - - - - - - 325
ELL C6PPTL7323 Fail10: L707 Alchem-Willow Gle - - 688 - - - - - - - 688
ELL C6PPTL7332 Fail10: L734 McKnight-Plant Da - - 1,400 - - - - - - - 1,400
ELL C6PPTL7318 Fail10: L739 Turnerville-Bourb - - 161 - - - - - - - 161
ELL C6PPTL7315 Fail10: L749 Coly-Lockhart - - 187 - - - - - - - 187
ELL C6PPTL7289 Fail10: L768 Crown Zellerbach- - - 1,613 - - - - - - - 1,613
ELL C6PPTL7312 Fail10:L714 Port Hudson-Thomas - - 635 - - - - - - - 635
ELL C6PPTL7388 Fail11: Michoud-Claiborne - - - - 5,179 - - - - - 5,179
ELL C6PPTL7409 Fail11: Nelson-Moss Bluff - - 1,387 - - - - - - - 1,387
ELL C6PPTL7370 FAIL11: Richard-Scott Sleeves - - 32,727 - - - - - - - 32,727
ELL C6PPTL7347 Fail11:L372 Nesser Tap Switch - - 19,889 - - - - - - - 19,889
ELL C6PPTL7364 FAIL11:Michoud-Front Street - - - - 666 - - - - - 666
ELL C6DB475759 FAILURE,EO,1001,COST FOR U.G. - - - - 1,393 - - - - - 1,393

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 9 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 10 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6DB476098 FAILURE,EO,1205,R/P BAD XFMR P - - - - 15,472 - - - - - 15,472
ELL C6DB476072 FAILURE,EO,2214,R/P FAILED #1 - - - - 16,258 - - - - - 16,258
ELL C6DB475777 FAILURE,EO,2214,REPLACE FAILED - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476071 FAILURE,EO,2216,R/P FAILED #1 - - - - 501 - - - - - 501
ELL C6DB475793 FAILURE,EO,513,REPLACE FAILED - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475937 FAILURE,EO,611,R/P FAILED EXIT - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF803 Fairgrounds inst S&C Alldui-ru - - 10,447 - - - - - - - 10,447
ELL C6PPTSF849 Fairgrounds repl failed transf - - 9,698 - - - - - - - 9,698
ELL C6PPTSP452 Fancy Point - Upgrade L354 bay - - 4,598 - - - - - - - 4,598
ELL C6PPTSF603 Fancy Point add D400S comm pro - - 21,613 - - - - - - - 21,613
ELL C6PPTSF518 Fancy Point repl failed fans T - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF501 Fancy Point replace failed bat - - 21,097 - - - - - - - 21,097
ELL F3PCY31165 FANCY POINT SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 4,861 - - - - - - - 4,861
ELL F3PCR73336 FEILD METER READING - EMI - - - 3,216 - - - - - - 3,216
ELL C1PPFIB221 Fiber Replcment of Mid Level E - - - - - - 1,073 - - - 1,073
ELL F3PCD10006 FIELD DEVELOPMENT - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL F3PCR73401 FIELD METER READING - EGSI -LA - - 25,855 - - - 112 - - - 25,967
ELL F3PCR73330 FIELD METER READING - ELI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCR73332 FIELD METER READING - ENOI - - - - 9,616 - 23,360 - - - 32,975
ELL F3PCR73328 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT - 106,622 - - - - - - - - - 106,622
ELL F3PCR73400 FIELD METER READING -TX DISTRI - - - - - - - 1,020 - - 1,020
ELL F3PCF24666 FINANCIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - - 318 - - - 318
ELL C6PPTL7403 Flood11: Francis-Grant - - 2,288 - - - - - - - 2,288
ELL F3PCY31173 FLORIDA SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 1,415 - - - - - - - 1,415
ELL C6PPTSF509 Florida T2 repl failing ls bus - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCF74585 FOSSIL APPLICATION SUPPORT - - - - - - 5 - - - 5
ELL SFPCE29000 FOSSIL CAPITAL SUSPENSE - EAI 71,022 - - - - - - - - - 71,022
ELL SFPPL79002 FOSSIL CAPITAL SUSPENSE - EGSL - - 9,678 - - - - - - - 9,678
ELL F3PCF74515 FOSSIL MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL C6PPTL7271 Fund10: L717 Port Hudson-Repap - - 4,037 - - - - - - - 4,037
ELL C6PPTSF540 Gardere replace bushing T2 - - 1,251 - - - - - - - 1,251
ELL C6PPTSF513 Gardere replace failed fans t1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31181 GARDERE SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 8,975 - - - - - - - 8,975
ELL C5PP449606 Gas Serv Storm Rebuild Replace - - - - 66,290 - - - - - 66,290
ELL C5PC449608 GAS TRUCK STOCK - - - - 18,903 - - - - - 18,903
ELL C6PPTSF544 Geigy add animal mitigation - - 2,523 - - - - - - - 2,523
ELL C6PPTSF500 Geigy replace failed batteries - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31185 GEIGY SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 378 - - - - - - - 378
ELL C6PPDS9969 Geismar 138/34.5kV Sub Install - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF241 Geismar replace arrestors T1 - - 88,564 - - - - - - - 88,564
ELL C6PPTSF514 Geismar replace failed fans on - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCF72670 GENERAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAIN - - - - - - 77 - - - 77
ELL C5DB475738 GENTILLY - MANDEVILLE TO VENUS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY30251 GENTILLY SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEA - - - - 665 - - - - - 665
ELL C6PPMR3779 Gentilly: replace batteries & - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF397 Gloria enable UF 920F & 921F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL5509 Gold Creek - Gravel Ridge, Rep 2,623 - - - - - - - - - 2,623
ELL C6PPTSF519 Gonzales replace failed fans t - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31196 GONZALES SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSP332 Goslin: Line Relaying L-803 - - - - - - - 6,180 - - 6,180
ELL C6PPTSF233 Goudchaux pin and cap insulato - - 1,385 - - - - - - - 1,385
ELL C6PPTSF581 Goudchaux replace breaker 590 - - 24,857 - - - - - - - 24,857

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 10 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 11 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL F3PCY31204 GRACE SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 756 - - - - - - - 756
ELL C6PPTSA382 Grandview: Build New Sub 6,290 - - - - - - - - - 6,290
ELL C6PCTS6303 GRAYWOOD: BUILD NEW 230KV SUBS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTS9398 Graywood: Substation Expansion - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF591 Greenwell Springs replace dive - - 16,998 - - - - - - - 16,998
ELL C6PPTSF617 Greenwell Springs replace T2 a - - 2,482 - - - - - - - 2,482
ELL F3PCY31208 GREENWELL SPRINGS SUBSTATION, - - 4,296 - - - - - - - 4,296
ELL F3PPFCQGTH Gretna Telecom Hub Ground Leas - - - - - - 911 - - - 911
ELL C6PPTSF520 Grosse Tete repl failed fans T - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY30292 GULF OUTLET SUBSTATION, NEW OR - - - - 1,049 - - - - - 1,049
ELL C6PPTSF317 Gulf Oxygen De-energize statio - - 1,154 - - - - - - - 1,154
ELL F3PPYSCGLA Gulf States LA Service Center - - 22,905 - - - - - - - 22,905
ELL STPPGL7900 Gulf States LA Transm Cap Susp - - 1,832 - - - - - - - 1,832
ELL C6PPMR3820 Gulfoutlet: repl. 115kv interr - - - - 871 - - - - - 871
ELL C7PPSJ837A H.Gustav Damaged Levee, Hender - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBU1117 Harahan - Cinder Block Wall - - - - - - 2,289 - - - 2,289
ELL C6PPTSF398 Harelson enable UF325-326-328F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF502 Harelson repl failed battery - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31233 HARELSON SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 4,774 - - - - - - - 4,774
ELL C6PPTL5514 Harr. W - Green Forest, Rep ST 2,955 - - - - - - - - - 2,955
ELL C6PPTSF245 Hazel animal mitigation - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTS7836 Hazel install animal mitigatio - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF583 Hazel replace breaker 346 - - 18,311 - - - - - - - 18,311
ELL C6PPTSF584 Hazel replace breaker 347 - - 18,311 - - - - - - - 18,311
ELL C6PPTSF588 Highland replace disc and bypa - - 12,992 - - - - - - - 12,992
ELL C6DB869611 HIGHWAY GN 717GI --POLE RELOCA - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476211 HIGHWAY,1610,EO,TRENCH 220' OF - - - - 520 - - - - - 520
ELL C6DB476179 HIGHWAY,EO,1002,R/L FACILITIES - - - - 15,405 - - - - - 15,405
ELL C6DB476005 HIGHWAY,EO,1002,R/L O.H. FACIL - - - - 86,665 - - - - - 86,665
ELL C6DB476046 HIGHWAY,EO,612,R/L FACILITIES - - - - 11,755 - - - - - 11,755
ELL C6DB476078 HIGHWAY,EO,612,R/L FDR.FOR SW& - - - - 27,843 - - - - - 27,843
ELL C6DB476161 HIGHWAY,EO,616,R/L FDR.FOR SW& - - - - 34,210 - - - - - 34,210
ELL C6DB869847 HIGHWAY,WKS,958BW,RELOCATE ENT - - 26,456 - - - - - - - 26,456
ELL C6DB869846 HIGHWAY,WKS,958BW,REPACE AND R - - 1,726 - - - - - - - 1,726
ELL F4PPNP0614 Hill Bro De-energize Paterson/ - - - - 665 - - - - - 665
ELL C1PPHHQ822 HQ.FLOOR 23 INTERIOR RENOVATIO - - - - - - 180 - - - 180
ELL C1PPHHQ823 HQ3 - Interior Renovations MOC - - - - - - 152 - - - 152
ELL F3PCHRSALL HR SERVICES- ALL COMPANIES - - - - - - 36 - - - 36
ELL C6DB167652 HS09-019A IMPROVEMENT CKT Y4 2,407 - - - - - - - - - 2,407
ELL C6DB869486 HWY BR 318HR MOVE ALL ELECTRIC - - (7,207) - - - - - - - (7,207)
ELL C6DB869485 HWY BR 318HR MOVE ALL U.G. ELE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869433 HWY BR 330WE MOVE DIST. LINE F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869330 HWY BR 410PE/731PE RELOCATE OV - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869413 HWY BR 510BR RELOCATION OF FEE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869931 HWY BR 630DA MOVE FEEDER FOR N - - 68,021 - - - - - - - 68,021
ELL C6DB869934 HWY BR 632DA MOVE FEEDER BACK - - 93,312 - - - - - - - 93,312
ELL C6DB869803 HWY BR 880 72ND MOVE PRI FEEDE - - 40,227 - - - - - - - 40,227
ELL C6DB869696 HWY DS 854DH RE-ROUTE THREE PH - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB870057 HWY GN 432DU SET 27 POLES, HAN - - 27,242 - - - - - - - 27,242
ELL C6DB869504 HWY GN 811PT RELOCATE POLES AN - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB870021 HWY ZA 826ZA POPE RD. HWY. REL - - 8,766 - - - - - - - 8,766
ELL F5PPICCCSV ICC - Customer Service 592 - - - - - 1,498 - - - 2,090

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 11 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 12 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C7PPSJ1185 ICE STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 01/2 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCN20521 IDEAS MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL C6DB869575 IMP 588FR: PROJ DS09-006V - - 18,133 - - - - - - - 18,133
ELL C6DB869895 IMP,760AV,MIL,RECONDUCTOR 4 MI - - 46,673 - - - - - - - 46,673
ELL C6DB869962 IMP,760AV,MIL,RECONDUCTOR 4 MI - - 167,731 - - - - - - - 167,731
ELL C6DB869963 IMP,760AV,MIL,RECONDUCTOR 4 MI - - 92,886 - - - - - - - 92,886
ELL C6DB869952 IMP,760AV,MIL,TRANSFER UNDERGR - - 12,044 - - - - - - - 12,044
ELL C6DB869910 IMP,761CH,PTB,RECON 1 MILE ON - - 51,228 - - - - - - - 51,228
ELL C6DB869923 IMP,919OP,OPEL,RECONDUCTOR 290 - - 12,897 - - - - - - - 12,897
ELL C6DB869687 IMP.HWY.RELOC.PROJECT LAFAYETT - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869814 IMP.HWY.RELOC.PROJECT TOWN OF - - 30,028 - - - - - - - 30,028
ELL C6DB869578 IMP.HWY.RELOC.PROJECT, LA 92 @ - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS 2,435 - 171 - 2,928 - 555 - - - 6,088
ELL C6DB168045 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR CIRCUI 244 - - - - - - - - - 244
ELL F3PP6HINDS Indus Passport - - - - - - 42 - - - 42
ELL F3PPN20536 INDUS Software Maintenance - - - - - - 37 - - - 37
ELL C6PPTL7251 Inf10: L16 Carter-Serpent - - 1,472 - - - - - - - 1,472
ELL C6PPTL7284 Inf10: L259 Lafayette-Gecko - - 37,000 - - - - - - - 37,000
ELL C6PPTL7233 Inf10: L295 Mossville-Orange - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL7272 Inf10: L349 Addis-Pam - - 153 - - - - - - - 153
ELL C6PPTL7273 Inf10: L396 Geismar-Wyandotte - - 5,720 - - - - - - - 5,720
ELL C6PPTL7262 Inf10: L761 St. Gabriel-Licar - - 7,135 - - - - - - - 7,135
ELL C6PPTL7382 INF11: Big Cajun-Fancy Point - - 38,266 - - - - - - - 38,266
ELL C6PPTL7367 INF11: Jennings-Chruch - - 26,400 - - - - - - - 26,400
ELL C6PPTL7321 Inf11: L300 Willow Glen-Gonzal - - 1,129 - - - - - - - 1,129
ELL C6PPTL7348 Inf11: L371 Grnwell Sprgs.-Har - - 22,143 - - - - - - - 22,143
ELL C6PPTL7327 Inf11: L395 Willow Glen-Harels - - 12,633 - - - - - - - 12,633
ELL C6PPTL7390 INF11: Michoud - Gulf Outlet - - - - 2,588 - - - - - 2,588
ELL C6PPTL7353 INF11: Mossville-Orange - - 28,690 - - - - - - - 28,690
ELL C6PPTL7383 INF11: Turnerville-Irion - - 29,542 - - - - - - - 29,542
ELL C6PPTL7330 Inf2011: L232 Scott-Judice - - 3,887 - - - - - - - 3,887
ELL C6PPTL7325 Inf2011: L331Willow Glen-Shena - - 45,533 - - - - - - - 45,533
ELL C6PPTL7328 Inf2011: L618 Meaux-Judice - - 3,899 - - - - - - - 3,899
ELL C6PPTL7331 Inf2011:L767 Mickens-Brown - - 19,231 - - - - - - - 19,231
ELL C6PPTL7253 Infr10: L314 La. Station-Thoma - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF574 Infrared cameras, purchase thr - - 41,938 - - - - - - - 41,938
ELL C6DB869689 INST. NEW FEEDED FOR PRI. METE - - (1,386) - - - - - - - (1,386)
ELL C6DB770394 INSTALL 25 KVA XFMR 35' LIFT P - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB374367 INSTALL 3-438 AMP REGULATORS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTLP991 Install DE Structure - AAC SS - - 588 - - - - - - - 588
ELL C6DB869607 INT,CAD,871NI,INST 3PH UG @ EP - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPE9981S Integrated Energy Mgmt ESI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C1PPFIB211 Integrated Voice Solutions-PBX - - - - - - 250 - - - 250
ELL C6DB869716 INTERN, YNG, 712BI,YOUNGSVILLE - - 25,624 - - - - - - - 25,624
ELL F3PPD10133 Internet Bill Presentment & Pm - - - - - - 2 - - - 2
ELL C6DB869128 INTERNL,CRO,741CR,RE-CONDUCTOR - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475829 INTERNL,EO,2214,RAISE HH, & TR - - - - 44,098 - - - - - 44,098
ELL C6DB869586 INTERNL,LFY,932LF,RE-CONDUCTOR - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869587 INTERNL,LFY,932LF,RE-CONDUCTOR - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869530 INTERNL,SCT,903SC,RE-CONDUCTOR - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869812 INTL BR DOWNTOWN NETWORK VAULT - - 130 - - - - - - - 130
ELL C6DB869817 INTL BR DOWNTOWN NETWORK VAULT - - 130 - - - - - - - 130

