Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Release and Teleconference. At this time, all participants on the phone lines have been placed on mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] Do note today’s program is being recorded. I would like to now introduce our host for today’s program, Mr. Paula Waters, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please begin.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us. We will begin today with comments from Entergy’s Chairman and CEO, Leo Denault and then Drew Marsh, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone who has questions, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. In today’s call, management will make certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning these risks and uncertainties is included in the company’s SEC filings. Now, I will turn the call over to Leo.

Thanks, Paula and good morning everyone. Before we get started, there have been some questions about the forward-looking numbers we plan to disclose for utility, parent and other earnings at the upcoming Edison Electric Institute Financial Conference. Just to give you a quick preview they will be in line with our previous disclosures. Regarding third-quarter results, with the exception of impairments at EWC, results were largely in line with our expectations. However some of the drivers turned out differently than we originally anticipated, including stronger than normal weather that boosted earnings by $0.16 per share, which was offset by lower weather adjusted residential sales and regulatory compliance costs at the Arkansas nuclear 1 plant. As we've noted previously, we currently anticipate approximately $85 million of costs at ANO for additional Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection activities arising out of its placement in Column 4 of the reactor oversight process action metrics. These costs will impact operational results in both 2015 and 2016. The Pilgrim nuclear power station will also undergo an additional inspection activities related to its placement in Column 4 by the NRC which will increase its cost in the coming years. We realize these items, while temporary, are disappointing, we will do our best to mitigate their impact. However our longer-term objectives remain intact. Therefore as we work our way through the near-term operational issues at ANO and Pilgrim, we maintain our focus on our long-term opportunities. To that end, by most any measure the last few months, in October in particular, have been very productive. The actions we've taken demonstrate execution on the strategy we've outlined to you for some time. For the utility, the strategy is to grow the business by investing capital in ways that benefit our customers. This strategy is centered on our obligation as…

Thank you, Leo and good morning everyone. I’ll begin my remarks today with a review of our third-quarter results which are summarized on Slide 4 of the presentation. Our operational results of $1.90 per share, excluding special items related to the impairment of EWC, Pilgrim and FitzPatrick nuclear plant and the decision to close Vermont Yankee, were up from third quarter of 2014. As Leo noted, this was in line with our original expectations overall but not in line with the expected drivers. Strong weather made up for ongoing ANO Column 4 expenses and lower-than-expected residential sales growth. As reported, earnings were negative $4.04 for the quarter driven by the impairments of Pilgrim and FitzPatrick. Details of the impairments and the related accounting were provided in the Form 8-K filed on October 16. Moving to Slide 5, utility, parent and other results were up quarter-over-quarter. Contributor [ph] to the increase was net revenue which added $0.36 per share, a large portion of this was from weather but the remainder from higher industrial usage, recovery of the productive investments such as Ninemile 6 and items offset in operations and maintenance categories. Though net revenue was higher, we originally expected an additional $0.05 per share in net revenue from sales growth but missed this target with lower weather adjusted residential sales volume, down one-tenth of 1% quarter over quarter. Also contributing to the favorable variance is an asset write-off of $0.23 per share related to the settlement of the Mississippi rate base that was included in 2014 third quarter results. The impact of these favorable variances is partly reduced by higher utility non-fuel O&M expenses of $0.16 per share. Roughly $0.04 of this variance is offset in net revenue. Of the remaining variance, $0.07 was due to NRC inspection cost for ANO…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup.

So I had a quick question on the cash taxes, given the change in the NOL position down to 1.9 billion, I know you clarified that you will still have a pretty low cash tax rate. Could we understand what’s the driver or what helps you get to that low cash tax rate given the NOL position change?

Sure, Praful, this is Drew. As we talked in the past, and we have a portfolio of strategies out there that we are pursuing and those strategies are still intact. Over time we can see the NOL start to move back up again but we have to go -- right now we just settled, so the NOL is back down to where it is at 1.9 billion. So we just want to make sure that when you saw it come down you’d know what the driver was and what the settlement was. The important thing is that our tax team is still here, they are still working hard on new ideas and new strategies and we expect that those will continue to bear some fruit going forward.

And then in terms of the FitzPatrick retirement, from a decommissioning perspective, do you expect there will be any impact from a cash flow perspective to Entergy or is the decommissioning fund – fully funded and how do you see that playing out?

