ETREntergy
Entergy’s business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to successfully implement its business strategy and affect its financial results. 10-K, Item 1
- Headquarters
- New Orleans, LA
- Next results
- around Feb 11, 2027
8 paragraphs in Risk Factors of the 10-K filed Feb 19, 2026 with nothing like them in the 10-K filed Feb 18, 2025. Quoted exactly. Paragraphs that were only edited are under 10-K change.
Compared with the Risk Factors in the latest 10-K of the other 30 Utilities companies: a paragraph with at least half its words the same at another company is called similar, and the companies are listed under it. A paragraph most of them have is marked boilerplate. No line means no other company has one like it. This counts text; it does not say how serious a risk is.
Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil
Read in the 10-K ↗
leverage. Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy, the Utility operating companies, and System Energy, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.
Similar paragraph at 1 of 30 other Utilities companies: PPLRead in the 10-K ↗
customers of the Utility operating companies, and disruption of the operations of Entergy’s subsidiaries, due to, among other things:
Read in the 10-K ↗
could result in unintended consequences not yet identified that could have a material adverse impact on Entergy’s financial results and future cash flows.
Read in the 10-K ↗
The above risks are heightened by the number and size of the capital projects that Entergy and the Utility operating companies currently plan to undertake to serve load growth driven primarily by large-scale data centers.
Read in the 10-K ↗
including the Utility operating companies and System Energy, have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance. To the extent that any such changes in law or regulation impact data centers or facilities that power data centers, these risks may be heightened by Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ increasing reliance on large-scale data center customers for revenue and load growth.
Read in the 10-K ↗
Entergy and its subsidiaries have in the past, and may in the future, enter into financial arrangements that are subject to variable interest rates and transactions to hedge variable interest rate risk associated with such financing arrangements, such as interest rate swaps, caps or collars. Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ use of such hedging strategies may not be effective and may adversely affect their business, results of operations, or financial position. Furthermore, no hedging strategy can completely mitigate exposure to variable interest rate risk, and such strategies may limit Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to participate in the benefits of lower interest rates. Entergy cannot predict the outcome or effectiveness of such hedging strategies to mitigate this risk.
Read in the 10-K ↗
small number of large-scale data center customers which makes recovery of Entergy’s significant investments in transmission and generation assets to power those new large-scale data centers subject to a significant degree to the success of those customers. The contractual and credit and collateral protections included in the agreements with these customers may prove insufficient to protect Entergy under certain circumstances, such as in the event of a bankruptcy of the customer or a guarantor of its obligations. If any such customer is unable to fulfill its contractual obligations, there is a risk that the associated Utility operating company may not be able to fully recover its investment in and/or a return on those assets or meet its debt obligations.
Read in the 10-K ↗
New in the latest 10-Q
99 paragraphs in the 10-Q filed Nov 2, 2026 with nothing like them in the 10-Q filed Jul 31, 2026 (at least half the words must differ; new numbers alone do not count). Quoted exactly, grouped by the item heading above them. This is text that changed, not a judgement of how serious it is.
10-Q
• an increase in formula rate plan rates effective September 2026, a decrease in formula rate plan revenues for a two-month period beginning September 2025 resulting from earnings above the authorized return on common equity for the 2024 test year, and increases in the resilience plan cost recovery rider effective March 2026 and September 2026, each at Entergy Louisiana;
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The purchased power agreement termination proceeds variance represents $15 million of liquidated damages recognized by Entergy Mississippi in third quarter 2025 resulting from a counterparty’s termination of a purchased power agreement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
10-Q
• an increase in formula rate plan rates effective September 2026, a decrease in formula rate plan revenues for a two-month period beginning September 2025 resulting from earnings above the authorized return on common equity for the 2024 test year, and increases in the resilience plan cost recovery rider effective March 2025, March 2026, and September 2026, each at Entergy Louisiana;
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The purchased power agreement termination proceeds variance represents $15 million of liquidated damages recognized by Entergy Mississippi in third quarter 2025 resulting from a counterparty’s termination of a purchased power agreement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• $19 million of unrecovered capacity cost charges in 2026, at Entergy Texas, under a new short-term, one-year power purchase agreement beginning in June 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Other income (deductions) increased primarily due to a decrease of $14 million in the amount of the elimination for consolidation purposes of intercompany dividend income from affiliated preferred membership interests, as discussed above.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
In October 2026, Entergy Mississippi filed a petition with the MPSC requesting an electric utility financing order authorizing the Mississippi State Bond Commission to act as the issuing agent for the State of Mississippi to issue system restoration bonds, the proceeds of which would be used by Entergy Mississippi to securitize approximately $237.8 million in total Winter Storm Fern system restoration costs, consisting of $145.7 million in non-fuel system restoration costs, $65.0 million in incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern, $7.6 million in retired damaged assets, $14.3 million in carrying costs estimated through the date of bond issuance, and $5.2 million in bond issuance costs and financing costs. Within the petition, Entergy Mississippi also requested that the MPSC find that the non-fuel system restoration costs and incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern were prudently incurred. The MPSC is expected to rule on the petition in December 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Louisiana entered a build-to-suit lease arrangement for the Waterford 6 Power Station as the lessee with a consortium of investors (the Investors). Under the terms of the arrangement, the Investors purchased the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station construction project from Entergy Louisiana at a cost of $167.5 million and will spend up to $1.875 billion (including the initial purchase price) to construct the Waterford 6 project as designed by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana is engaged to serve as the construction agent for the Waterford 6 Power Station project. The Investors, however, control the asset during construction. If Entergy Louisiana defaults in its role as construction agent, the Investors have various options available to remedy the default, including the replacement of Entergy Louisiana as construction agent, the acceleration of the lease balance payable by Entergy Louisiana, causing a sale of the Waterford 6 Power Station project to a third party, and certain other options. If the LPSC rejects the Waterford 6 Power Station project or certain other circumstances occur that are outside of Entergy Louisiana’s control, then either the Investors or Entergy Louisiana could exercise the right to terminate the arrangement, in which case Entergy Louisiana would be required to purchase the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station project from the Investors at an amount equal to their costs incurred to date, including carrying costs. Because Entergy Louisiana does not control the in-process construction project, it will not recognize the asset (i.e., construction work in progress) or an associated liability during construction.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