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 12 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 13 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6DB869194 INTL BR UNIVERSITY CLUB (CLOSE - - 48,983 - - - - - - - 48,983
ELL C6DB869984 INTL CORBIN AVE. LINE CROSSING - - 5,379 - - - - - - - 5,379
ELL C6DB869848 INTL PA COMMERCIAL DR. SWITCH - - 11,177 - - - - - - - 11,177
ELL C6DB869876 INTL PECUE SITE 750AL BURIAL - - 41,121 - - - - - - - 41,121
ELL F3PPFX3259 Inventory Planning System Supp - - - - - - 4 - - - 4
ELL F3PPTRINVE Inventory Receipt - 267 - - - - - - - - 267
ELL C6PPTSF291 Irion install Fiber Optics - - 1,564 - - - - - - - 1,564
ELL C6PPTSK164 Iron Man 230: Build New Statio - - 1,800 - - - - - - - 1,800
ELL F3PCF74341 ISB MAINT - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCF15260 IT - BUSINESS & PROJECT SUPPOR - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL C1PPEMRG11 IT Bus Unit Emerging Projects - - - - - - 3,372 - - - 3,372
ELL F3PCFX3701 IT INFRASTRUCTURE/SHARED SERVI - - - - - - 127 - - - 127
ELL C6DB374327 JACKSON NW-REPLACE LEAD CABLE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31267 JACKSON SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 756 - - - - - - - 756
ELL C6PPTLY002 Jackson to Tejac: Reconductor - - 1,838 - - - - - - - 1,838
ELL C6PPTSF343 jaguar bkr 20875 replace bushi - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTS2659 Jaguar repl ccvt's looking lin - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF835 jaguar replace failed fans - - 6,006 - - - - - - - 6,006
ELL F3PCY31268 JAGUAR SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 3,414 - - - - - - - 3,414
ELL C1PPTD3302 JDC EMS NETWORK - - - - - - 530 - - - 530
ELL C6PPTSF378 Jefferson install D400S RTU - - 45,678 - - - - - - - 45,678
ELL F3PCY31275 JEFFERSON SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 23,340 - - - - - - - 23,340
ELL C6PC449120 JOINT USE - BELL - - - - 3,777 - - - - - 3,777
ELL C6PC849120 JOINT USE - BELL - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBU1082 Joliet - Replace Failed VCB 20 - - - - 29,391 - - - - - 29,391
ELL C6PPBU1109 Joliet- Feeder Fault Locator - - - - 6,520 - - - - - 6,520
ELL F3PCY30401 JOLIET SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 7,099 - - - - - 7,099
ELL C6PPRA1241 Joliet:Replace 20T1-6 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPRA1242 Joliet:Replace 20T2-6 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF511 Julia repl contacts bkr 234f - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF582 julia replace breaker 234 - - 26,365 - - - - - - - 26,365
ELL C6PPTSF471 Jungle Garden T1 Animal Mitiga - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL C6PPTSU105 L.R. Alexander: 2x Bundle Bus (24) - - - - - - - - - (24)
ELL F3PCY31808 LA CEMENT SUBSTATION, NEW ORLE - - - - 95 - - - - - 95
ELL F3PPZG2515 LA1 5A CT Major Outage 2Q10 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C1PPTD3431 Lab Equip: Test Set & Stand Re - - - - - - 3,042 - - - 3,042
ELL C6PPTSF350 Lake Charles & Lafayette Tools - - 65,683 - - - - - - - 65,683
ELL C6PPTL7252 Lake Project: Ln.614 Contraban - - 3,428 - - - - - - - 3,428
ELL F3PPD10140 Large Power Billing System for - - - - - - 2 - - - 2
ELL C6DB870051 LDT,NIB,922DU,INSTALL 800A REC - - 9,048 - - - - - - - 9,048
ELL F3PPZW8372 LE Compliance Culture Training 7,147 - - - 209 - - - - - 7,356
ELL C6PPTS2194 Lewis Creek: Install Transform - - - - - - - 681 - - 681
ELL F3PPZB0123 LG WG1 on-line expenditures 08 - - 209,718 - - - - - - - 209,718
ELL F3PPZB0124 LG WG2 On line expenditures 08 - - 97,681 - - - - - - - 97,681
ELL F3PPZB0125 LG WG4 On line Expenditures 08 - - 361,608 - - - - - - - 361,608
ELL F3PPZG2341 LG-LA1 4A CT Major(4Q09) - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZW7304 LG-LA1 5A Mark 6E Control Upgr - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPWGM540 LG-NL6 '10 Rplc Main Transform - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPWGU322 LG-WG2 Replace Burner Mgt Syst - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPCPLITN Lighting Campaign ENOI - - - - - - 15 - - - 15
ELL C6PPTLG202 Line 255: Relocate poles for A - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTLG203 Line 256: Relocate pole for L- - - 6,764 - - - - - - - 6,764

