Entergy 2009 Annual Report Download - page 12

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis
8
determinations and deciding what, if any, further proceedings are needed, the VPSB, on November 20, 2009, issued
information requests to the three companies and to the VDPS. The companies filed their responses on December 9,
2009 and the VDPS filed its responses on December 24, 2009. A VPSB decision on the memorandum of
understanding is pending.
On January 27, 2010, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas issued a statement directing the Commissioner of the
VDPS to request a stay from the VPSB of the spin-off proceedings pending an ongoing investigation relating to
elevated levels of tritium found in Vermont Yankee groundwater monitoring wells. The Governor's statement further
indicated that he would not ask the Vermont General Assembly to consider Vermont Yankee license renewal during
its 2010 session. The governor's statement also expressed concerns about potential decommissioning costs and about
inconsistent information related to underground piping at Vermont Yankee carrying radionuclides that was provided
by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. in a proceeding before the VPSB related
to extending operation of Vermont Yankee beyond its current operating license. On February 3, 2010, the VDPS
staff filed its motion for a stay of the spin-off proceedings. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. filed a memorandum in opposition to the request for a stay with the VPSB on February 18, 2010.
New York
On January 28, 2008, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy
Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and Enexus filed a petition with the New York
Public Service Commission (NYPSC) requesting a declaratory ruling regarding corporate reorganization or in the
alternative an order approving the transaction and an order approving debt financing. Petitioners also requested
confirmation that the corporate reorganization will not have an effect on Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick's, Entergy
Nuclear Indian Point 2's, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3's, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s status as lightly
regulated entities in New York, given that they will continue to be competitive wholesale generators. The New York
State Attorney General's Office, Westchester County, and other intervenors filed objections to the business separation
and to the transfer of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plants, arguing that the debt
associated with the spin-off could threaten access to adequate financial resources for those nuclear power plants and
because the New York State Attorney General's Office believes Entergy must file an environmental impact statement
assessing the proposed corporate restructuring. In addition to the New York State Attorney General's Office, several
other parties also requested to be added to the service list for this proceeding.
On May 23, 2008, the NYPSC issued its Order Establishing Further Procedures in this matter. In the order,
the NYPSC determined that due to the nuclear power plants' unique role in supporting the reliability of electric
service in New York, and their large size and unique operational concerns, a more searching inquiry of the
transaction will be conducted than if other types of lightly-regulated generation were at issue. Accordingly, the
NYPSC assigned an ALJ to preside over this proceeding and prescribed a sixty (60) day discovery period. The order
provided that after at least sixty (60) days, the ALJ would establish when the discovery period would conclude. The
NYPSC stated that the scope of discovery will be tightly bounded by the public interest inquiry relevant to this
proceeding; namely, adequacy and security of support for the decommissioning of the New York nuclear facilities;
financial sufficiency of the proposed capital structure in supporting continued operation of the facilities; and,
arrangements for managing, operating and maintaining the facilities. The NYPSC also stated that during the
discovery period, the NYPSC Staff may conduct technical conferences to assist in the development of a full record in
this proceeding.
On July 23, 2008, the ALJs issued a ruling concerning discovery and seeking comments on a proposed
process and schedule. In the ruling, the ALJs proposed a process for completing a limited, prescribed discovery
process, to be followed three weeks later by the filing of initial comments addressing defined issues, with reply
comments due two weeks after the initial comment deadline. Following receipt of all comments, a ruling will be
made on whether, and to what extent, an evidentiary hearing is required. The ALJs asked the parties to address three
specific topic areas: (1) the financial impacts related to the specific issues previously outlined by the NYPSC; (2)
other obligations associated with the arrangement for managing, operating and maintaining the facilities; and (3) the
extent that New York Power Authority (NYPA) revenues from value sharing payments under the value sharing
10