10-Q
Upon the Waterford 6 Power Station’s readiness for first synchronization to the grid, expected in late 2029, a triple-net lease will commence under which Entergy Louisiana will have control of the Waterford 6 Power Station
Read in the 10-Q ↗
and receive all output from the plant. The initial term of the lease will end seven years from the closing of the arrangement, or approximately four years after the Waterford 6 Power Station’s expected readiness for first synchronization to the grid. The lease cost will be equal to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate plus a margin which is based on the credit rating of Entergy Louisiana, multiplied by the total costs (including carrying costs) incurred by the Investors as of the commencement of the lease. Entergy Louisiana will have the option to purchase the Waterford 6 Power Station at any time during the lease term at a price equal to the total cost of the plant to the Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors. If the purchase price option is exercised within two years of commencement of the triple-net lease, Entergy Louisiana must enter into a secured note payable to the Investors for the amount of the purchase price. The note payable would be due at the end of the initial lease term, but may be prepaid at any time beginning two years after the commencement date of the lease. The note will be secured by the Waterford 6 Power Station and related equipment and collateral.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
At the end of the initial lease term, Entergy Louisiana must exercise one of the following options: (1) renew the lease for an additional five year term, subject to unanimous consent of the Investors; (2) purchase the plant at a price equal to the total cost of the plant to Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors; or (3) sell the plant on behalf of the Investors. If Entergy Louisiana chooses the third option, then it will owe or be owed any difference between the total cost of the plant to Investors and the sale price.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Solar, Traceview Advanced Power Station, Vicksburg Advanced Power Station, Lone Star Power Station, Legend Power Station, battery energy storage systems, and potential construction of additional generation;
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of business restructuring, regulatory constraints and requirements, governmental policies and actions, including trade-related governmental actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including recent Executive Order 14421 relating to protecting United States bulk-power systems from foreign actors (Executive Order 14421) and the August 6, 2026 proclamation issued under Section 232 relating to minimum import prices and tariffs for polysilicon and certain derivative products (the Section 232 Proclamation), environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital, including any changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies. Entergy is not able to predict the effect of potential changes in regulation and law, changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies, and governmental policies and actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including Executive Order 14421 and the Section 232 Proclamation, on its current and planned capital projects, including project delays, modifications, and cost increases.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of a long-term special rate contract between Altitude Capital, LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Google) and Entergy Arkansas for the sale of electricity to a new large-scale data center in West Memphis, Arkansas. In December 2025 the APSC issued an order approving the special rate contract but denying the requested ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments and deferring a decision on the treatment under the contract pricing providing for the deferral and amortization of the investment tax credits from the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility (discussed below). Also in December 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC regarding these findings, noting that they would require renegotiation of the special rate contract. In January 2026 the APSC issued an order maintaining its position on the ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments but reversing itself on the treatment of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility investment tax credits and allowing those to be used in the pricing of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility to Google as provided for in the contract. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed for approval of an amendment to the special rate contract regarding the expansion and acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. Subject to APSC approval, investments proposed under the amended contract included a 250 MW battery energy storage system to be located at the Driver Solar facility in Mississippi County, Arkansas (Driver Solar battery energy storage system), a 100 MW battery energy storage system to be located adjacent to the existing Arklahoma substation near the in-progress Ironwood Power Station in Hot Spring County, Arkansas (Jones Mill battery energy storage system), a 440 MW solar power purchase agreement from the Big Island Solar facility, and related transmission upgrades and facilities. A procedural schedule has been set with a hearing scheduled for January 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system and the Jones Mill battery energy storage system. The battery energy storage systems are being developed to help support the expansion and acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. The estimated cost of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system is $389.4 million, and the estimated cost of the Jones Mill battery energy storage system is $161.2 million. Pending receipt of APSC approval, each battery energy storage system is expected to be in service in 2028.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In August 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of convenience and necessity or, in the alternative, a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the conversion of White Bluff Unit 1 to operate on natural gas. White Bluff Unit 1 is one of two coal-burning generating units at the White Bluff Steam Electric Station facility, which provides dispatchable capacity of approximately 1,659 MW. The estimated cost of the project is $301.3 million, which Entergy Arkansas proposes to recover through the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act rider. In September 2026 the APSC general staff filed testimony opposing the conversion, criticizing Entergy Arkansas’s demonstration of need and asserting that a prior APSC order required Entergy Arkansas to have performed a market test on the conversion. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion seeking a declaratory order to gain procedural clarity from the APSC regarding the interpretation of its prior order. In October 2026 the APSC found Entergy Arkansas’s interpretation of the prior order to be correct and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion for declaratory order. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony addressing the APSC general staff’s recommendations and misinterpretation of key forecast and modeling information. The APSC general staff’s surrebuttal testimony was filed in October 2026. Pending receipt of APSC approval, construction is expected to begin in 2028 and continue through mid 2029.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