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 13 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 14 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTL5022 Line 334 - 69kV Francis - Jack - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL5023 Line 386 69kV Francis - Angola - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTLG002 Line 711 Cut-In Airline Substa - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL6957 Line Base: #2 L698 Lake Charle - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL6956 Line Base: L602 Lake Charles-E - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL4225 LinesBase10: L98 Michoud-Claib - - - - (14,432) - - - - - (14,432)
ELL C6PPTSF179 Livionia replace failed arrest - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF837 Livionia replace failed fans - - 2,406 - - - - - - - 2,406
ELL C6PPTLP994 Livonia-Colonial-Krotz repl sp - - 6,501 - - - - - - - 6,501
ELL C6DB869824 LOAD BR 730PE NEW FEEDER ON OL - - 2,920 - - - - - - - 2,920
ELL C6DB869828 LOAD BR WOMANS HOSPITAL- LOAD - - 2,536 - - - - - - - 2,536
ELL C6DB869558 LOAD DH 854DH RECON. NORTH SID - - 2,627 - - - - - - - 2,627
ELL C6DB869655 LOAD DH 854DH RECON. NORTH SID - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869898 LOAD DH 854DH RECON. NORTH SID - - 65,092 - - - - - - - 65,092
ELL C6DB869499 LOAD GN 725GR ADD POLES ON HWY - - (626) - - - - - - - (626)
ELL C6DB869930 LOAD GN 832GN RECON. E.WORTHEY - - 66,193 - - - - - - - 66,193
ELL C6DB869213 LOAD GN GEISMAR SUB - UG BORE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869495 LOAD GZ 725GR PART 1 GET-AWAY - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869502 LOAD GZ 725GR PART 3 RECON. HW - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869513 LOAD GZ 725GR PART 4 OF WINTZ - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869524 LOAD GZ 725GR PART 5 OF NEW WI - - (2,902) - - - - - - - (2,902)
ELL C6PC149105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PC449105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY - - - - 2,018 - - - - - 2,018
ELL C6PC849105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY - - 60,985 - - - - - - - 60,985
ELL C6PPTS6887 Loblolly Modify for new 230kV - - 4,673 - - - - - - - 4,673
ELL C6PCTL3743 LOBLOLLY-HAMMOND NEW LINE-200 - - 221 - - - - - - - 221
ELL C6PPTL1144 LOBLOLLY-HAMMOND NEW LINE-200 - - 23,631 - - - - - - - 23,631
ELL C6PPTLH998 Lone Star 69kV Tap,Insta OPGW - - 238 - - - - - - - 238
ELL C1PPTD3303 LRDC EMS NETWORK (SOC) - - - - - - 61 - - - 61
ELL C8PPKBN126 Magnolia Reconstruction - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C8PPKBN536 Magnolia Street Roof Upgrades - - - - 2,778 - - - - - 2,778
ELL E1PP691912 Main Feed Pumps - 2,882 - - - - - - - - 2,882
ELL XNBD Maint Turb Turn Gear&Lube Oil 21,487 - 5,732 - - - - - - - 27,219
ELL XNAA Maintain Accessory Electric Eq 34,984 - 7,716 - - - - - - - 42,700
ELL XMDN Maintain Boiler Feed Pump Syst 7,184 - 3,509 - - - - - - - 10,694
ELL XMCQ Maintain Boiler Instr&Controls - - 676 - - - - - - - 676
ELL XNBA Maintain Ehc And Mhc Systems 7,868 - 4,801 - - - - - - - 12,669
ELL XMDQ Maintain Feedwater Heaters&Vlv 372 - 1,364 - - - - - - - 1,736
ELL XMDJ Maintain Fuel Burning Equip - - 2,180 - - - - - - - 2,180
ELL XNBC Maintain Generator System 16,167 - 9,500 - - - - - - - 25,667
ELL XMCC Maintain Stm Misc Vlves&Piping - - 852 - - - - - - - 852
ELL XNAZ Maintain Turbine 1,800 - 1,187 - - - - - - - 2,987
ELL MEDM Manage Electric Dist Maint - - - - 115 - - - - - 115
ELL MEDO Manage Electric Distr Ops - - - - 28,921 - - - - - 28,921
ELL XFAD Manage Genl Plant Operations 20,424 - - - 61,204 - - - - - 81,628
ELL MGMA Manage Maintenance - - - - 48,944 - - - - - 48,944
ELL MMWS Manage Matls Warehousing Svc - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBU1061 Market 115-Replace Bkr. N8103 - - - - 2,409 - - - - - 2,409
ELL C6PPBU1049 Market 13.8kV-replaceregulator - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY30498 MARKET 230 SUBSTATION, NEW ORL - - - - 413 - - - - - 413
ELL C6PPRA1270 Market 230:Fault Location Feed - - - - 155 - - - - - 155
ELL F3PC9097X2 MARKET STREET TO DERBIGNY SUB. - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 14 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 15 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPRA1258 Market Street:Replace N2106 - - - - 42,586 - - - - - 42,586
ELL F3PC9087X1 MARKET STREETTONAPOLEON SUB. - - - - 332 - - - - - 332
ELL F3PCY30495 MARKET SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 507 - - - - - 507
ELL C6PPRA1263 Market:Upgrade Delta Line Rela - - - - 58,013 - - - - - 58,013
ELL C6PPRA1260 Market:Upgrade Derbigny Line P - - - - 28,572 - - - - - 28,572
ELL C6PPRA1265 Market:Upgrade Ninemile Relayi - - - - 32,038 - - - - - 32,038
ELL C6PPTLY001 Marydale-Tejac: Reconductor 12 - - 3,385 - - - - - - - 3,385
ELL F3PCMCMSOM MATERIALS & CONTRACTS MGTMT SY - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F5PCMATCOM MATERIALS TESTING AND COMPLIAN 1,469 - 1,641 26,051 877 - - 1,183 - - 31,221
ELL C6DB869476 MAU,851MA,MAURICE,ATTACH TO NE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF325 Maurice Substation - EGS-LA - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG1610 MC2 Aux Outage 2010 - - - - 612 - - - - - 612
ELL F3PPZG1924 MC2 Aux Outage 2011 - - - - 276 - - - - - 276
ELL F3PPZG1935 MC3 Aux Outage 2011 - - - - 33,726 - - - - - 33,726
ELL F3PPZG1934 MC3 Auxiliary Outage 2010 - - - - 280 - - - - - 280
ELL C6PPTSX100 McAdams:Add 2nd Auto - - - - - - 48 - - - 48
ELL C6PPTLX101 McAdams-Pickens Ln:Upgr. Ln. 2 - - - 791 - - - - - - 791
ELL C6PPTSF275 McKnight L734 replace Pri. rel - - 1,109 - - - - - - - 1,109
ELL C6PPTSF430 McKnight L741 replace relaying - - 416 - - - - - - - 416
ELL C6PPRA1180 McKnight:Replace 500kv Switch - - 860 - - - - - - - 860
ELL F5PPD10154 MDT Wireless Telecom Serv - - - - - - 35 - - - 35
ELL C6PPTLG101 Meaux to Sellers Road: Bld T-L - - 173,124 - - - - - - - 173,124
ELL C6PPTSG102 Meaux: Install 400MVA AutoXFMR - - 558,260 - - - - - - - 558,260
ELL F3PC4B5331 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE - VY - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSP987 Merlin sub: build new sub - - - - - - - 357 - - 357
ELL F3PCY30526 MICHOUD - - - - 6,733 - - - - - 6,733
ELL F3PC9096X0 MICHOUD S.E.S.TO CURRAN SUB. - - - - 58 - - - - - 58
ELL F3PC9098X1 MICHOUD TO CLAIBORNE - - - - 2,255 - - - - - 2,255
ELL C6PPMR3767 Michoud: replace 230KV PT's - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPRA1321 Michoud; Replace N9403 - - - - 79,122 - - - - - 79,122
ELL F3PC9084X0 MICHOUDTOSLIDELL - - - - 3,201 - - - - - 3,201
ELL C6PPFIB14T Microwave Replacement Texas 20 - - - - - - 725 - - - 725
ELL C8PPTS5932 Midtown Hurricane Katrina Rest - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY30529 MIDTOWN SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEAN - - - - 2,793 - - - - - 2,793
ELL C6PPTSG311 Minor Add - Acadia 36MVAr 138k - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL MEDS Monit Elec Dist Sys(Load Disp) - - - - 52 - - - - - 52
ELL C6PPTSF823 monochem replace failed sw 448 - - 2,129 - - - - - - - 2,129
ELL C6PPTSF222 Monochem replace rusted radiat - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31360 MONOCHEM SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 2,606 - - - - - - - 2,606
ELL C6PPTSF312 Moril 69KV cap bank & relay pa - - 8,104 - - - - - - - 8,104
ELL C6PPTSG103 Moril Sub: Install 138kV Termi - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSG203 Moril Sub: Upgrade 69kV Brk & - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF213 Mossville repl 69 KV Capacitor - - 8,631 - - - - - - - 8,631
ELL C6PPTSF214 Mossville replace L660 relay p - - 129 - - - - - - - 129
ELL C6PPVS1044 NAPOLEON - RPL UNDERFREQ RELAY - - - - 11,780 - - - - - 11,780
ELL F3PCY30571 NAPOLEON SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEA - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPBU1055 Napoleon-replacefailedbkrs19T2 - - - - 25,456 - - - - - 25,456
ELL F3PCY30573 NASA WEST SUBSTATION, NEW ORLE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCRNTACL Nat'l Accts Sales & Mktg - ELL - - - - - - 131 - - - 131
ELL C6PPTSF230 Nesser repl ls sw with S&C on - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF327 nesser replace failing bushing - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF328 Nesser replace failing bushing - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 15 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 16 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSF470 New Iberia T1 Animal Mitigatio - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL F3PPR733NO New Orleans Customer Service C - - - - - - 338 - - - 338
ELL C6PC349108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS EMI - - - 145 - - - - - - 145
ELL C6PC449108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ENOI - - - - 31,138 - - - - - 31,138
ELL C6PC849108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS LA-EG - - 108,337 - - - - - - - 108,337
ELL C6PC449150 NON-TARGET CIRCUIT BACKBONE IM - - - - 4,202 - - - - - 4,202
ELL C6PPTSF536 Northdale add mos to line sw's - - 7,124 - - - - - - - 7,124
ELL C6PPTSF816 Northdale repl batteries&charg - - 12,407 - - - - - - - 12,407
ELL F3PCY30590 NOTRE DAME - - - - 3,618 - - - - - 3,618
ELL F3PCN20527 NUCLEAR IT QUICK RESPONSE TEAM - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCN20858 NUCLEAR IT QUICK RESPONSE TEAM - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPTSF277 Oak Grove replace DPU 757F - - 199 - - - - - - - 199
ELL C6PPTSF278 Oak Grove replace DPU 758F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF595 Oak Villa install oil filter T - - 7,582 - - - - - - - 7,582
ELL C6PPTSF596 Oak Villa install oil filter T - - 2,686 - - - - - - - 2,686
ELL C6PPTSF361 Oak Villa L302 add SEL311C - - 4,417 - - - - - - - 4,417
ELL C6PPTSF521 Oak Villa repl failed fans t1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31382 OAK VILLA SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 17,344 - - - - - - - 17,344
ELL F4PCT99002 Occidental Chem Romeville Main - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPFRM127 OCRO - Bus Cont Plan Managemen - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPWAU064 OP1 - OUA0015.003 HP/IP Econom - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG2264 OP1-GT Reliability Out-Spring- 944 - - - - - - - - - 944
ELL F3PPZG2261 OP1-GTSpring Reliability Outag 79,610 - - - - - - - - - 79,610
ELL C6PPWAU069 OP1-OUA001.002 - H2 Seals Upgr 4,989 - - - - - - - - - 4,989
ELL C6PPWAU075 OP1-OUA007-Off Engine Monitori 628 - - - - - - - - - 628
ELL C6PPWAU070 OP1-OUA015.008-Nitrogen Genera 148 - - - - - - - - - 148
ELL C6PPWAU044 OP1-OUA015.012-HRSG Air Attemp 7,653 - - - - - - - - - 7,653
ELL F3PPZG2263 OP1-ST Reliability Outage-Fall 14,018 - - - - - - - - - 14,018
ELL C6PPWAU053 OP2 - Futura Generation Totali - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPWAU076 OP2 TK Blower Motor # 2 Replac 310 - - - - - - - - - 310
ELL F3PPZG2266 OP2-GT HGP Outage-Spring-2009 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG2269 OP2-GT Reliability Outage-Fall 141 - - - - - - - - - 141
ELL F3PPZG2271 OP2-GT Reliability Outage-Fall 17,365 - - - - - - - - - 17,365
ELL F3PPZG2272 OP2-GTSpring Reliability Outag 83,552 - - - - - - - - - 83,552
ELL C6PPWAU068 OP2-OUA001.003 - H2 Seal Upgra 1,796 - - - - - - - - - 1,796
ELL C6PPWAU071 OP2-OUA0015.009-Nitrogen Gener 148 - - - - - - - - - 148
ELL C6PPWAU040 OP2-OUA007-Off Engine Monitori 435 - - - - - - - - - 435
ELL C6PPWAU045 OP2-OUA015.013-HRSG Air Attemp 2,280 - - - - - - - - - 2,280
ELL F3PPZG2260 OP2-ST Reliability Out-Spring- 340 - - - - - - - - - 340
ELL C6PPWGB003 OP3 - OUA0015.002 HP/IP Econom - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPWGB034 OP3-Futura Gen Totalizing Mtr - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG2533 OP3-GT Bore Scope & Rel Outage - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG2532 OP3-GT Bore Scope & Rel Out-Fa - - 19,809 - - - - - - - 19,809
ELL F3PPZG2265 OP3-GT Reliability Out-Fall 20 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZG2534 OP3-GT Spring Reliability Outa - - 20,005 - - - - - - - 20,005
ELL C6PPWGB041 OP3-HP Primary SH Drain Valve - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPWGB005 OP3-OUA007 - Off Engine Monito - - 435 - - - - - - - 435
ELL C6PPWGB037 OP3-OUA015.010-Nitrogen Genera - - 131 - - - - - - - 131
ELL C6PPWGB028 OP3-OUA015.014-HRSG Air Attemp - - 7,118 - - - - - - - 7,118
ELL F3PPZB0185 OP3-Overtime Payroll Baseline - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZB0184 OP3-Straight Time Payrol - - 153,260 - - - - - - - 153,260
ELL F3PPZB0159 OPC-Employee Developmental Trn 35,701 - - - - - - - - - 35,701

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 16 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 17 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL F3PPZW6812 OPC-Employee Technical Trainin 10,823 - - - - - - - - - 10,823
ELL C6PPWUA006 OPC-OUA016 MIC Eval/Remediatio 4,793 - - - - - - - - - 4,793
ELL F3PPZB0177 OPC-Overtime Payroll 3,490 - - - - - - - - - 3,490
ELL F3PPZB0157 OPC-Peer Group-Team Meetings 11,777 - - - - - - - - - 11,777
ELL F3PPZB0176 OPC-Straight Time Payroll 1,409,991 - - - - - - - - - 1,409,991
ELL F3PCT29400 OPERATIONS SAFETY - HEADQUARTE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCT53130 OPN,MGR, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 1,244 - - - 1,244
ELL F3PCT54065 OPNS OF PURCHASING & CONT-DCS - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL F3PCFX3785 ORG, JES, BATS, ACBM SUPPORT - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPWAU025 OUA009 - OPC - Plant Blowdown 4,541 - - - - - - - - - 4,541
ELL C6PPWUA003 OUA012 - OUACHITA IT/TELCOM UP 5,848 - - - - - - - - - 5,848
ELL C6PPWUA010 OUA014-Ouachita Water Plant Up 7,403 - - - - - - - - - 7,403
ELL F3PPN20535 P3E Scheduling Software Mainte - - - - - - 19 - - - 19
ELL F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF (8,260) (19) (738) (164) 39,093 - 1,573 (82) - - 31,403
ELL F3PCY31387 PAM SUBSTATION, GSU-LA - - 5,433 - - - - - - - 5,433
ELL F3PC9088X0 PARIS TAPTOAVE. C SUB. - - - - 913 - - - - - 913
ELL C6PPTSF469 Parks Sub T1 Animal Mitigation - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL F5PCMCMSCL PASSPORT- SC MATERIALS MANAGEM - - - - - - 31 - - - 31
ELL F3PC9085X1 PATERSON S.E.S.TOSHERWOOD FORE - - - - 3,174 - - - - - 3,174
ELL F3PCY30622 PATERSON SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEA - - - - 1,478 - - - - - 1,478
ELL F3PCY30623 PAUGER SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 64 - - - - - 64
ELL C6PPVS1046 PAUGER: RPL UNDERFREQ RELAY - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCF23442 PAYROLL PROCESSING - - - - - - 12 - - - 12
ELL F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (5,155) (18) (2,122) (262) (1,642) (78) (246) (90) (87) 85 (9,615)
ELL SAPCPCPLAP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL 652 - - - - - - - - - 652
ELL SAPCPCPLMP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - - (153) - - - - - - (153)
ELL SAPCPCPLGL PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - EGSI - EL - - 1,325 - - - - - - - 1,325
ELL SAPCPCPLNE PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - EL - - - - 5,012 - - - - - 5,012
ELL SAPCPCPLNG PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - GA - - - - 19 - - - - - 19
ELL SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - - 249 151 - - 401
ELL F3PCN20522 PCRS MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 16 - - - 16
ELL C6PPTL7295 PCue10:L372 Nesser Tap-Harelso - - 22,258 - - - - - - - 22,258
ELL C6PPHBG933 Pecue Lane SC Bldg. "E" - - 12,790 - - - - - - - 12,790
ELL C6PPTSF262 Pecue Replace DPU 732F - - 3,225 - - - - - - - 3,225
ELL F3PCY31394 PECUE SUBSTATION, GULF STATES - - 378 - - - - - - - 378
ELL C1PPNXP2R1 Phase 2 transition to full run - 147 - - - - - - - - 147
ELL C6PPTLK009 Point Pleasant Cut In - - 60,095 - - - - - - - 60,095
ELL C6DB475935 POLE,EO,626,VARIOUS PLS FROM T - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY30639 PONTCHARTRAIN PARK - - - - 1,100 - - - - - 1,100
ELL C6PPTSF339 Port Barre repl failed LTC con - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF592 Port Hudson regasket T3 - - 18,038 - - - - - - - 18,038
ELL C6PPTSF331 Port Hudson replace failed cap - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF838 Port Hudson replace failed fan - - 2,479 - - - - - - - 2,479
ELL C6PPTSF410 Port Hudson Replace Pnl L717 - - 3,205 - - - - - - - 3,205
ELL F3PCY31413 PORT HUDSON SUBSTATION, GULF S - - 11,027 - - - - - - - 11,027
ELL C6PPTSF561 Port Hudson t5 life extension - - 7,996 - - - - - - - 7,996
ELL F3PCQ365X0 PORT HUDSON TO JACKSON T-LINES - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF848 Port Vincent repl failed reclo - - 20,446 - - - - - - - 20,446
ELL F3PCFX3265 POWERBUILDER FRAMEWORK BASELOA - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCE99750 PRES- ENT. LA-GEN'L OPS-ELI/EG - - - - - - 5,749 - - - 5,749
ELL C6PC449107 PRIVATE SECURITY LIGHTING MAIN - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL PSCL Process Unit Price Adjustments - - 267 - 12 - - - - - 279