Well this is Drew again. So the decommissioning fund meets all the NRC requirements and consistent with how Vermont Yankee did, we would expect the same kind of approach for FitzPatrick going forward, so we wouldn't see or anticipate any cash contributions to the decommissioning trust fund associated with decommissioning the plant.

Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

Yes, hi, how are you. Just in terms of the tax rate, the 10%, that is the cash tax rate. Is that correct?

Yes sir.

And what’s the expected book tax rate that we will see in earnings?

Well the book tax rate as you know we don't usually give out a forecast for book tax rate until the prompt year. There are definitely some things that could improve over the statutory rate that we’ve used in our forward-looking expectations but at that this point we’re not prepared to say exactly what those are. There’s too many things going on in conversations with federal tax authorities, state tax authorities, state regulators to be able to successfully pin that down until we get closer to that time.

And then with respect to Slide 36 and it looks like you guys are going to be expensing the fuel and other things associated with FitzPatrick and Pilgrim as special items. I'm wondering how will you guys be treating the revenue?

Well the revenue will be operation – what we are going to be choosing to – not choosing, what we will be treating as special items or things that would otherwise have been capitalized, so any significant capital expenditures or in the case of Pilgrim refueling outage costs or fuel costs that would have normally otherwise been capitalized and amortized over coming cycles, those will be considered special items and we’re just – I think for just the sake of making a clear which pieces are part of the ongoing operations and which pieces aren’t, that’s the same approach that we used with Vermont Yankee and we think it’s more helpful that way. We will try to be as transparent as possible about all the moving parts in there.

Okay, then just in general with the economies of scale, you have shut down three nukes in a pretty short period of time in the Northeast. Is there an impact on the economies of scale of what is left, meaning in the allocation of expenses or any thoughts on that?

Yes, there definitely is the lot of economies of scale, I mean we manage our nuclear fleet as a fleet across the North and Southern utility nuclear assets. So there is -- we have a lot of economies of scale but it will be shrinking over the retirement schedule in the next few years, depending on how far you go with the retirement schedule depends on how much of an impact that economies of scale has, for the Northeast we do have about $35 million of plant overhead at each plant and about half of that is direct costs. And so beyond that we will be targeting a level of costs that are prudent for the business size and the size of the fleet going forward to make sure the plant stays safe and reliable.

Our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Good morning, guys. Just to clarify, you have said very clearly that you expect the 2016 and 2017 utility parent and other outlooks to be unchanged or at least I think that is what I heard. But are you also saying that you are guiding prompt year -- beyond the prompt year, your guide to statutory tax rate, so is 2016 still good assuming a statutory tax rate or is that one of the things that might shift as you give us the drivers?

It’s assuming the statutory tax rate, we’re trying to hold quite frankly Jonathan the forward-looking stuff at EEI and we just removed it from this to do it at EEI next week. But it seemed to raise some questions, so the previous disclosure that was at the statutory tax rate that's what we were talking about.

And so you expect that to still be the case?

And we hope that – to the earlier question about the effective tax rate I guess, we would hope to do better than the statutory tax rate in ‘16 but we’re not prepared yet to identify that but taking that aside we still are at the current disclosure that we put forth previously.

If I may just on one other issue around guidance, the ANO costs that you referenced those as I think $85 million which is the same number between ‘15 and ‘16 that was in the 10-Q. Were those already in the guidance you showed us last quarter fully or is there an element of that being added in?

No, those are already fully baked into the guidance. They were not in the guidance that we set up at analyst day last year. Just to be clear, so analyst day last year was when we originally set up our range of where we thought the midpoint could land between 435 and 475 and it didn't include ANO at that point and expected higher interest rates for pension benefits etc. So there were several things that have moved around but ANO was specifically not included at that time but it is now.

And was it included when you showed us $3.65 last quarter –

$3.65 is for ’15, just to be clear. And it was not – we originally said $3.65, that was at the beginning of this year, that’s before we had clarity around what ANO was going to be, so it was not included in the $3.65.

So that’s part of the change to this $3.30 number?

Yes, that’s exactly right. So the drivers between the 365 and 330, I think it’s in my script but it’s like $0.17 is related to ANO and I am sorry was that -- $0.06 O&M and some other stuff.

So similarly on the ‘16 outlook, that was the $35 million of ANO that you disclosed in the 10-Q would not have been in that range but you are saying the range is still good so something else must have offset it?

That’s right, what we said, the lower end of the range is what we previously had said.

But that was again without the ANO drag, am I right in that?

That is with the ANO drag.

The lower end comment included the ANO drag but it wasn't in the ‘15 $3.65?