10-Q
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2025, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to amend Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate a new single-circuit 500 kV transmission line. The transmission line is expected to be approximately 40 to 49 miles in length and the estimated cost of the project ranges from $392.7 million to $436.2 million, depending on the route ultimately approved by the PUCT. In June 2025 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings and a hearing on the merits was held in August 2025. In October 2025 the ALJs with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a proposal for decision recommending the PUCT approve Entergy Texas’s application to construct the transmission line and recommending the PUCT’s approval include selection of a specific route with an estimated cost of $398.7 million. In December 2025 the PUCT issued a final order approving the requested amendment to Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate the new single-circuit 500 kV transmission line, and selecting the final route previously recommended. In February 2026, landowners not party to the PUCT proceeding filed in the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas a petition for declaratory relief and temporary and permanent injunction against the PUCT’s final order. The petition, which names the PUCT, its commissioners, and Entergy Texas as defendants, challenges Entergy Texas’s notice, the application of the PUCT’s notice rule, and the PUCT order’s approval of a route the petitioners assert was not adequately noticed. In March 2026, Entergy Texas and the PUCT filed answers disputing all aspects of the petition. In April 2026 petitioners filed an amended petition with minor adjustments to their original petition. In May 2026 petitioners filed a supplemental application for temporary injunction and opposition to pleas to the jurisdiction in response to jurisdictional defenses raised in the answers filed by Entergy Texas and the PUCT. In June 2026 the
Read in the 10-Q ↗
court set a hearing for July 2026 on petitioners’ requested temporary injunction and any pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment. In June 2026 the PUCT filed its plea to the jurisdiction. In June 2026 petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment and Entergy Texas filed an amended answer addressing the amended petition, a plea to the jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. In July 2026 the court issued a written order granting Entergy Texas’s and the PUCT’s pleas to the jurisdiction and, in the alternative, Entergy Texas’s motion for summary judgment. In August 2026 petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. In October 2026 the appellate record was filed with the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, triggering a 30-day deadline for the appellants to file a brief on the merits. Also in October 2026, the appellants filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that Entergy Texas be restrained from exercising eminent domain and construction activities on the appellants’ properties. Entergy Texas expects to respond in opposition to the motion for temporary relief by the November 2026 deadline established by the court. Subject to receipt of required permits and other conditions, the project is expected to be in service by the end of 2028.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Louisiana entered a build-to-suit lease arrangement for the Waterford 6 Power Station as the lessee with a consortium of investors (the Investors). Under the terms of the arrangement, the Investors purchased the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station construction project from Entergy Louisiana at a cost of $ 167.5 million and will spend up to $ 1.875 billion (including the initial purchase price) to construct the Waterford 6 project as designed by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana is engaged to serve as the construction agent for the Waterford 6 Power Station project. The Investors, however, control the asset during construction. If Entergy Louisiana defaults in its role as construction agent, the Investors have various options available to remedy the default, including the replacement of Entergy Louisiana as construction agent, the acceleration of the lease balance payable by Entergy Louisiana, causing a sale of the Waterford 6 Power Station project to a third party, and certain other options. If the LPSC rejects the Waterford 6 Power Station project or certain other circumstances occur that are outside of Entergy Louisiana’s control, then either the Investors or Entergy Louisiana could exercise the right to terminate the arrangement, in which case Entergy Louisiana would be required to purchase the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station project from the Investors at an amount equal to their costs incurred to date, including carrying costs. Because Entergy Louisiana does not control the in-process construction project, it will not recognize the asset (i.e., construction work in progress) or an associated liability during construction.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
Upon the Waterford 6 Power Station’s readiness for first synchronization to the grid, expected in late 2029, a triple-net lease will commence under which Entergy Louisiana will have control of the Waterford 6 Power Station and receive all output from the plant. The initial term of the lease will end seven years from the closing of the arrangement, or approximately four years after the Waterford 6 Power Station’s expected readiness for first synchronization to the grid. The lease cost will be equal to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate plus a margin which is based on the credit rating of Entergy Louisiana, multiplied by the total costs (including carrying costs) incurred by the Investors as of the commencement of the lease. Entergy Louisiana will have the option to purchase the Waterford 6 Power Station at any time during the lease term at a price equal to the total cost of the plant to the Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors. If the purchase price option is exercised within two years of commencement of the triple-net lease, Entergy Louisiana must enter into a secured note payable to the Investors for the amount of the purchase price. The note payable would be due at the end of the initial lease term, but may be prepaid at any time beginning two years after the commencement date of the lease. The note will be secured by the Waterford 6 Power Station and related equipment and collateral.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
10-Q
At the end of the initial lease term, Entergy Louisiana must exercise one of the following options: (1) renew the lease for an additional five year term, subject to unanimous consent of the Investors; (2) purchase the plant at a price equal to the total cost of the plant to Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors; or (3)
Read in the 10-Q ↗