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 17 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 18 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL F3PCD10010 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - O&M - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCF24910 PROPERTY ACCOUNTING- FIXED ASS - - - - - - 7 - - - 7
ELL F3PCFX3355 Property Software Support - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL F3PCF24001 Property/Casualty Risk Finance - - - - - - 14 - - - 14
ELL PCSO Prov Cust Serv Office Contact - - - - 131 - - - - - 131
ELL PMSS Provide & Manage Safety Svcs 63,456 - 2,097 - - - - 348 - - 65,902
ELL C6DB374765 PROVIDE NEW SERVICE TO SCHULZ - - - 1,083 - - - - - - 1,083
ELL XFAB Provide Plant Office Support 7,384 - - - - - - - - - 7,384
ELL F5PCCSS04D PS CUST BILL LE - REV DATA INT - - 1,057 - 22,365 - - - - - 23,422
ELL C6PPTLG003 Pt Hudson-Sandy Creek Reroute - - 9,803 - - - - - - - 9,803
ELL C6PPWNZ015 PTC Retire & Demolish Patterso - - - - 625 - - - - - 625
ELL GINP Purc Gen Invent Items-Passport 995,142 - 4,977,763 589,488 2,193,421 - - 572,765 - - 9,328,578
ELL F3PCH86010 PURCHASING & CONTRACTS SUPPORT - - - - - - 53 - - - 53
ELL C6DB476323 RECABLE,EO,1605,R/P 2000' FAIL - - - - 486 - - - - - 486
ELL C6DB475801 RECABLE,EO,512,REPLACE UNDERGR - - - - 108,705 - - - - - 108,705
ELL C6DB476195 RECABLE. EO, FEEDER 1603 INSTA - - - - 2,600 - - - - - 2,600
ELL C6DB476196 RECABLE. EO, FEEDER 1603 INSTA - - - - 132,046 - - - - - 132,046
ELL C6DB476197 RECABLE. EO, FEEDER 1603 INSTA - - - - 64,560 - - - - - 64,560
ELL F3PCF99182 RECORDS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 43 - - - 43
ELL F3PCR10302 REGION CUSTOMER SERVICES - SOU - - - - - - 2,035 - - - 2,035
ELL F5PCZFCTRN REGULATD NON-BACKBONE FIBER - - 201 - - - 154 - - - 356
ELL F3PCD10049 REGULATED RETAIL SYSTEMS - O&M - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL C6PPTL7240 Reim10: L295 Marshall-Toomey - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL7261 Reim10: L369 Gloria-Sharp - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL7369 Reimb11: Alaska-Tiger - - 322 - - - - - - - 322
ELL C6DB869514 REL,760AV,YNG,INSTALL 800A REC - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869547 RELIAB 713GI GN INSTALL 3 3PHA - - 13,740 - - - - - - - 13,740
ELL C6DB869567 RELIAB BR 325HR INSTALL INTELL - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869551 RELIAB GN 833GN RELOCATE AND I - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476144 RELIAB,EO,1205,RAISE 2 GRADE & - - - - 4,603 - - - - - 4,603
ELL C6DB476006 RELIAB,EO,611,621,2345,2346,TR - - - - 155,030 - - - - - 155,030
ELL C6PC449170 RELIABILITY PREVENTATIVE MAINT - - - - 849,787 - - - - - 849,787
ELL C6DB476147 RELIAB-INSTALL NEW 750 AL COND - - - - 24,004 - - - - - 24,004
ELL C6DB476159 RELIAB-INSTALL NEW 750 AL COND - - - - 8,010 - - - - - 8,010
ELL C6PPTLK008 Relocate Derbigny - Tricou Lin - - - - 379 - - - - - 379
ELL C1PPFII043 Relocate Gretna Telecom Hub - - - - - - 107,670 - - - 107,670
ELL C6PPTSF411 Repaco Replace L717 relaying - - 3,205 - - - - - - - 3,205
ELL XMAR Repair CEMS Equipment 33,389 - 6,337 - - - - - - - 39,726
ELL XLAA Repair Inst&Serv Air Comp Sys 3,773 - 7,531 - - - - - - - 11,304
ELL C6PPTSP451 Repapco - Pilot wire - - 1,679 - - - - - - - 1,679
ELL C6PPTLRPH1 Repapco/Port H-GP Line Relocat - - 95,716 - - - - - - - 95,716
ELL C6PPTLP997 Repapco/Zellerbach - GP Line r - - 35,222 - - - - - - - 35,222
ELL C8PPTL5496 Replace Storm Damages 15,812 - - - - - - - - - 15,812
ELL C6DB869629 REV 614CL PA INSTALL UG PRI. F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869779 REV 732PE BR-INSTALL 11-100W. - - 615 - - - - - - - 615
ELL C6DB869512 REV 733PE BR INSTALL UG FACILI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869456 REV BR OLOL HOSPITAL - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869789 REV BR 303TI - INSTALL 1PH 7.6 - - 46,158 - - - - - - - 46,158
ELL C6DB870033 REV BR 582EA INSTALL U.R.D.FAC - - 28,132 - - - - - - - 28,132
ELL C6DB869695 REV BR 724GR INSTALL U.R.D.FAC - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869882 REV BR 725GR INST. NEW FEEDER - - 29,604 - - - - - - - 29,604
ELL C6DB870047 REV BR 726GR INSTALL OVERHEAD - - 16,282 - - - - - - - 16,282

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 18 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 19 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6DB869750 REV BR 726GR INSTALL U.R.D. FA - - 74,446 - - - - - - - 74,446
ELL C6DB869509 REV BR 871GR INSTALL UG PRI. F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869979 REV BR PECUE SITE - - 9,276 - - - - - - - 9,276
ELL C6DB869932 REV BR PINNACLE CASINO - - 43,756 - - - - - - - 43,756
ELL C6DB869429 REV BR SPANISH LAKES - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB870004 REV BR VILLAGE @ MADISON SQUAR - - 2,479 - - - - - - - 2,479
ELL C6DB869988 REV BR VILLAS AT JAMESTOWN - - 40,408 - - - - - - - 40,408
ELL C6DB870026 REV BR WILLOWBROOK TOWNHOMES - - 3,280 - - - - - - - 3,280
ELL C6DB869468 REV DS SUMMA CONDO'S - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869770 REV DS CLEARLAKE SUBD. 4TH FIL - - 14,776 - - - - - - - 14,776
ELL C6DB869518 REV DS NORTH OAKS HOSPITAL - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869861 REV DS SANDLEWOOD - - 33,871 - - - - - - - 33,871
ELL C6DB869925 REV DS THE QUARTERS AT SATSUMA - - 24,328 - - - - - - - 24,328
ELL C6DB869529 REV DS THREE LAKES SUBD. - - 37,318 - - - - - - - 37,318
ELL C6DB869583 REV DS WOODLAND CROSSING 8TH F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869878 REV GN LAKE SUMMERSET - - 5,408 - - - - - - - 5,408
ELL C6DB869709 REV GN MAGNOLIAL SPRINGS - - 60,169 - - - - - - - 60,169
ELL C6DB870020 REV MT. CARMEL SUBD. - - 1,635 - - - - - - - 1,635
ELL C6DB870022 REV PA. SUGARMILL PLANTATION 6 - - 42,980 - - - - - - - 42,980
ELL C6DB475951 REV TL 1708 I/S 2 WP50-3A,2 TB - - - - 8,154 - - - - - 8,154
ELL C6DB476026 REV TL 413 I/S 500KVA 277/480 - - - - 12,669 - - - - - 12,669
ELL C6DB476030 REV TU 1923 INSTALL 1000KVA 27 - - - - 19,457 - - - - - 19,457
ELL C6DB475960 REV TU 2125 I/S 3 750 120/208 - - - - 60,478 - - - - - 60,478
ELL C6DB476255 REV TUL 1703 UG TO SERVE ST. B - - - - 4,230 - - - - - 4,230
ELL C6DB475795 REV TUL 1703/04 UG JOB TO SERV - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476009 REV TUL 1704 PROVIDE UG SERVIC - - - - 12,202 - - - - - 12,202
ELL C6DB869995 REV ZA 330AL RECON. AND INST N - - 12,525 - - - - - - - 12,525
ELL C6DB869994 REV ZA WINDSOR PLACE - - 61,521 - - - - - - - 61,521
ELL C6DB869626 REV,701ML,NIB,PROVIDE CUSTOMER - - (140) - - - - - - - (140)
ELL C6DB869976 REV,852MA,MAU,INSTALL 5 PADMOU - - 23,011 - - - - - - - 23,011
ELL C6DB870014 REV,COT,871NI,INSTALL UNDERGRO - - 6,777 - - - - - - - 6,777
ELL C6DB869922 REV,LAFAYETTE,743CR,INSTALL UG - - 44,055 - - - - - - - 44,055
ELL C6DB869879 REV,MTN,760AV,INSTALL STREET L - - 10,442 - - - - - - - 10,442
ELL C6DB869874 REV,MTN,760AV,INSTALL UNDERGRO - - 55,367 - - - - - - - 55,367
ELL C6DB869384 REV,OPL,912SU,INSTALL UNDERGRO - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476408 REV_1705 OVERHEAD WORK FOR LAF - - - - 152 - - - - - 152
ELL C6DB476061 REV-BIENVILLE NET- T.V. EQUIP - - - - 1,231 - - - - - 1,231
ELL C6DB476059 REV-CIVIL-CBD-BIENVILLE NETWOR - - - - 403 - - - - - 403
ELL C6DB476023 REVENUE- CIVIL - DERBIGNY-FDR - - - - 878 - - - - - 878
ELL C6PC449060 REVENUE PRIVATE AREA LIGHTS - - - - 11,039 - - - - - 11,039
ELL C6PC849060 REVENUE PRIVATE AREA LIGHTS - - 59,306 - - - - - - - 59,306
ELL C6PC149050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PC349050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PC849050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - - 23,687 - - - - - - - 23,687
ELL C6DB475761 REVENUE,EO,1202,RECONDUCTOR & - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476010 REVENUE,EO,1602,I/S U.G.CONDUI - - - - 527 - - - - - 527
ELL C6DB475863 REVENUE,EO,1610,I/S SW.GEAR & - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475977 REVENUE,EO,1612,I/S POLES,U.G - - - - 24,327 - - - - - 24,327
ELL C6DB476231 REVENUE,EO,2345, I/S AUTO TRAN - - - - 19,825 - - - - - 19,825
ELL C6DB476174 REVENUE,EO,2345,I/S AUTO TRANS - - - - 2,030 - - - - - 2,030
ELL C6DB476058 REVENUE,EO,621,SET 3PHS T.P. T - - - - 32,666 - - - - - 32,666
ELL C6DB476234 REVENUE,EO,623,I/S 167KVA BANK - - - - 53,475 - - - - - 53,475