That’s correct. I think I am confusing you worse than, than I really need to but our original guidance for ’16 was $4.35 to $4.75 where we said at the lower end, that includes ANO. For ’15, it was at $3.65 that did not include ANO but the $3.30 does now.

Our next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.

So let me actually start where you guys just left off there. In terms of weather normalized impact, the 2015 update you just provided, I know you just alluded to the ANO negative hit but you have had $0.23 if I have the year to date positive weather. What is kind of the impact of the weather normalized sales year to date if you will?

I believe that the weather normalized sales year-to-date – I don’t know – I can’t think of the year to date number off the top of my head. For the full year I believe it’s $0.07 of which about $0.08 is residential. So not weather, just residential, weather adjusted.

Turning to more strategic issues. Looking at the nuclear business today, how are you thinking about Indian Point? Is this something, Indian Point Palisades, is this something you would consider continuing to own just as two standalone units given the continued portfolio benefit of owning it in the context of the regulated business or is this something that you would imagine that you could arrive at a strategic juncture on?

This is Leo. I mean obviously we continue to evaluate what the best bring to do with those assets is but as we mentioned before and when they were talking about overheads a moment ago in that discussion we still have economies of scale and an operating capability with the nuclear assets and as Drew mentioned we do operate facilities as a fleet and we can continue to do that from an operational standpoint and so we’re prepared to do that, doesn’t mean we aren’t looking at alternatives but as you know the alternatives around Indian Point are limited and we just have to go from here but obviously we can do it and we will if we have to and it’s not a problem for us but the strategic options obviously become limited given the regulatory approvals required et cetera.

And just a clarification therein. The spring refueling outage on Pilgrim, that is a final decision now that you intend to pursue that rather than retire going into that?

We have not – in which year?

The spring 2017 refueling outage, have you committed to doing that or is there still the thought process you could buy back the capacity?

No, we have not committed to do that.

Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc.

A quick question. On Jonathan Arnold's question, you referenced 3.30, is that really be 3.35 I see on slide nine?

Oh yes, I apologize. Yes, it’s $3.35.

And year to date, UPNO is at 3.55 so that imply we are going to have a loss in the fourth quarter?

Is that including tax and weather, the $3.30 is tax weather and special items adjusted.

But your year to date results are $3.55 at UPNO? I'm just trying to bridge from here to there.

That includes weather and taxes, I believe.

So $3.35 does not include weather?

That’s correct.

And then is $50 million this year and $35 million next year is still the right split for ANO?

That’s correct

Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.

I wanted to just follow up on Fitzpatrick and check whether there are any limits on being able to put the plant into safe store or if there are other approaches being discussed that would be perhaps more rapid on actual decommissioning of the facility? Should we be assuming a long-term safe store option or is that still to be determined?

Stephen, this is Bill. I think you should generally assume a safe store option, we’re going to have to go through the process of getting a detailed decommissioning cost estimate we put together and then file our post shutdown activity report closer to the shutdown date but we are assuming the same type of approach we used at the Vermont Yankee.

Just on Indian Point, there has been a series of extensions of the standstill agreement with the state of New York on sort of CZM related topics. Should we be thinking given that they are having those extensions that there is very much an active dialogue going on there, active discussions. It struck me as likely that there are active discussions given the continued short-term extensions of that standstill. Any color on the dialogue there?

Stephen we have been in some active discussions but that standstill agreement date expired, so we will go back to our position on that before we executed the standstill, again we feel very confident our legal position that we had an effective withdrawal of the CGM application and as always we’re open to constructive discussions with state.

Our next question comes from the line of

Thanks. A couple of questions. First, Leo, could you maybe give us some sense of how you kind of came at the dividend decision that you did in terms of just target payout or something of that sort?

Sure Steve. With the growth in investment and rate base and resulting earnings growth at utility, parent and other as we have been mentioning for some time it’s our objective to provide the glide path into a consistent more predictable dividend path, as we mentioned in the past we've taken more of I guess a lumpy approach to it where we raised it 29% one year and then we take a few years off and we raised it $0.10 or something like that. So as we look out into the future consistent with our expectations around the growth in the utility parent and other segment of the business, we’re kind of on a glide path, so we would hope to provide a consistent growth that will work its way into that payout ratio over the next few years.

Which is the payout ratio target is at 65 to 75?

Correct. At any given time we might be over or even under depending on how we’re growing business and then obviously it takes into consideration the reinvestment that we have and the opportunity for the utility for all the items that I outlined that we put in the disclosures.