sell the plant on behalf of the Investors. If Entergy Louisiana chooses the third option, then it will owe or be owed any difference between the total cost of the plant to Investors and the sale price.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In September 2026, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2024 through March 2026. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $ 1.2 billion in eligible fuel and purchased power expenses to generate and purchase electricity to serve its customers, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas’s cumulative over-recovery balance for the reconciliation period was approximately $ 90.1 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as part of the cumulative fuel balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In June 2026, Entergy Texas filed an application for PUCT pre-approval of a long-term 14-year PPA for 300 MW of capacity and energy from the Tenaska Frontier Generating Station, an 830 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbine plant in Grimes County, Texas. As a result of accelerated load growth in Texas and other factors in Entergy Texas’s service territory, Entergy Texas has a significant near- and long-term need for capacity and energy to serve its customers. Within the application, Entergy Texas requested the PUCT find that the PPA will satisfy Entergy Texas’s identified reliability needs in allowing for cost recovery of the associated purchased power. The 14-year PPA has a total estimated cost of $ 883 million. In September 2026 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits scheduled in October 2026. In October 2026, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a joint motion to abate the procedural schedule noting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved the joint motion to allow the parties time to finalize the settlement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of a long-term special rate contract between Altitude Capital, LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Google) and Entergy Arkansas for the sale of electricity to a new large-scale data center in West Memphis, Arkansas. In December 2025 the APSC issued an order approving the special rate contract but denying the requested ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments and deferring a decision on the treatment under the contract pricing providing for the deferral and amortization of the investment tax credits from the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility (discussed below). Also in December 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC regarding these findings, noting that they would require renegotiation of the special rate contract. In January 2026 the APSC issued an order maintaining its position on the ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments but reversing itself on the treatment of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility investment tax credits and allowing those to be used in the pricing of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility to Google as provided for in the contract. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed for approval of an amendment to the special rate contract regarding the expansion and acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. Subject to APSC approval, investments proposed under the amended contract included a 250 MW battery energy storage system to be located at the Driver Solar facility in Mississippi County, Arkansas (Driver Solar battery energy storage system), a 100 MW battery energy storage system to be located adjacent to the existing Arklahoma substation near the in-progress Ironwood Power Station in Hot Spring County, Arkansas (Jones Mill battery energy storage system), a 440 MW solar power purchase agreement from the Big Island Solar facility, and related transmission upgrades and facilities. A procedural schedule has been set with a hearing scheduled for January 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system and the Jones Mill battery energy storage system. The battery energy storage systems are being developed to help support the expansion and acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. The estimated cost of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system is $ 389.4 million, and the estimated cost of the Jones Mill battery energy storage system is $ 161.2 million. Pending receipt of APSC approval, each battery energy storage system is expected to be in service in 2028.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In September 2026, Entergy Louisiana filed an application for the LPSC’s approval of Phase IA of Entergy Louisiana’s Future Ready resilience plan, which consists of additional distribution and transmission hardening projects representing approximately $ 600 million of investment to be completed over the period 2027 to 2030. The application seeks LPSC approval to extend the previously-approved Phase I of Entergy Louisiana’s Future Ready resilience plan with these additional projects to further improve the resilience of Entergy Louisiana’s electric system and further seeks approval to continue to use the resilience plan cost recovery rider to recover the costs of the plan from customers. The primary purpose of Phase IA is to serve as a bridge between Phase I, which is currently expected to conclude by 2028, and a Phase II plan, which Entergy Louisiana expects to develop in accordance with guidance from the LPSC that is expected to be issued in the LPSC’s ongoing resiliency rulemaking docket. Discovery is ongoing. In October 2026 a procedural schedule was established that provides for a hearing in June 2027. Entergy Louisiana has requested an LPSC decision by July 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
Resilience and Storm Hardening Cost Recovery Rider Adjustment to the Formula Rate Plan
Read in the 10-Q ↗
10-Q
In October 2024 the City Council approved a rider mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover the costs of certain approved accelerated resilience projects to be constructed by Entergy New Orleans in 2025 and 2026. The rider allows for recovery of project costs through a formula rate plan rate adjustment. As required by the rider, in November 2024, Entergy New Orleans filed the first of its compliance filings, seeking a rate adjustment increase of approximately $ 1.1 million, and the increase in formula rate plan rates became effective in the first billing cycle of January 2025 in accordance with the terms of the rider. In October 2025, Entergy New Orleans made its second compliance filing, seeking a rate adjustment increase of approximately $ 11.8 million, and the increase in formula rate plan rates became effective in the first billing cycle of January 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Mississippi filed a petition with the MPSC requesting an electric utility financing order authorizing the Mississippi State Bond Commission to act as the issuing agent for the State of Mississippi to issue system restoration bonds, the proceeds of which would be used by Entergy Mississippi to securitize approximately $ 237.8 million in total Winter Storm Fern system restoration costs, consisting of $ 145.7 million in non-fuel system restoration costs, $ 65.0 million in incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern, $ 7.6 million in retired damaged assets, $ 14.3 million in carrying costs estimated through the date of bond issuance, and $ 5.2 million in bond issuance costs and financing costs. Within the petition, Entergy Mississippi also requested that the MPSC find that the non-fuel system restoration costs and incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern were prudently incurred. The MPSC is expected to rule on the petition in December 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In August 2026, Entergy Corporation issued $ 750 million of junior subordinated debentures due December 2056 (Series 2026A junior subordinated debentures) and $ 750 million of junior subordinated debentures due December 2058 (Series 2026B junior subordinated debentures). Entergy Corporation will pay interest at an annual rate of 6.500 % through December 14, 2036 for the Series 2026A junior subordinated debentures and through December 14, 2033 for the Series 2026B junior subordinated debentures. Commencing on December 15, 2036 for the Series 2026A junior subordinated debentures and on December 15, 2033 for the Series 2026B junior subordinated debentures, the annual rate will equal the five-year treasury rate as of the most recent reset interest determination date plus 1.877 % for the Series 2026A junior subordinated debentures and 2.030 % for the 2026B junior subordinated debentures. Entergy Corporation used the proceeds to repay a portion of its outstanding commercial paper, to repay, at maturity, its $ 750 million of 2.95 % senior notes due September 2026, and for general corporate purposes.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Interest cost on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO) 9,597 9,447