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 19 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 20 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6DB869767 REVENUE,ROANOKE,580LT,PROVIDE - - 64,575 - - - - - - - 64,575
ELL C6DB167565 REVENUE: FAYETTEVILLE EXPRESS 4,616 - - - - - - - - - 4,616
ELL C6DB475528 REVENUE_ N.O. C.J. PEETE REDEV - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475878 REVENUE_N.O. C.J. PEETE REDEVE - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB476092 REVENUE_N.O. LAFITTE REDEVELOP - - - - 22,563 - - - - - 22,563
ELL C6DB476155 REVENUE-CABLE PULLING - DERB-F - - - - 23,364 - - - - - 23,364
ELL C6DB476015 REVENUE-DERBIGNY-LCRC T.V.#201 - - - - 1,052 - - - - - 1,052
ELL C6PPTSP584 Richard - Habetz bay - - 6,478 - - - - - - - 6,478
ELL C6PPTSG104 Richard Sub: Install 500kV POD - - 779,620 - - - - - - - 779,620
ELL F5PCZY323N ROUTINE SPILL REPONSE (CS-NOPS - - - - 11,607 - - - - - 11,607
ELL F4PCT95189 ROUTINE ST. LT. MAINT. FOR CNO - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C1PPRPRC10 RPC Pymt Proc - Brk Fx 2010 - - - - - - 515 - - - 515
ELL C6PPTD3570 S.Grenada-Add Tillatoba LN Bay - - - 2,245 - - - - - - 2,245
ELL F3PCW14172 SAFETY GROUP SERVICES - - - - - - 261 - - - 261
ELL F5PPWE0450 Safety Recognition Program - S 7,609 - 435 - - - - - - - 8,045
ELL F5PCSAFTEE SAFTEY TRAINING LOADER ELECTRI - - 14 - 72 - 227 - - - 313
ELL F5PCSAFTEG SAFTEY TRAINING LOADER GAS CUS - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPWE0375 SAIC Designated Srv for Fossil - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL F3PCY31438 SALT DOME SUBSTATION, GULF STA - - 756 - - - - - - - 756
ELL F3PCY31439 SANDY CREEK SUBSTATION, GULF S - - 691 - - - - - - - 691
ELL F5PPSUPDIS SC- Distribution Procurement - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31442 SCENIC SUBSTATION, GULF STATES - - 691 - - - - - - - 691
ELL C6PPTSF468 Scott Sub T4 Animal Mitigation - - 932 - - - - - - - 932
ELL C6PPTSG204 Scott Sub: Upgrade 69kV Breake - - 73,507 - - - - - - - 73,507
ELL C6PPTSF808 Sears replace arrestors - - 2,482 - - - - - - - 2,482
ELL F3PCFX2850 SECRETARIAT LEGAL SUPPORT - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPTSF537 seventy second add mos to line - - 7,124 - - - - - - - 7,124
ELL F3PCW51400 SFI FUEL OIL O&M - - - - - - - - - 13,142 13,142
ELL C6PPTSF630 Shenandoah brk 381F fail - - 18,165 - - - - - - - 18,165
ELL C6PPTSF606 Shenandoah replace RTU - - 33,137 - - - - - - - 33,137
ELL F3PCY30712 SHERWOOD FOREST SUBSTATION, NE - - - - 1,744 - - - - - 1,744
ELL C6PPTL6969 Shield Rep: Devil Swamp-Port H - - 12,864 - - - - - - - 12,864
ELL F3PCTDTR08 SKILLS TRAINING - LOUISIANA EL - - - - - - 26,633 - - - 26,633
ELL C6DB869794 SL BR 445OK INSTALL 15 UG STRE - - 10,143 - - - - - - - 10,143
ELL C6PPDW741N SmartSynch Meters ENOI - - - - 2,368 - - - - - 2,368
ELL C6PPDW741G SmartSynch Meters LA EGSL - - 57,394 - - - - - - - 57,394
ELL F3PC9095X1 SOUTHPORT SUB.TOJOLIET SUB. - - - - 1,099 - - - - - 1,099
ELL C6PPTSF506 Southwood rep ct's south bus - - 1,287 - - - - - - - 1,287
ELL C5DB475780 SPAIN-N GALVEZ TO N MIRO - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSP0014 SPO Ouachita Elec Meter Common - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSP0015 SPO Ouachita Elec Meter Unit 1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSP0016 SPO Ouachita Elec Meter Unit 2 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPSP0019 SPO Ouachita Elec Meter Unit 3 - - 132 - - - - - - - 132
ELL C6PPSP0030 SPO Ouachita Fuel Meter Common 819 - - - - - - - - - 819
ELL F3PCD10033 SSS PRELIMINARY PLANNING, SCOP - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL C6PPTSF150 St Gabriel-Upgrade Wintz Line - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31471 STARHILL SUBSTATION, GULF STAT - - 756 - - - - - - - 756
ELL C6PPTSK585 Stauffer:Install Resistors for - - 7,590 - - - - - - - 7,590
ELL C7PPSJ8417 STM DMG EGSL 6/4/11 - 6/9/11 - - 43,676 - - - - - - - 43,676
ELL C7PPSJ4085 STM DMG TS BONNIE LA DIST OPS - - - - 10,049 - - - - - 10,049
ELL C7PPSJ8399 STM DMG TS BONNIE LA DIST OPS - - 970 - - - - - - - 970
ELL C7PPSJ1196 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 06/10/09 - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 20 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 21 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C7PPSJ1235 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 07/11/10 27,145 - - - - - - - - - 27,145
ELL C7PPSJ1250 STORM DL EAI DIST 4/19/11-4/24 303,033 - - - - - - - - - 303,033
ELL C7PPSJ8397 Storm Dmg EGSI 1/5/10 - 1/9/10 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ4083 STORM DMG ENOI 1/15 -1/18/10 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ4080 STORM DMG ENOI 12/12 - 12/15/0 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ2462 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 1/8/11 I - - - - - - 343 - - - 343
ELL C7PPSJ8403 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS EGSI 6/7 - - 3,409 - - - - - - - 3,409
ELL C7PPSJ4088 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 2,547 - - - - - 2,547
ELL C7PPSJ4089 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI ISS - - - - 814 - - - - - 814
ELL C7PPSJ4084 STORM DMG LA DIST OPS ENOI-5/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C8PPTL7416 Storm6411: Nelson-Richard - - 7,525 - - - - - - - 7,525
ELL C6PC849106 STREET LIGHTING MAINT BLANKET - - 132,088 - - - - - - - 132,088
ELL C6PPTSA703 Strong, rpl fld B0853 MOD 115k 9,232 - - - - - - - - - 9,232
ELL F5PCZSDEPT SUPERVISION & SUPPORT - SUPPLY - - - - - - 379 - - - 379
ELL F3PPFX3685 Supply Chain Applications Supp - - - - - - 8 - - - 8
ELL F5PCSCMMOM SUPPLY CHAIN MATERIALS MGMNT O 7,710 - 20,939 33,996 13,855 - - 86 - - 76,586
ELL C6PPTL7246 SW10: L13 Compton-Elton - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL4222 SW10: L86 Pauger-Midtown - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL4223 SW10: L90 Ave C.-Midtown - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTL7359 SW11: Gloria-Denham Springs - - 75,957 - - - - - - - 75,957
ELL C6PPTL7363 SW11: Gloria-Sharp - - 31,168 - - - - - - - 31,168
ELL C6PPTL7324 SW2011: L13 Compton-Elton - - 61,339 - - - - - - - 61,339
ELL C6PPTSF285 Swan 278F replace DPU - - 3,225 - - - - - - - 3,225
ELL F3PCY31481 SWAN SUBSTATION, GULF STATES L - - 346 - - - - - - - 346
ELL C6PPWS0534 System Planning Pet Coke Repow - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPERG205 Systemwide Ergonomics Capital - - 246 - - - - - - - 246
ELL C6PPERG206 Systemwide Ergonomics Capital - - - 135 - - - - - - 135
ELL C6PC349703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PC449703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - - - 1,484 - - - - - 1,484
ELL C6PC849703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - 15,910 - - - - - - - 15,910
ELL C6PC149708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE 315 - - - - - - - - - 315
ELL C6PC449708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE - - - - 5,599 - - - - - 5,599
ELL C6PC849708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE - - 28,166 - - - - - - - 28,166
ELL C6DB869948 TARG BR 387GL UPGRADE FEEDER - - 27,621 - - - - - - - 27,621
ELL C6DB869541 TARG BR 726GR INST. ALT AT L17 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869542 TARG BR 726GR REPL. CONTROLS A - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB475745 TARG TL 2026 CPTRAC# TU10-009T - - - - 4,189 - - - - - 4,189
ELL C6DB476292 TARG TU 2013 IMPROVEMENT TO FE - - - - 3,696 - - - - - 3,696
ELL C6DB476296 TARG TU 2027 RELIABILITY WORK- - - - - 66,746 - - - - - 66,746
ELL C6DB771280 TARGETED CIRCUIT 333NC - - - - - - - 253 - - 253
ELL F3PPD10150 TaxWare Support - - - - - - 6 - - - 6
ELL F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 26,674 335 10,646 174 9,445 - 141 78 - - 47,494
ELL C6PPTSF507 tejac replace pin and cap on s - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31484 TEJAS CO SUBSTATION, GULF STAT - - 2,537 - - - - - - - 2,537
ELL E2PPSJ1221 T-Grid Storm Damage EAI 1/26/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F5PPCOPPER Theft of Copper Wire Transmiss - - 11,255 - - - - - - - 11,255
ELL C6PPTSF236 Thomas replace capacitor bank - - 21,186 - - - - - - - 21,186
ELL C6PPTSF356 Thomas replace failed bkr 905f - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF587 Thomas replace failed S&C swit - - 10,142 - - - - - - - 10,142
ELL C6PPTLG001 Thompson Creek 138kV DEMCO POD - - 26,573 - - - - - - - 26,573
ELL C6PPTSF602 Tiger add D400S processor - - 8,941 - - - - - - - 8,941
ELL C6PPTSF525 Tiger replace failed fans t1 - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 21 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 22 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSF235 Tiger replace breaker 14325 - - 6,452 - - - - - - - 6,452
ELL C6PPTSF370 Tiger replace cap bank and rel - - 2,910 - - - - - - - 2,910
ELL C6PPTL7385 Tools11: Procurement for Line - - 15,197 - - - - - - - 15,197
ELL C7PPSJ1226 TORNADOES DL ARK DIST EAI 04/3 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ1251 TORNADOES DL EAI DIST 4/25/11 205,428 - - - - - - - - - 205,428
ELL E1PCR73457 TRAINING & PROCESS IMPROVEMENT - - - - - - 28 - - - 28
ELL E2PPSJ1188 Trans. EAI Ice Storm 1/26/2009 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCF74195 TRANSMISSION APPLICATION SUPPO - - - - - - 0 - - - 0
ELL STPCTA0527 TRANSMISSION CAPITAL SUSPENSE - - - - - - 3,219 - - - 3,219
ELL F3PCTDDS24 TRANSPORTATION- ELI - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCT53062 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - - - - - - 250 - - - 250
ELL F3PCF23428 TREASURY SYSTEMS - - - - - - 9 - - - 9
ELL F3PCY30773 TRICOU SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEANS - - - - 857 - - - - - 857
ELL C6PPRA1255 Tricou: Replace 23T4-6 - - - - 10,460 - - - - - 10,460
ELL C6PPRA1311 Tricou:Add Feeder Breaker (234 - - - - 44,336 - - - - - 44,336
ELL C6PPRA1296 Tricou:Feeders 2347,2325 Insta - - - - 48,129 - - - - - 48,129
ELL C6PPTSF735 Trousdale failed VCB 461F - - 471 - - - - - - - 471
ELL C8PPKBN534 Tulane Ave. Construct New Ware - - - - 7,522 - - - - - 7,522
ELL F3PCY31591 TURNERVILLE SUBSTATION, GULF S - - 346 - - - - - - - 346
ELL C6DB869967 UGC BR RECABLE INTERLINE - - 10,929 - - - - - - - 10,929
ELL C6DB870041 UGC BR RECABLE CALAIS OFFICE P - - 14,461 - - - - - - - 14,461
ELL C6DB869796 UGC BR RECABLE PERKINS VILLAGE - - 9,056 - - - - - - - 9,056
ELL C6DB869849 UGC BR RECABLE S. CHOCTAW - - 4,460 - - - - - - - 4,460
ELL C6DB869580 UGC BR RECABLE SUNBELT - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6DB869915 UGC BR. RECABLE ST. JAMES PLA - - 16,245 - - - - - - - 16,245
ELL F3PCFCQUNX UNIX SERVERS - - - - - - 675 - - - 675
ELL C6PPTLACJ1 Upgrade Addis to Cajun line se - - 44,591 - - - - - - - 44,591
ELL F3PPE9974S Utl ECI Continuing Improve ESI - - - - - - 14 - - - 14
ELL F3PCY30785 VALENCE SUBSTATION, NEW ORLEAN - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PPZW5880 VAR Testing Preparation 1,990 - - - - - - - - - 1,990
ELL C6PPTD3272 Voice Recorder - WestMonroeTOC - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF282 Ward Creek 247F replace DPU - - 3,225 - - - - - - - 3,225
ELL C6PPTSF399 Ward Creek enable UF 248F - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF503 Ward Creek repl failed battery - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF279 Ward Creek replace DPU 245F - - 2,048 - - - - - - - 2,048
ELL C6PPTSF281 Ward Creek replace DPU 246F - - 2,048 - - - - - - - 2,048
ELL F3PPM08001 WATERFORD 3 GENERAL SUPPORT 37,555 32,037 209,073 - - 39,464 - - 2,561 - 320,690
ELL C6PPTSF594 Waterloo add oil filter to T2 - - 7,582 - - - - - - - 7,582
ELL F3PCY31515 WATERLOO SUBSTATION, GULF STAT - - 378 - - - - - - - 378
ELL F5PCD10093 WEB DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
ELL C6PPTSF257 Weiner install D20 - - 398 - - - - - - - 398
ELL C6PPTSF527 Weiner rep bkr330f and charger - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31517 WEINER SUBSTATION, GULF STATES - - 3,080 - - - - - - - 3,080
ELL C6PPTSG202 Wells: Install 500kV Terminal - - 93,554 - - - - - - - 93,554
ELL F3PCR73382 West Monroe Customer Service C - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF597 Westdale install oil filter t2 - - 6,734 - - - - - - - 6,734
ELL C6PPTSF523 Westdale replace failed fans T - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL F3PCY31520 WESTDALE SUBSTATION, GULF STAT - - 691 - - - - - - - 691
ELL F3PPZG2811 WG2 Turbine Outage O+M - - 36,019 - - - - - - - 36,019
ELL F3PPZW7422 WGC-Willow Glen Life Extension - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTLF004 WG-Wintz, Install L718 @ Wintz - - 21 - - - - - - - 21
ELL C6PPTSF255 Wilbert failed relay panel - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 22 of 23
 Entergy Louisiana, LLC Exhibit SBT-22
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 23 of 23
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EEI EGSLA EMI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ELL C6PPTSF237 Wilbert replace capacitor bank - - 3,015 - - - - - - - 3,015
ELL C6PPTSWBS1 Wilbert Sub - Addis-BC 230_Upg - - 12,799 - - - - - - - 12,799
ELL C6PPTSP549 Willow Glen 500 kV - - 226 - - - - - - - 226
ELL C6PPTSF827 Willow Glen fans and pumps 500 - - 13,185 - - - - - - - 13,185
ELL C6PPTSF550 willow glen repl switches 1301 - - 7,158 - - - - - - - 7,158
ELL C6PPTSF549 Willow Glen replace failed swi - - 7,158 - - - - - - - 7,158
ELL F3PCY31527 WILLOW GLEN SUBSTATION, GULF S - - 2,109 - - - - - - - 2,109
ELL C6PPTSF524 Willow Glen t9318 &t9319 fans - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSK281 Willow Glen: Replace Breakers - - 507,639 - - - - - - - 507,639
ELL C6PPTL5099 Willow Glen-Conway New 230kV L - - 3,728 - - - - - - - 3,728
ELL C6PPTSF149 Willow Glen-Upgrade L718 Relay - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C7PPSJ1214 WINTER STORM DL EAI DIST 01/26 (39,417) - - - - - - - - - (39,417)
ELL C7PPSJ8409 WINTER STORM DMG LA 2/3 TO 2/5 - - 19,027 - - - - - - - 19,027
ELL C6PPTLF003 Wintz-St Gabriel,Install L728@ - - 192 - - - - - - - 192
ELL C6PPTL7260 Wood10: L312 Livonia-Wilbert - - 12,225 - - - - - - - 12,225
ELL C6PPTL7326 Wood11: L395 Willow Glen-Harel - - 44,210 - - - - - - - 44,210
ELL F3PCN20520 WORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (WMS) M - - - - - - 3 - - - 3
ELL C6PPTL7234 WP10: L296 Orange-Nelson - - 571 - - - - - - - 571
ELL C6PPTL7329 WP11: L249 Meaux-Scott - - 3,887 - - - - - - - 3,887
ELL C6PPTL7334 WP2011: L380 Capitol-Northdale - - 5,105 - - - - - - - 5,105
ELL C6PPTL7333 WP2011: L706 Belfair-Northdale - - 24,036 - - - - - - - 24,036
ELL C6PPTL7338 WP2011:L254 LCB-Colonial Welsh - - 25,103 - - - - - - - 25,103
ELL C6PPTL7335 WP2011:L378 Capitol-Louisiana - - 12,206 - - - - - - - 12,206
ELL C6PPDSF010 Youngsville Sub Land Purchase - - 439 - - - - - - - 439
ELL C6PPDSF011 Youngsville-New 138/13.2kV Sub - - 933,568 - - - - - - - 933,568
ELL C6PPTSF231 Zachary repl ls sw with S&C - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF342 Zachary replace failed bkr 827 - - - - - - - - - - -
ELL C6PPTSF284 Zoar 718F replace DPU relay - - 5,472 - - - - - - - 5,472
ELL F3PCY31536 ZOAR SUBSTATION, GULF STATES L - - 1,146 - - - - - - - 1,146
5,099,316 47,715 20,361,227 634,939 8,644,097 39,417 298,132 375,755 2,474 13,127 35,516,200