Different question on the nuclear, just you guys historically used to have kind of top tier of nuclear operation so kind of having the ANO and Pilgrim kind of in this Tier 4 was definitely a change. And I think there have been some changes in management and I am just curious what are the implications for the broader nuclear fleet at Entergy, overall nuclear costs, are these really just specific can issues just for these two facilities?

First, Steve, we take the operation of the fleet, obviously the safe secure reliable, operations of fleet very seriously, we did have a couple of issues that kind of compounded on each other at both facilities to get us into Column 4, we’d anticipate that this is not going to happen anywhere else and that will work our way out of this judiciously and expeditiously with the NRC over the coming couple years.

So it’s not costs like for the overall organization or the other plants related to that?

No.

And then a last question just in terms of the Fitzpatrick decision, there has been a decent amount of articles just on the political aspects of that potentially. Is there any sense of any reaction we might see from this not only just at Fitzpatrick but also maybe Indian Point in terms of political regulatory stuff?

That I can’t really comment on that, Steve and we did work to try and come up with some way to extend the life of Fitzpatrick and we weren’t able to do that, it's in everybody's best interests but it just wasn't possible. But the state official worked just as hard as we did as I mentioned in my in my scripts to come to a solution and some thing is just difficult as you saw from the disclosures, there is a lot of money lost at that facility and that’s certainly a difficult thing to overcome. But we certainly aren’t out looking for any kind of political issues.

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.

Just curious on Fitzpatrick's decision, can you give us a view of how material from an EPS and from a cash flow accretion and dilution the retirement is for 2017 and beyond?

So from a cash flow perspective we are going to be cash flow positive over the next few years consistent with the disclosure there of 225 to 273 million, so that’s the biggest piece, I think that comes from the fact that we’re basically operating at a loss there and we’re also -- we would be incurring costs associated with capital and refuelling going forward. So I think that – those are the biggest things from a cash perspective. From a net income perspective there's a lot going on, because of the impairments you’re going to see the costs associated with the refueling outages and fuel expense that we have, those are going to be reduced considerably. Obviously the depreciation is going to come way down. The one thing that’s a little different for Fitzpatrick is the decommissioning costs, the decommissioning expense that’s currently the fund is still sitting over with NIPA [ph] and so we won't see any changes there until a point where we actually get to fund and the liability over to us, so that’s a little different than Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim going forward. So those are some of the main drivers that you will see I think, as we are thinking about the income statement for that business.

But I think my question kind of focused on the materialness -- if there is such a word -- of how earnings accretive would it be if I looked at 2015 run rate versus 2017 and beyond post-retirement and how cash flow accretive. Directionally are we talking huge level of accretion or dilution to either of those, tiny, middle of the road?

I think 225, 275 million is, that’s materially accretive to me in terms of cash. The earnings piece – it’s going to be accretive but it’s not going to be hugely accretive upfront. There will be some accretion in ‘16 and then in ‘17 we will start incurring the decommissioning costs and stuff like that. We are going to provide some better transparency around what we think the drivers are at the EEI conference next week.

Our next question comes from the line of Neel Mitra with Tudor,Pickering, Holt and Company.

Good morning. Just wanted to clarify where you are with the industrial sales growth? Obviously it was better this quarter than last quarter but still not up to kind of the 5% that you are guiding to. When do you expect to really ramp up and what are the factors that you are evaluating right now?

Neel, this is Theo. You mentioned the 5% we were guiding to, I think we stated the year at 4.4% in 2015 and what we have seen is our new and expansions have come on line, they have come on line as we settled slower, been delayed, the ramp ups have been slower than anticipated but what we have also seen in the first two quarters of 2015 was we saw some low volumes with our existing customers and as you recall in the first couple of quarters that was really bigger -- had a big impact on the lower than expectations in terms of the industrial sales. As Drew mentioned, in script we saw it come back relative to that in the third quarter especially in our petroleum refinery area, and from that perspective in that particular segment we expect to see that returning to the levels we somewhat expected as we go forward. You also mentioned in the fourth quarter we’ve got an existing customer, probably in the sector that is going through some outages and we won’t see likely not to see the volumetric changes in the fourth quarter that we saw in the third quarter but again those are outage rated and as Drew also mentioned you generally don’t see a relative relationship in terms of revenue change relative to volume change, when that happens with existing customers. In terms of the drivers I think we are seeing some things that others are experiencing stronger dollar kind of weaker commodity prices and it’s challenging our expectations as we said before, what we see happening from early is delays and in some cases as I said ramp-ups not happening as soon as we had thought but we will provide more color around that at the EEI in terms of really diving more into what we expect to see in ’16 and going forward.

