Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $78 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2015 primarily due to:

The decrease was partially offset by spending of $52 million in 2015 related to Vermont Yankee, including the severance and retention payments accrued in 2014 and defueling activities that took place after the plant ceased power production in December 2014, and a decrease in income tax payments of $40 million in 2016 primarily related to the final settlement of amounts outstanding associated with the 2006-2007 IRS audit paid in 2015. See Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the income tax audit.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $1,178 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2015 primarily due to:

The increase was partially offset by a $71 million NYPA value sharing payment in 2015. See Note 15 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for further discussion of Entergy’s NYPA value sharing agreements.

Financing Activities

Entergy’s financing activities provided $1,086 million of cash for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to using $152 million of cash for the three months ended March 31, 2015 primarily due to:

For the details of Entergy’s commercial paper program and the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ short-term borrowings, see Note 4 to the financial statements herein. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein and Note 5 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for details of long-term debt.

Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation

See “ MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation ” in the Form 10-K for discussions of rate regulation, federal regulation, and related regulatory proceedings.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements herein for updates to the discussion in the Form 10-K regarding these proceedings.

Federal Regulation

See “ MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation - Federal Regulation ” in the Form 10-K for a discussion of federal regulatory proceedings. The following is an update to that discussion.

Entergy’s Integration Into the MISO Regional Transmission Organization

As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n January 2013, Occidental Chemical Corporation filed with the FERC a petition for declaratory judgment and complaint against MISO alleging that MISO’s proposed treatment of Qualifying Facilities (QFs) in the Entergy region is unduly discriminatory in violation of sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act and violates the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and the FERC’s implementing regulations. In April 2016 the FERC denied Occidental’s complaint against MISO and found that MISO’s treatment of QFs in Entergy’s service territories is consistent with the requirements of PURPA and does not violate sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act. In February 2014, Occidental also filed a petition for enforcement with the FERC against the LPSC. Occidental’s petition for enforcement alleges that the LPSC’s January 2014 order, which approved Entergy Louisiana’s application for modification of Entergy’s methodology for calculating avoided cost rates paid to QFs, is inconsistent with the requirements of PURPA and the FERC’s regulations implementing PURPA. In April 2014 the FERC issued a “Notice Of Intent Not To Act At This Time” with respect to Occidental’s petition for enforcement against the LPSC. The FERC concluded that Occidental’s petition for enforcement largely raises the same issues as those raised in the January 2013 complaint and petition for declaratory order that Occidental filed against MISO, and that the two proceedings should be addressed at the same time. The FERC reserved its ability to issue a further order or to take further action at a future date should it find that doing so is appropriate. In April 2016 the FERC reviewed its earlier “Notice of Intent Not to Act as This Time” and issued another notice declining to initiate an enforcement action against the LPSC. In January 2016, in a separate proceeding, the FERC issued an order granting the Utility operating companies’ petition to terminate the requirement that they enter into new obligations or contracts with QFs with net capacity in excess of 20 MW, including Occidental’s Taft QF, effective October 2015. The FERC denied without prejudice the petition as it relates to Dow Chemical Company’s Plaquemine QF. In April 2016 the FERC denied Occidental’s request for rehearing of the order granting the Utility operating companies’ petition to terminate the QF purchase requirement for QFs with net capacity in excess of 20 MW and affirmed that Occidental failed to rebut the presumption that its Taft QF has non-discriminatory access to the MISO markets.

Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments

Commodity Price Risk

Power Generation

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  In addition to selling the energy produced by its plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.  In addition to its forward physical power contracts, Entergy Wholesale Commodities also uses a combination of financial contracts, including swaps, collars, and options, to manage forward commodity price risk.  Certain hedge volumes have price downside and upside relative to market price movement.  The contracted minimum, expected value, and sensitivities are provided in the table below to show potential variations.  The sensitivities may not reflect the total maximum upside potential from higher market prices.  The information contained in the following table represents projections at a point in time and will vary over time based on numerous factors, such as future market prices, contracting activities, and generation.  Following is a summary of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ current forward capacity and generation contracts as well as total revenue projections based on market prices as of March 31, 2016 ( 2016 represents the remainder of the year):

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries

Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Portfolio

at remaining plants. NRC license renewal applications are in process for two units, as follows (with current license expirations in parentheses): Indian Point 2 (September 2013 and now operating under its period of extended operations while its application is pending) and Indian Point 3 (December 2015 and now operating under its period of extended operations while its application is pending).  For a discussion regarding the shutdown of the FitzPatrick and Pilgrim plants, see Note 1 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. For a discussion regarding the license renewals for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, see “ Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Its Nuclear Power Plants ” above and in the Form 10-K.