Exhibit SBT-22
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 23 of 23
 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Exhibit SBT-23
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 5
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
EMI C1PPFD7287 GAS SCADA Busn DR in Baton Rou - - - - - - 788 - - - 788
EMI C1PPFI7287 Dist-Gas SCADA Replacement - - - - - - 2,851 - - - 2,851
EMI C1PPFIB175 Strategic 1/0 DCS Rplmt 2010 - - - - - - 21,043 - - - 21,043
EMI C1PPFIB203 21GTX Replacement 2011 - - - - - - 4,535 - - - 4,535
EMI C1PPFIB211 Integrated Voice Solutions-PBX - - - - - - 7,591 - - - 7,591
EMI C1PPFIB213 UPS Coverage Enhancement 2010 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C1PPFIB74A Distributed Network Upgrades 2 - - - - - - 4,291 - - - 4,291
EMI C1PPFII033 Jackson/LR to Jackson DWDM - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C1PPFII043 Relocate Gretna Telecom Hub - - - - - - 5,349 - - - 5,349
EMI C1PPFII056 Backbone Ovebld Expnsn North D - - - - - - 48,669 - - - 48,669
EMI C1PPFII061 Video Conferencing Expansion - - - - - - 557 - - - 557
EMI C1PPFII26B CFI-Jackson Data Center Buildi - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C1PPFII26C CFI-Jackson IT Equipment - - - - - - (445) - - - (445)
EMI C1PPFII26P CFI-Jackson TelecomApps-Call C - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C1PPFII26W CFI Jackson - Repl Gretna Voic - - - - - - 5,722 - - - 5,722
EMI C1PPFII62P IVS-PBX Replacement - - - - - - 7,047 - - - 7,047
EMI C6DB167938 TACTICS:TARGET DEVICE 8303N,SE 998 - - - - - - - - - 998
EMI C6DB167986 REPLACE B/O UG PRIMARY AND SPL 223 - - - - - - - - - 223
EMI C6DB168272 IMPROVE: DEWITT SUBSTATION IM 587 - - - - - - - - - 587
EMI C6DB275993 TARGETED CIRCUIT N0958 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6DB276002 LOAD WINNSBORO N1203 CONVERT F - - 49,815 - - - - - - - 49,815
EMI C6DB276095 REV/N1008 TOWN OF DELHI WATER - - 13,721 - - - - - - - 13,721
EMI C6DB276096 HWY/N1053 RELOCATE FACILITIES - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6DB276128 REV/N1005 DENBURY RESOURCES-55 - - 3,352 - - - - - - - 3,352
EMI C6DB276182 REV N3005 SERVICE TO PLUM TREE - - 4,227 - - - - - - - 4,227
EMI C6DB276302 IMPROVE, DELHI, N1005, RECONDU - - 83,845 - - - - - - - 83,845
EMI C6DB276307 BKBONE, Winnsboro, N2903, 2011 - - 3,701 - - - - - - - 3,701
EMI C6DB276399 REV/N1055 INSTALL SERVICE TO 2 - - 5,611 - - - - - - - 5,611
EMI C6DB770685 REMOVE OLD ANCHORS DUE TO IKE. - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6DB771057 HU10-027C - INSTALL SINGLE PHA - - - - - - - 1,163 - - 1,163
EMI C6DB869962 IMP,760AV,MIL,RECONDUCTOR 4 MI - 294 - - - - - - - - 294
EMI C6PC149000 DISTB LINES REVENUE BLANKET NO - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC149020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - 763 - - - - - - - - - 763
EMI C6PC149103 DISTB. LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER 714 - - - - - - - - - 714
EMI C6PC149104 DL BATCH JOB FOR FAILURE REPLA (2,009) - - - - - - - - - (2,009)
EMI C6PC149120 JOINT USE - BELL - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC149140 DL DESIGN JOBS - EMERGENCY REP 606 - - - - - - - - - 606
EMI C6PC149180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK 1,024 - - - - - - - - - 1,024
EMI C6PC149703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES 613 - - - - - - - - - 613
EMI C6PC149706 ENTERGY RENEWAL - LINE MAINTEN 3,284 - - - - - - - - - 3,284
EMI C6PC249000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 97,605 - - - - - - - 97,605
EMI C6PC249020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 281,179 - - - - - - - 281,179
EMI C6PC249100 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE R - - 74 - - - - - - - 74
EMI C6PC249103 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - - 5,335 - - - - - - - 5,335
EMI C6PC249104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - 33,896 - - - - - - - 33,896
EMI C6PC249108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ELL - - 2,806 - - - - - - - 2,806
EMI C6PC249120 JOINT USE - BELL - - 3,324 - - - - - - - 3,324
EMI C6PC249150 NON-TARGET CIRCUIT BACKBONE IM - - 58,470 - - - - - - - 58,470
EMI C6PC249180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - 146,915 - - - - - - - 146,915
EMI C6PC249703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - 23,893 - - - - - - - 23,893
EMI C6PC249705 DIST EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN ELI - - 70 - - - - - - - 70

Exhibit SBT-23
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 5
 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Exhibit SBT-23
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 5
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
EMI C6PC249706 ENTERGY RENEWAL - LINE MAINTEN - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC249708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC449104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC449108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ENOI - - - - 255 - - - - - 255
EMI C6PC849020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - 1,804 - - - - - - - - 1,804
EMI C6PC849060 REVENUE PRIVATE AREA LIGHTS - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PC849104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - 1,160 - - - - - - - - 1,160
EMI C6PC849106 STREET LIGHTING MAINT BLANKET - 2,613 - - - - - - - - 2,613
EMI C6PP149141 DL Repair Public Inflicted Dam 2,822 - - - - - - - - - 2,822
EMI C6PP249360 Distr Avian Protection Pgm ELL - - 194 - - - - - - - 194
EMI C6PP749114 Distr Lines Failures Blanket T - - - - - - - 393 - - 393
EMI C6PP749713 D-Lines TACTICS Target Line De - - - - - - - 566 - - 566
EMI C6PPAMIN03 ENO AMI: Information Technolog - - - - 1,392 - - - - - 1,392
EMI C6PPAMIN05 ENO AMI: Meter Purchase & Inst - - - - - - 120 - - - 120
EMI C6PPDW010A 2010 Cap Tools D-Line Arkansas 1,104 - - - - - - - - - 1,104
EMI C6PPDW010L 2010 Cap Tools D-Line ELL - - 1,104 - - - - - - - 1,104
EMI C6PPDW010T 2010 Cap Tools/Equip Texas D-L - - - - - - - 1,104 - - 1,104
EMI C6PPERG204 Systemwide Ergonomics Capital - - 947 - - - - - - - 947
EMI C6PPFIB20C NS ANO PBX - - - - - - 1,259 - - - 1,259
EMI C6PPN32598 Purchase Computer Equipment - - - - - - 2,362 - - - - 2,362
EMI C6PPN32721 Grand Gulf Heavy Haul Path Mod - - - - - 203 - - - - 203
EMI C6PPN32731 `EPU - Radial Well Addition (# - - - - - 18,174 - - - - 18,174
EMI C6PPRA1180 McKnight:Replace 500kv Switch - 1,728 - - - - - - - - 1,728
EMI C6PPRA1209 Leeville:Replace S5753 - - 1,200 - - - - - - - 1,200
EMI C6PPSHOPLA Capture Transf Shop Cost LA - - 278 - - - - - - - 278
EMI C6PPTD3269 Voice Recorder - Jackson DOC - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTD3270 Voice Recorder - Jackson TOC - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTD3306 SMP FRONTEND EQUIP-BATON ROUGE - 6,465 - - - - - - - - 6,465
EMI C6PPTGA098 ELD EHV Rplc 500kV B9207 ABSw 852 - - - - - - - - - 852
EMI C6PPTL4492 Calhoun: Build new 115 kV line - - 292 - - - - - - - 292
EMI C6PPTL4552 Fund10: L160 Little Gypsy-Madi - - 435 - - - - - - - 435
EMI C6PPTL5430 +Lowe's - Line Relocation - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTL5503 Mabelvale - Mayflower, Repl 7 2,198 - - - - - - - - - 2,198
EMI C6PPTL7175 Sterlington-IPCO 115: Upgrade - - 7,290 - - - - - - - 7,290
EMI C6PPTL7176 IPCO-Bastrop 115: Upgrade Line - - 4,991 - - - - - - - 4,991
EMI C6PPTL7177 Bastrop-Log Cabin 115: Upgr Li - - 9,018 - - - - - - - 9,018
EMI C6PPTL7178 WalnutGrove-Swartz 115: Upgr L - - 499 - - - - - - - 499
EMI C6PPTL7179 Frostkraft-Rilla 115: Upgr Ln - - (542) - - - - - - - (542)
EMI C6PPTL7181 Sterlington: Auto #2 Tie Ln Up - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTL7184 CarsonRd-Delhi 115: Reloc at D - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTL7191 Str-Drew: Reloc Ln at Sterling - - 1,748 - - - - - - - 1,748
EMI C6PPTL7192 Str Gen 7a/b: Reroute Line - - 1,872 - - - - - - - 1,872
EMI C6PPTL9378 El Dor-Longwd: Cut-in Sarepta - - 773 - - - - - - - 773
EMI C6PPTL9379 Sarepta-Sarepta: Build New 115 - - 889 - - - - - - - 889
EMI C6PPTL9575 Ster-Crossett N:Cut-In to N.Ba - - 3,524 - - - - - - - 3,524
EMI C6PPTL9582 N.Bastrop Tap Line: Upgrade - - 5,231 - - - - - - - 5,231
EMI C6PPTLA202 ANO to Russellville North Line - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTLA273 Tap Line No. 262 to Bartholome - - 1,593 - - - - - - - 1,593
EMI C6PPTLSWB1 Line Cut-in for Baskin S/S (LA - - 14,556 - - - - - - - 14,556
EMI C6PPTLZ001 Sterlington: Relocate Gen #7c - - 2,010 - - - - - - - 2,010
EMI C6PPTS2194 Lewis Creek: Install Transform - - - - - - - 2,139 - - 2,139

Exhibit SBT-23
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 5
 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Exhibit SBT-23
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 5
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
EMI C6PPTS7374 Delhi: Install 36MVAR Cap Bank - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTS9370 Sarepta 345kV: Build New Sw. S - - 14,398 - - - - - - - 14,398
EMI C6PPTS9377 Sarepta 115kV: Install New Lin - - 14,778 - - - - - - - 14,778
EMI C6PPTS9575 N.Bastrop 115kV Expand Sub - - 39,025 - - - - - - - 39,025
EMI C6PPTSANG1 LAGEN Sterlington (Koch): Inst - - 8,860 - - - - - - - 8,860
EMI C6PPTSK057 Lucky: Install 32.4MVAR Cap Ba - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTSK107 Sterlington 115: Bus Split/Upg - - 26,271 - - - - - - - 26,271
EMI C6PPTSK108 Sterlington 500: Replace Auto - - 1,230 - - - - - - - 1,230
EMI C6PPTSK109 Bastrop 115: Bkr/Sw/Relay Upgr - - 5,483 - - - - - - - 5,483
EMI C6PPTSK110 Walnut Grove 115: Modify Fiber - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTSK111 Riser 115kV: Add Cap Bank - - 1,805 - - - - - - - 1,805
EMI C6PPTSK112 Swartz 115: Str Ln Relay & Sw - - 340 - - - - - - - 340
EMI C6PPTSK113 Rilla 115: Repl Switch R1896 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTSK117 Oak Grove 115: Bastrop Ln Rela - - 1,354 - - - - - - - 1,354
EMI C6PPTSK131 Delhi 115: Install Reactors - - 9,714 - - - - - - - 9,714
EMI C6PPTSK143 Frostkraft: Upg Ster Ln Relayi - - 442 - - - - - - - 442
EMI C6PPTSK163 Tallulah 115: Upgr BW Line Rel - - 3,255 - - - - - - - 3,255
EMI C6PPTSK192 NORTH BASTROP BREAKER - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C6PPTSK586 Minden: Replace 3 Breakers - - 3,148 - - - - - - - 3,148
EMI C6PPTSP987 Merlin sub: build new sub - - - - - - - 188 - - 188
EMI C6PPTSWIN1 Replace Transformer at Winnsbo - - 4,733 - - - - - - - 4,733
EMI C6PPTSWIN2 Inst. 20MVA Auto & 2 Feeder Br - - 4,725 - - - - - - - 4,725
EMI C6PPTSZ003 Sterlington:Relocate 7C to Bus - - 17,979 - - - - - - - 17,979
EMI C7PPSJ1185 ICE STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 01/2 (3,771) - - - - - - - - - (3,771)
EMI C7PPSJ1214 WINTER STORM DL EAI DIST 01/26 724 - - - - - - - - - 724
EMI C7PPSJ1250 STORM DL EAI DIST 4/19/11-4/24 91,458 - - - - - - - - - 91,458
EMI C7PPSJ1251 TORNADOES DL EAI DIST 4/25/11 255 - - - - - - - - - 255
EMI C7PPSJ2431 STORM DMG ELI 12/24 - 12/27/09 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2432 STORM DMG ELI 1/4 - 1/5/10 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2436 STORM DM LA ELL 1/29/10 - 2/1/ - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2437 Storm dmg La ELI 2 12 10 Snow - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2438 ELI_LA WINTER STORM 3/1 - 3/2/ - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2439 STORM DMG LA ISSUED ELI 3/22/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2441 N La Tornado & Storms 4/23-4/2 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2443 STORM DMG ELI 5/1 thru 5/3/10 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2444 STM DMG TS Bonnie LA DIST OPS - - 345 - - - - - - - 345
EMI C7PPSJ2445 ELL DIST STORM 05/15 - 05/17/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2446 ELL DIST STORM 05/20 - 05/21/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2450 STORM DMG ELL 6/3/10 TO 6/6/10 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2452 ELL DIST STORM 06/18 - 06/20/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI C7PPSJ2453 STORM DMG ELL 6/28/10 to 6/29/ - - 2,513 - - - - - - - 2,513
EMI C7PPSJ2454 STORM DMG LA 7/16 to 7/17 - - 745 - - - - - - - 745
EMI C7PPSJ2455 STORM DMG ELL 8-4 THRU 8-5-10 - - 7,265 - - - - - - - 7,265
EMI C7PPSJ2458 STORM DMG ELL 8/22/10 THRU 8/ - - 7,999 - - - - - - - 7,999
EMI C7PPSJ2459 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISSUE 12 - - 9,381 - - - - - - - 9,381
EMI C7PPSJ2462 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 1/8/11 I - - 6,909 - - - - - - - 6,909
EMI C7PPSJ2463 STORM DMG LA 2-1-11 - - 29,322 - - - - - - - 29,322
EMI C7PPSJ2468 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL (3/8 -3 - - 4,360 - - - - - - - 4,360
EMI C7PPSJ2469 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 3/30 - - 2,944 - - - - - - - 2,944
EMI C7PPSJ2470 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 4 4 - 4 - - 42,776 - - - - - - - 42,776
EMI C7PPSJ2474 STORM Dmg ELL 4/25 to 4/27/11 - - 57,502 - - - - - - - 57,502