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries anticipate the resolution of the IRS audit of the 2019 through 2021 tax years and expect to record the effects of the adjustments associated with such audit by the end of 2026 or in early 2027. As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, the resolution of audit issues could result in significant changes to the amounts of unrecognized tax benefits. Entergy may file amended income tax returns for post-2021 tax years, as considered necessary, depending on the outcome of the 2019-2021 IRS audit.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Controls and procedures
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Taxes other than income taxes decreased primarily due to an increase in ad valorem tax accruals for the 2025 tax year as a result of updated tax rates received in third quarter 2025.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy Arkansas is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of a long-term special rate contract between Altitude Capital, LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Google) and Entergy Arkansas for the sale of electricity to a new large-scale data center in West Memphis, Arkansas. In December 2025 the APSC issued an order approving the special rate contract but denying the requested ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments and deferring a decision on the treatment under the contract pricing providing for the deferral and amortization of the investment tax credits from the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility (discussed below). Also in December 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC regarding these findings, noting that they would require renegotiation of the special rate contract. In January 2026 the APSC issued an order maintaining its position on the ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments but reversing itself on the treatment of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility investment tax credits and allowing those to be used in the pricing of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility to Google as provided for in the contract. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed for approval of an amendment to the special rate contract regarding the expansion and
Read in the 10-Q ↗
acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. Subject to APSC approval, investments proposed under the amended contract included a 250 MW battery energy storage system to be located at the Driver Solar facility in Mississippi County, Arkansas (Driver Solar battery energy storage system), a 100 MW battery energy storage system to be located adjacent to the existing Arklahoma substation near the in-progress Ironwood Power Station in Hot Spring County, Arkansas (Jones Mill battery energy storage system), a 440 MW solar power purchase agreement from the Big Island Solar facility, and related transmission upgrades and facilities. A procedural schedule has been set with a hearing scheduled for January 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system and the Jones Mill battery energy storage system. The battery energy storage systems are being developed to help support the expansion and acceleration of Google’s project in West Memphis. The estimated cost of the Driver Solar battery energy storage system is $389.4 million, and the estimated cost of the Jones Mill battery energy storage system is $161.2 million. Pending receipt of APSC approval, each battery energy storage system is expected to be in service in 2028.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In August 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of convenience and necessity or, in the alternative, a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the conversion of White Bluff Unit 1 to operate on natural gas. White Bluff Unit 1 is one of two coal-burning generating units at the White Bluff Steam Electric Station facility, which provides dispatchable capacity of approximately 1,659 MW. The estimated cost of the project is $301.3 million, which Entergy Arkansas proposes to recover through the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act rider. In September 2026 the APSC general staff filed testimony opposing the conversion, criticizing Entergy Arkansas’s demonstration of need and asserting that a prior APSC order required Entergy Arkansas to have performed a market test on the conversion. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion seeking a declaratory order to gain procedural clarity from the APSC regarding the interpretation of its prior order. In October 2026 the APSC found Entergy Arkansas’s interpretation of the prior order to be correct and granted Entergy Arkansas’s motion for declaratory order. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony addressing the APSC general staff’s recommendations and misinterpretation of key forecast and modeling information. The APSC general staff’s surrebuttal testimony was filed in October 2026. Pending receipt of APSC approval, construction is expected to begin in 2028 and continue through mid 2029.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
collected from customers during the 2025 rate effective period. In October 2026, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff filed a joint motion requesting to cancel the hearing scheduled for November 2026, and, as there are no contested issues between the parties to the proceeding, requesting the APSC decide this matter consistent with the pleadings and testimony in the record.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• a decrease in formula rate plan revenues for a two-month period beginning September 2025 resulting from earnings above the authorized return on common equity for the 2024 test year; and
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• a decrease in formula rate plan revenues for a two-month period beginning September 2025 resulting from earnings above the authorized return on common equity for the 2024 test year; and
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• payments totaling $41.4 million to Entergy Texas for the transfer of assets related to the Segno Solar and Votaw Solar facilities to Entergy Louisiana in 2025;