Just as a follow-up with the 2016 and 2017 Utility EPS, is that more contingent upon rate base growth or sales growth? Are the two related over the next two or three years? How are you looking at that?

Again I will start and Drew might also have comments relative to this but the two are related the growth as we all know and – this business is really driven by rate base at the end of the day and from our perspective our investment thesis is still intact and we see the opportunity that we laid out in the past continue to make investments that we talked about and it’s not so much depended upon the level of sales. Sales is an opportunity for us to mitigate the impacts of those rate base growth changes and clearly with our sales volumes we have the opportunity to mitigate that probably much better than maybe some others that you see that don’t have the level of robustness as it related to sales growth. Given – again the volumes do help in terms of getting to ROEs and as we’ve shown in slides before it’s really a combination of the two, to some extent but again the growth is really tied to the investment thesis and that thesis from our perspective is still well intact.

This is Drew. I will just add. The big drivers are going to be getting the Union deal done and then the regulatory actions in Arkansas and Texas getting those resolved, primarily to get the investment that Theo is talking about and the rates. And then the sales growth is going to be helpful but it’s an element of lag reduction as we see it and there are some O&M benefits out there, we talked about earlier and that are rolling off hopefully by the end of next year. And then we continue to see our pension expenses coming down and we do see some higher operating costs this year because of some of the nuclear compliance costs and other things that we see, so we expect that to moderate a bit going forward as well. So those are main drivers, they’d shift a little bit as you go from ’15 to ’16 and then to ’16 to ‘17 but they are pretty much the same.

Our next question comes from the line of Charles Fishman with Morningstar.

Good morning. Make sure I understand this, the ANO Column 4 enhanced inspections and the associated spending, you see a path that that would be eliminated after next year?

Yes, that goal is to get out of Column 4 and reduce the compliance costs associated with being in that regulatory situation.

And then just a second question on the lower residential sales, just an anomaly for the third quarter, are you seeing more energy efficiency, do you have any other color you can provide on that?

Charles, this is Theo. As we’ve talked on previous calls like most other utilities we are seeing energy efficiency and products program as well as programs that we have specific to our space. We generally talk in terms of organic residential growth in the 1% area and we see that somewhat being challenged through this year and we saw it somewhat last year as well. In terms of third quarter we had two years where we had really – weather last year and fairly positive weather this year and when you see those swings like that year-over-year know sometimes the adjustment in terms of the weather for a period like that gets little challenged, and we continue to watch and monitor the residential sales volumes, also we saw 1 .2% growth in commercial in the quarter, as well but it’s something we pay a lot of attention to and continue to look at. I don’t know, from our perspective we don’t see a kind of flat to negative as a trend but it is something for us to continue to monitor as it relates to our view of our organic residential growth .

Our next question comes from the line of Sharp Pareza [ph] with Guggenheim Partners.

Most of my questions were answered. Just on FitzPatrick is there any situation where you can think of – or where you would have used dcom versus safe store?

The safe store option is the one that gives you the most time to allow the fund to grow to meet your decommissioning needs. So that seems like a likely candidate but I don't know if Bill wants to add anything in.

So again we will have to go through and calculate our cost, we got 728 million in the fund, and we will go through the same process of looking to forecasting when the fund would grow to have an adequate amount to begin decommissioning according to NRC you to have it fully funded before you can start, so it will be some form of safe store, probably won't go to the end f 60 years but depending on that cost estimate it will be out in the future, so.

And then you don’t expect any indirect influence from New York to shut the plant down quicker.

No, nothing that we are aware of at this time.

And then just what caused the talks to break down, was it sort of – was an r-mark contract and option as a bridge, so maybe a little bit of color on that?

We’re not going to get into any of that. We can explain the RMR issue, we’re not going to obviously discuss any details of our discussion but we had -- we previously had the New York ISO do some analysis regarding the FitzPatrick plant as to whether or it qualifies as liability – and that most recent analysis indicates that it does not. So we have submitted our notification -- shutdown notifications the PSC and the New York ISO as of today, they will have to update that study but we certainly do not expect that answer to change. And as Leo suggested all of our discussions with New York are really confidential and not appropriate for us to comment on any details. End of Q&A

I’d like to now turn the call over to Paula Waters for any additional remarks.