Exhibit SBT-23
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 5
 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Exhibit SBT-23
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 4 of 5
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
EMI C7PPSJ2475 ELL-LA STORM (5/13 - 5/14/11) - - 4,993 - - - - - - - 4,993
EMI C7PPSJ2476 ELL-LA STORM (6/4 - 6/6/11) - - 7,293 - - - - - - - 7,293
EMI C7PPSJ2479 STORM DMG LA ELI (Jun 10-13, 2 - - 876 - - - - - - - 876
EMI C7PPSJ2480 STORM DMG LA 6/21-6/22 ELL Sto - - 7,217 - - - - - - - 7,217
EMI C8PPTL5522 Newport - ISES, Repl STR#44 266 - - - - - - - - - 266
EMI E1PCN01613 U1-Turbine Generator & Auxilia - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI E1PPNG6772 OUTAGE GENERAL SUPPORT - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI E1PPNG6834 OUTAGE ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI E1PPNXCRP2 Unwind - office - - - 1,543 - - - - - - 1,543
EMI E2PPSJ1188 Trans. EAI Ice Storm 1/26/2009 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI E2PPSJ1221 T-Grid Storm Damage EAI 1/26/1 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI E2PPSJSCC1 System Command Center costs - - - - - - 1,824 - - - 1,824
EMI F3PCF99180 CORP. COMPLIANCE TRACKING SYS - - - - - - 42 - - - 42
EMI F3PCF99182 RECORDS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 42 - - - 42
EMI F3PCFIBERO OPER. & MAINT. OF FIBER OPTIC - - - 852 - - 5,741 - - - 6,593
EMI F3PCFT9023 ETC FIBER O&M SUPPORT - - - 22,991 - - - - - - 22,991
EMI F3PCHRENUC HR SERVICES - ENUCO - ALL - - - - - - 1,494 - - - 1,494
EMI F3PCHREOIX HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES - EOI - - - - - - 872 - - - 872
EMI F3PCN14999 GRAND GULF GENERAL SUPPORT - - - - - 11,606 - - - - 11,606
EMI F3PCN91683 U1 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F3PCR12573 Nat'l Accts Sales & Mktg - - - - - - 126 - - - 126
EMI F3PCR29324 REVENUE ASSURANCE - ADM. - - - - - - 47,529 - - - 47,529
EMI F3PCR73323 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT, A - - - - - - 128 - - - 128
EMI F3PCR73328 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT - 12,816 - - - - - - - - - 12,816
EMI F3PCR73330 FIELD METER READING - ELI - - 60,729 - - - - - - - 60,729
EMI F3PCR73332 FIELD METER READING - ENOI - - - - - - 3,669 - - - 3,669
EMI F3PCR73374 Jackson Customer Service Cente - - - - - - 4,449 - - - 4,449
EMI F3PCR73401 FIELD METER READING - EGSI -LA - 4,485 - - - - - - - - 4,485
EMI F3PCT53062 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - - - - - - 169 - - - 169
EMI F3PCT53130 OPN,MGR, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT - - - - - - 698 - - - 698
EMI F3PCTDDS26 CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPORT - O&M - - - - - - 84 - - - 84
EMI F3PCTDPM01 SYS SERV PROJECT MANAGEMENT - - - - - - - 18,289 - - - 18,289
EMI F3PCTTDS20 SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE - - - - - - 18,278 - - - 18,278
EMI F3PCTTDS38 TRANSMISSION O&M MGMT/SUPPORT - - - - - - 10,122 - - - 10,122
EMI F3PPCPLITL 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EL - - - - - - 177 - - - 177
EMI F3PPCPLITM 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EM - - - - - - 11,909 - - - 11,909
EMI F3PPN20713 ESI Nuclear - Site Split - - - - - - 1,171 - - - 1,171
EMI F3PPR103LA CUSTOMER ACCT SVCS- LA (L,LG,N - - - - - - 337 - - - 337
EMI F3PPREALL2 Residential Market Dev - ALL J - - - - - - 2 - - - 2
EMI F3PPTDDS37 TRANSPORTATION - EMI - - - - - - 277 - - - 277
EMI F3PPTDERSD MISO Transition ALL OPCO - - - - - - 5,267 - - - 5,267
EMI F3PPZB0124 LG WG2 On line expenditures 08 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F3PPZB0125 LG WG4 On line Expenditures 08 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F3PPZB0148 Lynch - 2009 Baseline - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F3PPZG2515 LA1 5A CT Major Outage 2Q10 - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F4PPIBEW9A IBEW 2286-C LV OF ABSENCE TRAH - 6,155 - - - - - - - - 6,155
EMI F5PCCSS17L PS MANAGE TRANSPORTATION - - 395 - - - - - - - 395
EMI F5PCFPR008 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO EP - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F5PCFPR062 5% SURCHARGE ON SERVICES TO ET - - - 1,197 - - - - - - 1,197
EMI F5PCLIHPPC CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAMS - - - - - - 1,400 - - - 1,400
EMI F5PCQQ4345 WARREN POWER-O&M - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit SBT-23
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 4 of 5
 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Exhibit SBT-23
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 5 of 5
Amounts in Dollars
Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EEI ENOI EOI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
EMI F5PCSCMMOM SUPPLY CHAIN MATERIALS MGMNT O 5,330 - 4,420 - - - - - - - 9,750
EMI F5PCTTDS58 TRANSMISSION OPERATIONS - - - - - - 58 - - - 58
EMI F5PCZFCTRN REGULATD NON-BACKBONE FIBER - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F5PCZFVMAC VOICE & VIDEO MOVES ADDS CHANG - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF 944 146 66 - - 73 563 3 - 196 1,991
EMI F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS (1,438) 763 (145) - - (87) (874) 5 - 190 (1,586)
EMI F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (103) (22) (94) (20) (7) (10) (113) (0) (7) 20 (356)
EMI F5PCZVDEPT SUPERVISION & SUPPORT - TRANSM - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 2,827 140 158 120 (8) 40 195 2 (8) 134 3,602
EMI F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS 42 - 43 - 87 - 5,189 - - - 5,362
EMI F5PP5PERCX 5% Surcharge - - - 77 - - - - - - 77
EMI F5PPCOPPER Theft of Copper Wire Transmiss - 3,507 - - - - - - - - 3,507
EMI F5PPICCCSV ICC - Customer Service - - - - - - 2,100 - - - 2,100
EMI F5PPWE0450 Safety Recognition Program - S 434 - - - - - - - - - 434
EMI F5PPZFVOIP Voice Over IP Support - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI F5PPZUWELL Entergy Wellness Program - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI GINP Purc Gen Invent Items-Passport 2,448,093 41,459 1,372,640 - 7,557 - - 1,563,200 - - 5,432,949
EMI HVAC Repair HVAC Systems - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI MTBS Repair Buildings 2,572 - - - - - - - - - 2,572
EMI SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - - (1,075) 121 - - (955)
EMI SAPCPCPLAP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL 88 - - - - - - - - - 88
EMI SAPCPCPLGL PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - EGSI - EL - 108 - - - - - - - - 108
EMI SAPCPCPLLP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - (10,047) - - - - - - - (10,047)
EMI SAPCPCPLNE PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - EL - - - - (0) - - - - - (0)
EMI SAPCPCPLNG PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - ENOI - GA - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI SDPCTA0528 DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL SUSPENSE - - - - - - 27,433 - - - 27,433
EMI SFPCE29000 FOSSIL CAPITAL SUSPENSE - EAI 2,828 - - - - - - - - - 2,828
EMI SNPCN30001 Capital Overheads - Grand Gulf - - - - - (21) - - - - (21)
EMI STAF Dev,Coord&Mge Staff Level - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI STPCT60006 EMI Capital Suspense Transmiss - - - - - - 328 - - - 328
EMI STPCTA0527 TRANSMISSION CAPITAL SUSPENSE - - - - - - 27,433 - - - 27,433
EMI STPPTX7900 Texas Trans Capital Suspense - - - - - - - (250) - - (250)
EMI XFAB Provide Plant Office Support 4,874 - - - - - - - - - 4,874
EMI XFAD Manage Genl Plant Operations 563 - - - - - - - - - 563
EMI XFAG Manage Plant Environmental Ops 119 - - - - - - - - - 119
EMI XKAA Provide Maintenance Supervisn 34,390 - - - - - - - - - 34,390
EMI XLAV Repair Other Structures 592 - - - - - - - - - 592
EMI XMAR Repair CEMS Equipment - - - - - - - 1 - - 1
EMI XMCW Maintain Air Preheater System - - - - - - - - - - -
EMI XNAA Maintain Accessory Electric Eq 535 - - - - - - - - - 535
EMI XPAA Maintain Plant Communictn Syst 1,204 - - - - - - - - - 1,204
EMI XQAA Provide Operations Supervision 29,488 - - - - - - - - - 29,488
EMI XVAA Operate & Maintain Fuel Oil Eq - - - - - - - - - 7,374 7,374
2,648,907 70,805 2,653,885 26,760 9,277 32,340 304,709 1,568,632 (15) 7,914 7,323,214