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy Louisiana is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Louisiana entered a build-to-suit lease arrangement for the Waterford 6 Power Station as the lessee with a consortium of investors (the Investors). Under the terms of the arrangement, the Investors purchased the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station construction project from Entergy Louisiana at a cost of $167.5 million and will spend up to $1.875 billion (including the initial purchase price) to construct the Waterford 6 project as designed by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana is engaged to serve as the construction agent for the Waterford 6 Power Station project. The Investors, however, control the asset during construction. If Entergy Louisiana defaults in its role as construction agent, the Investors have various options available to remedy the default, including the replacement of Entergy Louisiana as construction agent, the acceleration of the lease balance payable by Entergy Louisiana, causing a sale of the Waterford 6 Power Station project to a third party, and certain other options. If the LPSC rejects the Waterford 6 Power Station project or certain other circumstances occur that are outside of Entergy Louisiana’s control, then either the Investors or Entergy Louisiana could exercise the right to terminate the arrangement, in which case Entergy Louisiana would be required to purchase the in-process Waterford 6 Power Station project from the Investors at an amount equal to their costs incurred to date, including carrying costs. Because Entergy Louisiana does not control the in-process construction project, it will not recognize the asset (i.e., construction work in progress) or an associated liability during construction.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Upon the Waterford 6 Power Station’s readiness for first synchronization to the grid, expected in late 2029, a triple-net lease will commence under which Entergy Louisiana will have control of the Waterford 6 Power Station and receive all output from the plant. The initial term of the lease will end seven years from the closing of the arrangement, or approximately four years after the Waterford 6 Power Station’s expected readiness for first synchronization to the grid. The lease cost will be equal to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate plus a margin which is based on the credit rating of Entergy Louisiana, multiplied by the total costs (including carrying costs) incurred by the Investors as of the commencement of the lease. Entergy Louisiana will have the option to purchase the Waterford 6 Power Station at any time during the lease term at a price equal to the total cost of the plant to the Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors. If the purchase price option is exercised within two years of commencement of the triple-net lease, Entergy Louisiana must enter into a secured note payable to the Investors for the amount of the purchase price. The note payable would be due at the end of the initial lease term, but may be prepaid at any time beginning two years after the commencement date of the lease. The note will be secured by the Waterford 6 Power Station and related equipment and collateral.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
At the end of the initial lease term, Entergy Louisiana must exercise one of the following options: (1) renew the lease for an additional five year term, subject to unanimous consent of the Investors; (2) purchase the plant at a
Read in the 10-Q ↗
price equal to the total cost of the plant to Investors, plus any fees and carrying charges owed to the Investors; or (3) sell the plant on behalf of the Investors. If Entergy Louisiana chooses the third option, then it will owe or be owed any difference between the total cost of the plant to Investors and the sale price.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In September 2026, Entergy Louisiana filed an application for the LPSC’s approval of Phase IA of Entergy Louisiana’s Future Ready resilience plan, which consists of additional distribution and transmission hardening
Read in the 10-Q ↗
projects representing approximately $600 million of investment to be completed over the period 2027 to 2030. The application seeks LPSC approval to extend the previously-approved Phase I of Entergy Louisiana’s Future Ready resilience plan with these additional projects to further improve the resilience of Entergy Louisiana’s electric system and further seeks approval to continue to use the resilience plan cost recovery rider to recover the costs of the plan from customers. The primary purpose of Phase IA is to serve as a bridge between Phase I, which is currently expected to conclude by 2028, and a Phase II plan, which Entergy Louisiana expects to develop in accordance with guidance from the LPSC that is expected to be issued in the LPSC’s ongoing resiliency rulemaking docket. Discovery is ongoing. In October 2026 a procedural schedule was established that provides for a hearing in June 2027. Entergy Louisiana has requested an LPSC decision by July 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The purchased power agreement termination proceeds variance represents $15 million of liquidated damages recognized in third quarter 2025 resulting from a counterparty’s termination of a purchased power agreement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The purchased power agreement termination proceeds variance represents $15 million of liquidated damages recognized in third quarter 2025 resulting from a counterparty’s termination of a purchased power agreement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• higher ad valorem tax payments as a result of increased assessments in 2026; and
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• the receipt of a $15 million liquidated damages payment in third quarter 2025 resulting from a counterparty’s termination of a purchased power agreement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy Mississippi is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026, Entergy Mississippi filed a petition with the MPSC requesting an electric utility financing order authorizing the Mississippi State Bond Commission to act as the issuing agent for the State of Mississippi to issue system restoration bonds, the proceeds of which would be used by Entergy Mississippi to securitize approximately $237.8 million in total Winter Storm Fern system restoration costs, consisting of $145.7 million in non-fuel system restoration costs, $65.0 million in incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern, $7.6 million in retired damaged assets, $14.3 million in carrying costs estimated through the date of bond issuance, and $5.2 million in bond issuance costs and financing costs. Within the petition, Entergy Mississippi also requested that the MPSC find that the non-fuel system restoration costs and incremental fuel costs attributable to Winter Storm Fern were prudently incurred. The MPSC is expected to rule on the petition in December 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the capital plan for Entergy New Orleans includes distribution and Utility support spending to improve reliability, resilience, and customer experience; transmission spending to improve reliability and resilience; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, governmental policies and actions, including trade-related governmental actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including Executive Order 14421 and the Section 232 Proclamation, environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital, including any changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies. Entergy New Orleans is not able to predict the effect of potential changes in regulation and law, changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies, and governmental policies and actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including Executive Order 14421 and the Section 232 Proclamation, on its current and planned capital projects, including project delays, modifications, and cost increases.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Resilience and Storm Hardening Cost Recovery Rider Adjustment to the Formula Rate Plan
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2024 the City Council approved a rider mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover the costs of certain approved accelerated resilience projects to be constructed by Entergy New Orleans in 2025 and 2026. The rider allows for recovery of project costs through a formula rate plan rate adjustment. As required by the rider, in November 2024, Entergy New Orleans filed the first of its compliance filings, seeking a rate adjustment increase of approximately $1.1 million, and the increase in formula rate plan rates became effective in the first billing cycle of January 2025 in accordance with the terms of the rider. In October 2025, Entergy New Orleans made its second compliance filing, seeking a rate adjustment increase of approximately $11.8 million, and the increase in formula rate plan rates became effective in the first billing cycle of January 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