Entergy estimates that a positive $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets in which the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear business sells power, based on March 31, 2016 market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax net income of $79 million for the remainder of 2016. As of March 31, 2015 , a positive $10 per MWh change would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of $82 million for the remainder of 2015.  A negative $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets based on March 31, 2016 market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax net income of ($69) million for the remainder of 2016. As of March 31, 2015 , a negative $10 per MWh change would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ($44) million for the remainder of 2015.

Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide credit support to secure its obligations under the agreements.  The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide credit support based upon the difference between the current market prices and contracted power prices in the regions where Entergy Wholesale Commodities sells power.  The primary form of credit support to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty.  Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of credit support.  At March 31, 2016 , based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $136 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $5 million of posted cash collateral.  In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of March 31, 2016 , Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $50 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of March 31, 2016 , the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $81 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short-and long-term markets.  

As of March 31, 2016 , substantially all of the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants through 2019 is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

Nuclear Matters

See “ MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – Nuclear Matters ” in the Form 10-K for a discussion of nuclear matters. The following are updates to that discussion.

See “ ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews ” above for discussion of the NRC’s decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix, and the resulting significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site.

See Note 1 to the financial statements herein for discussion of the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place Pilgrim in Column 4 of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures.

Based upon the recent performance history of several units within the Entergy nuclear fleet, Entergy has determined to undertake a nuclear performance improvement plan.  That plan has not been fully developed, but it may result in increased operating and capital costs associated with operating Entergy’s nuclear plants.  Entergy is continuing to determine what specific actions will be part of the nuclear performance improvement plan, and an estimate of the costs associated with this plan cannot be made at this time. 

Indian Point 2 outage

During the scheduled refueling and maintenance outage at Indian Point Unit 2 in the first quarter 2016, comprehensive inspections were done as part of the aging management program which calls for an in-depth inspection of the reactor vessel.  Inspections of more than 2,000 bolts in the reactor's removable insert liner identified issues with roughly 11% of the bolts that required further analysis.  Entergy is replacing the bolts as necessary and expects that the replacement effort will extend the outage into June 2016 and increase costs associated with the outage.  The additional costs will be accounted for as deferred refueling outage costs and amortized over the plant’s subsequent fuel cycle.  The increase in the deferred refueling outage balance is expected to increase outage amortization expense in 2016, 2017, and 2018.  In addition to the higher costs, Entergy will lose net revenue due to the plant being offline.  Entergy estimates the negative effect on earnings to be approximately $60 million pre-tax during 2016. This estimate is subject to change depending upon final costs incurred, the restart date of the plant, and prices that would have been received for the sale of Indian Point 2’s power.

Critical Accounting Estimates

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

New Accounting Pronouncements

See “ MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - New Accounting Pronouncements ” in the Form 10-K for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements. Following are updates to that discussion.

In February 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842).”  The ASU’s core principle is that “a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases.” The ASU considers that “all leases create an asset and a liability,” and accordingly requires that the assets and liabilities related to all leases with a term greater than 12 months must be recorded on the balance sheet.  ASU 2016-02 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019.  Entergy expects that ASU 2016-02 will affect its financial position by increasing the assets and liabilities recorded relating to its operating leases.  Entergy is evaluating the ASU for other effects on the results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

In March 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.” The ASU seeks to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The statement is effective beginning in 2017 and Entergy expects that ASU 2016-09 will prospectively increase the volatility of income tax expense related to share-based payments.  Entergy is evaluating the ASU for other effects on the results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.