Exhibit SBT-23
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 5 of 5
 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Exhibit SBT-24
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 1 of 5
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ENOI F3PPCPLITG 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EG - - - - 32 - - - 32
ENOI F3PPCPLITL 2009 Fall Lighting Campaign EL - - - - 240 - - - 240
ENOI ATTR Attend Training - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F5PCZUBENF BENEFITS 38 (1,183) 3,466 (141) 214 - - (15) 2,379
ENOI C6PPTLK007 Bhmn-Port Nickel move poles fo - - 182 - - - - - 182
ENOI C6PPTSK199 Bogalusa:Replace Bkr S2520 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F5PPBPOILS BP Oil Spill - - 557 - - - - - 557
ENOI C6DB869549 BR STREET LIGHTS BLITZ - - - - - - - - -
ENOI SDPCM79005 CAP SUSPENSE, DISTR ESI, METRO - - - - - - - - -
ENOI SDPCT30070 CAPITAL SUSPENSE, DISTR WIRES, - - 98,578 - - - - - 98,578
ENOI CUGD Comp&Updt Gas Dist Maps&Prints - 125 - - - - - - 125
ENOI F5PCLIHPPC CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAMS - - - - 1,302 - - - 1,302
ENOI F3PCF99180 CORP. COMPLIANCE TRACKING SYS - - - - 67 - - - 67
ENOI C6DB869749 CUST BR RIVER CENTER GALLERIA - 31,382 - - - - - - 31,382
ENOI C6DB275997 CUST MERAUX W7133 RELOCATE POW - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6DB276157 CUST RE A0313 RELC. OF U/G FAC - - 87 - - - - - 87
ENOI C6DB276199 CUST RE BO516 RELOCATE PORTION - - 25,337 - - - - - 25,337
ENOI F3PCR10360 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F3PPR103LA CUSTOMER ACCT SVCS- LA (L,LG,N - - - - 41 - - - 41
ENOI C6PPMR3827 Cytec; repl. 115 kv arresters - - 81 - - - - - 81
ENOI BDCW Disconn & Reconn El Met-Nonpay - - 183 - - - - - 183
ENOI C6PC249705 DIST EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN ELI - - 207 - - - - - 207
ENOI C6PPDS9971 Dist Wintz New 230/34.5 EGSILA - 2,621 - - - - - - 2,621
ENOI C6PC149020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - 265 - - - - - - - 265
ENOI C6PC249000 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 8,913 - - - - - 8,913
ENOI C6PC249020 DIST. LINES REVENUE BLANKET - - - 3,539 - - - - - 3,539
ENOI C6PC249200 DISTB LINES BLANKET-GOVT MAND. - - 1,207 - - - - - 1,207
ENOI C6PC249103 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-OTHER - - 6,659 - - - - - 6,659
ENOI C6PC249100 DISTB LINES IMP BLANKET-POLE R - - 14,100 - - - - - 14,100
ENOI C6PC349100 DISTB. LINES BLANKET POLE REPL - - - 545 - - - - 545
ENOI F3PCTTDS47 DISTR O&M EXPENSE - LOUISIANA - - - - 1,532 - - - 1,532
ENOI F3PCTDPQ01 DISTR POWER QUALITY ESI - - - - 328 - - - 328
ENOI F3PCTTDS46 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXP - METRO E - - - - 1,460 - - - 1,460
ENOI F3PCTTDS29 DISTRIBUTION O&M EXPENSE -ELI - - - - 952 - - - 952
ENOI C6PC249180 DISTRIBUTION TRUCK STOCK - - 5,410 - - - - - 5,410
ENOI C6PC149104 DL BATCH JOB FOR FAILURE REPLA - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC249104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - 8,103 - - - - - 8,103
ENOI C6PC349104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - - - 2,097 - - - - 2,097
ENOI C6PC849104 DL BATCH JOBS FOR FAILURE REPL - 25,284 - - - - - - 25,284
ENOI C7PPSJ2438 ELI_LA WINTER STORM 3/1 - 3/2/ - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ2456 ELL DIST 08/11/10 TROPICAL DEP - - 167 - - - - - 167
Exhibit SBT-24
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 1 of 5
 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Exhibit SBT-24
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 2 of 5
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ENOI C7PPSJ2475 ELL-LA STORM (5/13 - 5/14/11) - - 1,200 - - - - - 1,200
ENOI C7PPSJ2476 ELL-LA STORM (6/4 - 6/6/11) - - - - 227 - - - 227
ENOI C7PPSJ3180 EMI 02/11/10 Winter Storm Dist - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ3183 EMI 04/24/10 Tornadoes Distr O - - - 316 - - - - 316
ENOI C7PPSJ3198 EMI Storm Distr Ops 1/7/11Wint - - - 6,056 - - - - 6,056
ENOI C7PPSJ3203 EMI Storm Distr Ops 4/15/11 - - - 50,516 - - - - 50,516
ENOI C6PC349705 ENTERGY RENEWAL-EQUIPMENT MAIN - - - 262 - - - - 262
ENOI F5PPZUWELL Entergy Wellness Program - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F3PCT53252 ENVIRN MGMT TRANSMISSION SUPP - - 483 - - - - - 483
ENOI F3PCT53084 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - ELI - - 136,832 - - - - - 136,832
ENOI F3PCFACALL FACILITIES SVCS- ALL COS - - - - 427 - - - 427
ENOI F3PCR73323 FIELD METER READING SUPPORT, A - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PPTL4552 Fund10: L160 Little Gypsy-Madi - - 593 - - - - - 593
ENOI C5PC849600 GAS DISTRIBUTION BLANKET - REV - 101,546 - - - - - - 101,546
ENOI F3PCG10347 GAS DIVISION DIRECTOR - EGSI E - - - - 6,172 - - - 6,172
ENOI F3PCG10345 GAS DIVISION DIRECTOR - ENOI E - - - - 20,901 - - - 20,901
ENOI C5PC449602 GAS FAILURES BLANKET - - - - 35,563 - - - 35,563
ENOI C5PC849603 GAS MANDATED-NON-REIMB - 261 - - - - - - 261
ENOI C6PPBU1076 Hammond- Ckt Switcher Foundati - - 933 - - - - - 933
ENOI C6PPTS6886 Hammond, modify for new 230kV - - 9,872 - - - - - 9,872
ENOI F3PCY30337 HOLIDAY SUBSTATION, LA-SOUTH - - 419 - - - - - 419
ENOI F3PCHRSALL HR SERVICES- ALL COMPANIES - - - - 2,168 - - - 2,168
ENOI C6DB275916 HWY RW X6713 PARADIS: RE-ROUTE - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6DB275878 HWY WK W1924 BELLE CHASSE:RELO - - 420 - - - - - 420
ENOI C7PPSJ1185 ICE STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 01/2 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F5PCZZ4070 IMPACT AWARDS - - 395 - 347 - - - 742
ENOI C6DB276000 IMPROVE G0623 LORANGER -- AM09 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6DB275999 IMPROVE K0521 HAMMOND -- HM10- - - - - - - - - -
ENOI MNRG Inspect, Test & Repair Gas Reg - 4,217 - - - - - - 4,217
ENOI MNLM Inspect,Test& Repair Lg Gas Mt - 24,824 - - - - - - 24,824
ENOI MNSM Inspect,Test&Repair Sm Gas Mt - 13,298 - - - - - - 13,298
ENOI C5DB869728 INSTALL 2105' OF 6" PE & 3142' - 1,342 - - - - - - 1,342
ENOI C6DB167505 INSTALL 500 KVA NETWORK XFMR, - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6DB374677 INSTALL 750AL & #2AL UG, PULLB - - - 20,507 - - - - 20,507
ENOI C5DB869628 INSTALL 8100' - 6" PE / INSTAL - 2,654 - - - - - - 2,654
ENOI F5PPICC000 Integrated Customer Communicat - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6DB276163 INTERNL BURAS: UNDERGROUND PO - - 4,556 - - - - - 4,556
ENOI IRLM Inv/Rep Leaks On Gas Mains - - - - - - - - -
ENOI RTCF Investigate E Servic Diversion - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC249120 JOINT USE - BELL - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC249121 JOINT USE - CABLE - - 763 - - - - - 763
Exhibit SBT-24
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 2 of 5
 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Exhibit SBT-24
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 3 of 5
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ENOI C6PC249124 JOINT USE - OTHER - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PPDG0028 Kast Traing Center for Gas Ops - - 4,290 - - - - - 4,290
ENOI F3PCY30442 LABARRE SUBSTATION (ELI), LA - - - 998 - - - - - 998
ENOI F3PPZG2417 LG2 Auxiliary Outage Repairs ( - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F3PPCPLITN Lighting Campaign ENOI - - - - 5,359 - - - 5,359
ENOI C6PC249105 LOAD RELATED RELIABILITY - - 13,786 - - - - - 13,786
ENOI C6PC349105 LOAD-RELATED RELIABILITY - - - 1,690 - - - - 1,690
ENOI F3PCY30470 LOWER COAST SUBSTATION, LA - S - - 419 - - - - - 419
ENOI XMDH Maint Fuel Oil Tank Farm&Tra E - - 2,902 - - - - - 2,902
ENOI MINV Maint Gas Meter&Regul Records - 2,172 - - - - - - 2,172
ENOI MTGR Maint Gas Meter/Regul Records - 16,229 - - - - - - 16,229
ENOI XNAA Maintain Accessory Electric Eq - - 46 - - - - - 46
ENOI XNBB Maintain Exciter System - - 366 - - - - - 366
ENOI XMDP Maintain Feedwater Treating Sy - - 153 - - - - - 153
ENOI XNAW Maintain Gas Turb Start/Turn S - - 401 - - - - - 401
ENOI XPAC Maintain Lab Instrument/Equip - - 20,017 - - - - - 20,017
ENOI XPAF Maintain Misc Power Plant Eq - - 276 - - - - - 276
ENOI XNAR Maintain Oth Cooling Water Eq - - 51 - - - - - 51
ENOI XMCR Maintain Other Boiler Plant Eq - - 154 - - - - - 154
ENOI XMCD Maintain Safety Valves - - 92 - - - - - 92
ENOI MEDO Manage Electric Distr Ops - - 248 - - - - - 248
ENOI XFAD Manage Genl Plant Operations - - 276 - - - - - 276
ENOI XFAG Manage Plant Environmental Ops - - 97 - - - - - 97
ENOI C5DB869474 MEGA PROJECT-S. HARRELLS FERRY - 6,051 - - - - - - 6,051
ENOI MSST MS ACCTG-DEV, COOR & MNG STAFF - - - - - 1,149 - - 1,149
ENOI F3PCY30585 NINEMILE SUBSTATION, LA-SOUTH - - 58 - - - - - 58
ENOI C6PPRA1316 Ninemile: Replace Line Trap - - 60 - - - - - 60
ENOI C6PPRA1345 Ninemile: Replace OCB S6345 - - 117 - - - - - 117
ENOI C6PPRA1318 Ninemile:Replace CVT Barataria - - 30 - - - - - 30
ENOI F3PPZG2853 NM5 Spring Aux Outage - Elec A - - 391 - - - - - 391
ENOI C6PC249108 NON-MANDATED RELOCATIONS ELL - - 3,947 - - - - - 3,947
ENOI XBAA Operate Boiler Plant - - 56,905 - - - - - 56,905
ENOI F5PCZPTOXX PAID TIME OFF - 457 7,143 8 101 - - 7 7,716
ENOI F3PCY30620 PARIS SUBSTATION, LA-SOUTH - - 109 - - - - - 109
ENOI F5PCZUPRTX PAYROLL TAX (1) (155) (639) (224) (107) - (1) 2 (1,126)
ENOI SAPCPCPLAP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL 20 - - - - - - - 20
ENOI SAPCPCPLLP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - 8,805 - - - - - 8,805
ENOI SAPCPCPLMP PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - - - 2 - - - - 2
ENOI SAPCPCPLGL PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - EGSI - EL - (14) - - - - - - (14)
ENOI SAPCPCPLUG PC&R OVERHEAD POOL - EGSI - GA - (78) - - - - - - (78)
ENOI SAPCP25910 PC&R OVERHEAD POOL CHARGES - - - - - - - - -
Exhibit SBT-24
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 3 of 5
 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Exhibit SBT-24
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 4 of 5
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ENOI CMOH Perf El Dist Corr Mnt O/H Wire - - - - - - - - -
ENOI RIEP Perf El Distr Insp-Priv Light - - - - - - - - -
ENOI MTOF Perf Elec Meter Serv Wk-On/Off - - 242 - - - - - 242
ENOI PUGL Perform Underground Loc Maint - - 1,864 - - - - - 1,864
ENOI PAPM Pick & Pack Materials - 632 - - - - - - 632
ENOI C6PC249107 PRIVATE SECURITY LIGHTING MAIN - - 111,190 - - - - - 111,190
ENOI E1PCT00076 PROCESS LEAKING EQUIPMENT FOR - - 57 - - - - - 57
ENOI C6PPTL7160 Pros-GH-Dest: Mod Lns at Good - - 557 - - - - - 557
ENOI PMSS Provide & Manage Safety Svcs - - 92 - - - - - 92
ENOI GMTS Provide Gas Measuring Tech Sup - - - - - - - - -
ENOI SECR Provide Security Serv-Facilit - - 308 - - - - - 308
ENOI F5PCCSS01L PS ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR LE - - 7,488 - - - - - 7,488
ENOI F5PCCSS04D PS CUST BILL LE - REV DATA INT - - 126 - - - - - 126
ENOI GINP Purc Gen Invent Items-Passport 2,840 132,354 183,044 - - 1,818 - - 320,055
ENOI F3PCF99182 RECORDS MANAGEMENT - - - - 212 - - - 212
ENOI F5PCZFCTRN REGULATD NON-BACKBONE FIBER - - 58 - - - - - 58
ENOI C6PC249170 RELIABILITY PREVENTATIVE MAINT - - 119 - - - - - 119
ENOI XMAR Repair CEMS Equipment - - 92 - - - - - 92
ENOI XLAV Repair Other Structures - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C5DB869821 REPLACE 8" STEEL VALVE - 1,316 - - - - - - 1,316
ENOI RRDD Reread E Metr-DistField-Not CI - - 962 - - - - - 962
ENOI RERD Re-Read Misread Meters - - 178 - - - - - 178
ENOI F3PPREALL2 Residential Market Dev - ALL J - - - - 610 - - - 610
ENOI C6DB275245 REV,RE,A0955,PROVIDE 277/480V - - 446 - - - - - 446
ENOI F3PCR29324 REVENUE ASSURANCE - ADM. - - - - 440 - - - 440
ENOI C6PC249060 REVENUE PRIVATE AREA LIGHTS - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC249050 REVENUE STREET LIGHTS - - - - - - - - -
ENOI ASAB Reward Safe Behavior - - 518 - - - - - 518
ENOI F5PCZY323L ROUTINE SPILL RESPONSE(CS-LP&L - - 8,483 - - - - - 8,483
ENOI F3PCW14172 SAFETY GROUP SERVICES - - - - 522 - - - 522
ENOI F5PPWE0450 Safety Recognition Program - S - - 293 - - - - - 293
ENOI F5PCSAFTEE SAFTEY TRAINING LOADER ELECTRI - - 6,511 - - - - - 6,511
ENOI E1PCR56226 Sales & Mktg - ALL JURIS - - - - 593 - - - 593
ENOI F3PPYSCELI Service Center - ELI - - 1,815 - - - - - 1,815
ENOI F3PCW51400 SFI FUEL OIL O&M - - - - - - - 6,816 6,816
ENOI F3PCTDTR09 SKILLS TRAINING - ENOI ELECTRI - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F3PCTDTR08 SKILLS TRAINING - LOUISIANA EL - - - - 21 - - - 21
ENOI F3PCY30718 SLIDELL SUBSTATION, LA - SOUTH - - 582 - - - - - 582
ENOI F3PC9209X0 SNAKEFARM SUB TO UNIVERSITY CI - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F3PC9146X7 SNAKEFARM SUB.TO PONTCHARTRAIN - - 117 - - - - - 117
ENOI C7PPSJ1196 STORM DL ARK DIST EAI 06/10/09 - - - - - - - - -
Exhibit SBT-24
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 4 of 5
 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Exhibit SBT-24
Affiliate Per Book Billings by Project/Activity 2011 TX Rate Case
For the Twelve Months Ended, June 30, 2011 5 of 5
Amounts in Dollars

Billing
Company Project/Activity Description EAI EGSLA ELL EMI ESI ETI SERI SFI TOTAL
ENOI C7PPSJ1250 STORM DL EAI DIST 4/19/11-4/24 111,274 - - - - - - - 111,274
ENOI C7PPSJ2432 STORM DMG ELI 1/4 - 1/5/10 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ2443 STORM DMG ELI 5/1 thru 5/3/10 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ2458 STORM DMG ELL 8/22/10 THRU 8/ - - 93 - - - - - 93
ENOI C7PPSJ2474 STORM Dmg ELL 4/25 to 4/27/11 - - 192,784 - - - - - 192,784
ENOI C7PPSJ2450 STORM DMG ELL 6/3/10 TO 6/6/10 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ2455 STORM DMG ELL 8-4 THRU 8-5-10 - - 959 - - - - - 959
ENOI C7PPSJ2463 STORM DMG LA 2-1-11 - - 36,775 - 120 - - - 36,895
ENOI C7PPSJ2468 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL (3/8 -3 - - 2,555 - 222 - - - 2,777
ENOI C7PPSJ2462 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 1/8/11 I - - 60,920 - - - - - 60,920
ENOI C7PPSJ2470 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL 4 4 - 4 - - 23,496 - - - - - 23,496
ENOI C7PPSJ2469 STORM DMG LA DIST ELL ISS 3/30 - - 29,929 - - - - - 29,929
ENOI C7PPSJ2467 STORM DMG LA DIST ISSUED 3/6/1 - - 278 - - - - - 278
ENOI C7PPSJ2435 STORM DMG LA ELI 1/20 - 1/21/1 - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C7PPSJ2437 Storm dmg La ELI 2 12 10 Snow - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC249106 STREET LIGHTING MAINT BLANKET - - 290,099 - - - - - 290,099
ENOI F5PCSCMMOM SUPPLY CHAIN MATERIALS MGMNT O - - 2,347 - - - - - 2,347
ENOI C6PC249703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC349703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PC849703 TACTICS: TARGET LINE DEVICES - 174 - - - - - - 174
ENOI C6PC249708 TACTICS: TARGETED CIRCUITS/FEE - - - - - - - - -
ENOI F5PCZZ4040 TEAMSHARE INCENTIVE COMPENSATI 2 1,306 1,297 18 334 - 2 7 2,966
ENOI TMET Test Electric Meters In Field - - 916 - - - - - 916
ENOI C7PPSJ1251 TORNADOES DL EAI DIST 4/25/11 33,009 - - - - - - - 33,009
ENOI F3PCTDDS24 TRANSPORTATION- ELI - - - - 135 - - - 135
ENOI TEDP Troubleshoot El Dist Prob-Cust - - 1,212 - - - - - 1,212
ENOI F5PCZFVMAC VOICE & VIDEO MOVES ADDS CHANG - - - - 276 - - - 276
ENOI F3PPZG1876 WF1 Auxiliary Outage - - - - - - - - -
ENOI C6PPTSK281 Willow Glen: Replace Breakers - 53,072 - - - - - - 53,072
ENOI C7PPSJ1214 WINTER STORM DL EAI DIST 01/26 166 - - - - - - - 166
ENOI C7PPSJ8409 WINTER STORM DMG LA 2/3 TO 2/5 - 12,991 - - - - - - 12,991
147,612 432,878 1,423,534 81,652 80,813 2,967 1 6,816 2,176,273

Exhibit SBT-24
2011 TX Rate Case
Amounts may not add or tie to other schedules due to rounding. 5 of 5