An intervenor in the proceeding challenged the plan submitted by Entergy New Orleans and sought additional incentives for participating customers, including accelerated use of the credits. In July 2026 certain stakeholders submitted comments in support of that intervenor’s position. In August 2026 the City Council’s advisors issued a report that, among other things, summarized the parties’ positions and identified various issues for determination by the City Council.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In October 2026 the City Council approved a resolution that increased the amount of upfront incentives for participating customers and did not clearly address the total cost of ongoing customer incentives, such that all incentives and costs associated with the program could exceed the credits from the System Energy settlement, in which case incremental costs would have to be borne more broadly by customers through rates, including those customers who do not participate in the program. Pursuant to the resolution, Entergy New Orleans expects to submit an implementation plan to the City Council in November 2026, providing for implementation by the end of first quarter 2027. The resolution further directs Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors to collaborate to develop certain protections for customers participating in the program and to report to the City Council on such efforts in November 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• $14.6 million of unrecovered capacity cost charges in 2026 under a new short-term, one-year power purchase agreement beginning in June 2026; and
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
• $19.4 million of unrecovered capacity cost charges in 2026 under a new short-term, one-year power purchase agreement beginning in June 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Entergy Texas is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2025, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to amend Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate a new single-circuit 500 kV transmission line. The transmission line is expected to be approximately 40 to 49 miles in length and the estimated cost of the project ranges from $392.7 million to $436.2 million, depending on the route ultimately approved by the PUCT. In June 2025 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings and a hearing on the merits was held in August 2025. In October 2025 the ALJs with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a proposal for decision recommending the PUCT approve Entergy Texas’s application to construct the transmission line and recommending the PUCT’s approval include selection of a specific route with an estimated cost of $398.7 million. In December 2025 the PUCT issued a final order approving the requested amendment to Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate the new single-circuit 500 kV transmission line, and selecting the final route previously recommended. In February 2026, landowners not party to the PUCT proceeding filed in the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas a petition for declaratory relief and temporary and permanent injunction against the PUCT’s final order. The petition, which names the PUCT, its commissioners, and Entergy Texas as defendants, challenges Entergy Texas’s notice, the application of the PUCT’s notice rule, and the PUCT order’s approval of a route the petitioners assert was not adequately noticed. In March 2026, Entergy Texas and the PUCT filed answers disputing all aspects of the petition. In April 2026 petitioners filed an amended petition with minor adjustments to their original petition. In May 2026 petitioners filed a supplemental application for temporary injunction and opposition to pleas to the jurisdiction in response to jurisdictional defenses raised in the answers filed by Entergy Texas and the PUCT. In June 2026 the court set a hearing for July 2026 on petitioners’ requested temporary injunction and any pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment. In June 2026 the PUCT filed its plea to the jurisdiction. In June 2026 petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment and Entergy Texas filed an amended answer addressing the amended petition, a plea to the jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. In July 2026 the court issued a written order granting Entergy Texas’s and the PUCT’s pleas to the jurisdiction and, in the alternative, Entergy Texas’s motion for summary judgment. In August 2026 petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. In October 2026 the appellate record was filed with the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, triggering a 30-day deadline for the appellants to file a brief on the merits. Also in October 2026, the appellants filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that Entergy Texas be restrained from exercising eminent domain and construction activities on the appellants’ properties. Entergy Texas expects to respond in opposition to the motion for temporary relief by the November 2026 deadline established by the court. Subject to receipt of required permits and other conditions, the project is expected to be in service by the end of 2028.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In August 2026, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to amend Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to construct, own, and operate a new single-circuit 138 kV transmission line. The transmission line is expected to be approximately 9 to 11 miles in length and the estimated cost of the project ranges from $88.8 million to $99.4 million, depending on the route ultimately approved by the PUCT. Also in August 2026, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In September 2026 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings adopted a procedural schedule that set a hearing for November 2026. In October 2026 the PUCT staff filed direct testimony recommending the PUCT approve Entergy Texas’s application and identifying the proposed route it concluded to best meet the statutory criteria for certification. The statutory deadline for a PUCT decision is February 2027.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In September 2026, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2024 through March 2026. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.2 billion in eligible fuel and purchased power expenses to generate and purchase electricity to serve its customers, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas’s cumulative over-recovery balance for the reconciliation period was approximately $90.1 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as part of the cumulative fuel balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2026.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In June 2026, Entergy Texas filed an application for PUCT pre-approval of a long-term 14-year PPA for 300 MW of capacity and energy from the Tenaska Frontier Generating Station, an 830 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbine plant in Grimes County, Texas. As a result of accelerated load growth in Texas and other factors in Entergy Texas’s service territory, Entergy Texas has a significant near- and long-term need for capacity and energy to serve its customers. Within the application, Entergy Texas requested the PUCT find that the PPA will satisfy Entergy Texas’s identified reliability needs in allowing for cost recovery of the associated purchased power. The 14-year PPA has a total estimated cost of $883 million. In September 2026 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits scheduled in October 2026. In October 2026, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a joint motion to abate the procedural schedule noting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved the joint motion to allow the parties time to finalize the settlement.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Read in the 10-Q ↗
System Energy is developing its capital investment plan for 2027 through 2030 and currently anticipates making the following construction and other capital investments during that period:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the capital plan for System Energy includes amounts associated with Grand Gulf investments and initiatives. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, governmental policies and actions, including trade-related governmental actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including Executive Order 14421 and the Section 232 Proclamation, environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital, including any changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies. System Energy is not able to predict the effect of potential changes in regulation and law, changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies, and governmental policies and actions, such as tariffs, executive orders, and other measures, including Executive Order 14421 and the Section 232 Proclamation, on its current and planned capital projects, including project delays, modifications, and cost increases.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization 169,734 168,382
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Deferred income taxes, tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 82,807 116,094
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Income taxes - net (includes proceeds from the transfer of production tax credits to third parties of $68,855 in 2026 and $98,722 in 2025) ($68,855) ($98,722)
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Legal proceedings
Dorrell, et al. v. Constellation Energy, et al. Antitrust Class Action Litigation
Read in the 10-Q ↗
On July 11, 2025, an antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of a putative class against Entergy Corporation, 26 other entities alleged to own and/or operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States (together with Entergy Corporation, the “nuclear defendants”), and two consulting companies. The class action complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the nuclear defendants and their subsidiaries and related entities in the United States from May 1, 2003 to the present. The plaintiffs primarily allege that the nuclear defendants, together with the consulting company defendants, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S. Code Chapter 1 by conspiring to suppress compensation and exchange collective bargaining agreement and wage information through a trade group, a consulting firm, and direct communications, including while in attendance at conferences, from May 2003 to the present. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. In December 2025 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In August 2026 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs 45 days to amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies. In September 2026 plaintiffs submitted a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, which adds the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations as a defendant and includes additional allegations against the original defendants.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
Other information
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units. The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states. This rule establishes a series of 10-year planning periods, with states required to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) for each planning period, with each SIP including such air pollution control measures as may be necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of the CAVR by the year 2064. The various states are currently in the process of developing SIPs to implement the second planning period of the CAVR, which addresses the 2018-2028 planning period.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) did not meet the July 31, 2021 SIP submission deadline, but subsequently submitted a final SIP to the EPA for review. The ADEQ reviewed Entergy’s Independence plant but determined that additional air emission controls would not be
Read in the 10-Q ↗
cost-effective considering the facility’s commitment to cease coal-fired combustion by December 31, 2030. In August 2026 the EPA issued a final approval of the ADEQ SIP submittal.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2024 the EPA finalized rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new combustion turbine electric generating units (EGUs) under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and from certain existing coal- and gas-fired EGUs under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
For existing generating units, the rule established emission guidelines issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and provided states with two years to develop a plan to implement the emission guidelines with respect to subject emission units within their state. The emission guidelines required reductions in CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired generating units which plan to operate beyond January 1, 2032 and exempted coal-fired units which plan to permanently cease operations prior to this date. The emission guidelines also established CO2 efficiency standards for existing gas-fired steam EGUs. These emission standards would apply beginning January 1, 2030. Entergy’s existing gas-fired steam generating units are expected to meet these CO2 emission standards. Numerous lawsuits were filed in the D.C. Circuit challenging the final rule, and oral argument was held in December 2024. In September 2026 the EPA released a final rule repealing most provisions of the May 2024 rule including (1) the Phase 2 standard requiring carbon capture and sequestration for new combustion turbines because it is not an adequately demonstrated technology and (2) the standards for existing coal and gas units. The rule will be effective November 16, 2026. Thus, the only standards that remain are the Phase 1 standards for new gas combustion turbines. However, concurrent with the final rule, the EPA issued a supplemental proposal (2026 Proposal) to repeal all remaining Section 111 emissions standards for CO2 emissions from EGUs. The EPA states in the 2026 Proposal that Section 111 does not authorize the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from EGUs in response to global climate change concerns. Comments on the 2026 Proposal are due November 2, 2026. Litigation regarding the EPA’s partial repeal of the 2024 final rule is expected.
Read in the 10-Q ↗
The 10-Q's risk factors against the 10-K
Item 1A of the 10-Q filed Nov 2, 2026 against Item 1A of the 10-K filed Feb 19, 2026.
A 10-Q repeats only the risks that changed, so a 10-K paragraph that is missing from it is not counted as removed.
Added is a paragraph with nothing like it in the 10-K, Reworded a sentence that is in both with several words changed,
Quiet changes a sentence in both where one to four words changed and one is a hedge or a modal
(cut words struck through, new words highlighted and underlined).
Text on the page, not a score; each links to the filing at sec.gov.
What the 10-Q itself says about its risk factors:
Read in the 10-Q ↗
There have been no material changes to the risk factors discussed in “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the Form 10-K.
1 paragraph in the 10-Q's Item 1A, and none of them adds, rewords or quietly edits a paragraph of the 10-K's.
Work on ETR in a spreadsheet:
Excel workbook (a sheet per section, ten years by column, charts, links to the filings) ·
CSV.
For a Google Sheet that stays up to date, paste =IMPORTDATA("https://tickdelta.com/company/ETR/export.csv") into a cell.