Michele Lopiccolo - Investor Relations J. Wayne Leonard - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Leo Denault - Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Gary Taylor - Group President Utility Operations Michael Kansler - President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Entergy Nuclear

Greg Gordon - Citi Investment John Kiani - Deutsche Bank Leslie Rich - Columbia Management Group Steve Fleishman - Catapult Capital Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs Paul Ridzon - KeyBanc Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch

Good day everyone and welcome to the Entergy Corporation Fourth Quarter 2008 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time for introductions and opening comments, I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Michele Lopiccolo. Please go ahead.

(Technical Difficulty) results in an effort to accommodate everyone with questions this morning, we request that each person ask no more than two questions. After the Q&A session, I will close with the applicable legal statements. Wayne? J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning. I'll be given by highlighting events since we last meet with UDEI (ph) and then turn to discussion of our 2009 goal. First 2008; to quote the dude in the Big Rebalsky (ph), there's a lot of ups and downs, ins and out and what have you. For what year can you think of the one. The best place to start is with regulatory events with utility. Following a number of constructive outcomes earlier in the year like receiving nearly $1 billion of proceeds from the Louisiana storm securitization process and in paying regulatory approvals on legislations supportive of the utilities efforts to continue transforming and generating portfolio for the benefit of customers, recent developments have been more mixed. In Arkansas the appeals (ph) court decision regarding Entergy Arkansas appeal of the APSC 2007 regulator (ph) and rate case was kind of (inaudible). Basically the court regulator has broad discretion to decide these issues and you get whatever they give. Consequently the appeals court upheld almost all aspects of the APSC rate order based largely on that simple plan, resulting in the fourth quarter charge of roughly $70 million for non-recovery of costs previously accumulated in Entergy occupant (ph) storm reserves and removal costs associated with the lease termination. While commissions do generally have broader authority in determining fact, they are not allowed to substitute their judgment for management's reasonable decisions, not to accede a statutory authority and act arbitrarily and justly without evidence. In this case we believe that not only do specific issues fall into these buckets, but the end result would be inconsistent with the basic principles and Entergy Arkansas was not given a fair opportunity to earn the already low allowed returns set by the APSC. As the time honored US Supreme Court Test relates to pass constitutional muster that we believe has been violated. Some of the parts do not equal the whole; consequently, we the order was contested (ph) for. While the appeals court attempted to count (ph) on second down we're going to play this for now. We have filed a petition to review the appeals court decisions with the Arkansas Supreme Court, which is not an appeal of right and is still pending. On the other hand, a structural lead (ph) was provided by the APSC when they'd approved Entergy Arkansas request for recovery of 2008 extraordinary firm damages. In December, the APSC issued an order approving the process for Entergy Arkansas to recover 22 million of the $26 million, extraordinary from damages through a storm damage rider in 2009. With $4 million disallowed not for prudence (ph) but for one standard deviation at normal variation above the average storm expense built into rate. We beg to differ with this approach. Especially since no party for the case insisted on this reduction as the condition and given the low regulatory terms set by the APSC and further, given at the public interest requires consideration at the interest of all stakeholders including shareholders economic interest. But in fact we don't have to wait (ph). That have the opportunity to voice our concerns in a constructive way, and the APSC started opening the calls with as soon as they got (ph) the regulatory protest. Energy Arkansas specifically recommended that the APSC adopt a rate steady mechanism that aligns customer's interest in timing restoration of service following storm, with the utilities shareholder interest and recovery from expiration costs by providing a workable mechanism to do so. We predict the mechanism is underscored by the recent ice storm that affected Arkansas. With those hurricanes in the south or ice storms in the north, the Utility Operating Companies are the best in the business at restoring the quality of life of customers safely and quickly. The ice storm in North Arkansas was every bit as devastating in some areas as the twin ice storms of December 2000. Only 400,000 customers state wide were affected. Entergy Arkansas has just under 46,000 customers that remained out of service as of yesterday afternoon, down from a peak of 111,000. More than 3500 drill workers, tree trimmers (ph) and support personnel had been mobilized and on site. On the cost recovery fund, Entergy Arkansas was pleased as the APSC recognized the significance of this event, and by the third day of the storm, opened the dock for effectively utilities supply storm cost recovery request. Entergy Arkansas expects to file such requests in the very near future. Regarding the innovative regulatory approach targets, Entergy Arkansas also recommended that the APSC consider and for many formulate great approach, revisiting APSC methodology to determine ROE, given the risk that they are impeding to shareholders, and various dockets and citing, established in fair return (ph) to reflect specific areas of focus (ph) of concern, providing pre-approval for major investments, including construction work in progress and rate base, and recognizing the continuing need for tariff progress (ph) recovery of specific tasks by fuel, and in addition a new capacity between test period and/or rate cases. Entergy Arkansas is pleased the commission's taken initiative to explore these alternative methodologies, particularly given the new challenges facing utilities, and specifically the need for utilities to attract capital required to continue to provide reliable service. In Texas, a unanimous settlement was ultimately achieved among the parties and Entergy Texas rate case. Following the PUCT's rejection of the earlier settlement that included a broad section of stakeholders, but did not include the PUCT's staff or the industrial assessment group. The $46.7 million base rate increase, represents the first base rate increase since 1991, and is still subject to final approval by the administrative broad (ph) judges in the case, and the PUCT. In December, updated analysis were also filed in Entergy Texas qualified power region proceedings. Pursuant to the procedure of schedule, Entergy Texas will submit its updated transitional compensation report at the end of February. Including Entergy Texas's overall recommendations and cost comparisons of the three alternatives under consideration. In Mississippi, relative to a new commission continued to consider questions associated with fuel costs and issues raised by the Mississippi Attorney General, going back some 30 years. Entergy Mississippi understands the new commission's interest in obtaining more information, about commission actions, system tariff, and other issues including fuel purchases, fuel costs, and generation needs and will continue to work with the commission to inform, respond to questions, and develop alternative policies of tariff, if they are found to be of the best interest of customers and fairly balance other stakeholders rights. In the Attorney General matter, Entergy Mississippi, and other affected Entergy companies filed to remove the Attorney General's complaints to U.S. District Court. The appropriate forum to resolve the types of federal matters raised in the Attorney General's file suit. The litigation is wide ranging, and relates to tariffs and procedures under which, Entergy Mississippi obtains power in the wholesale market to meet its electricity demand. Entergy Mississippi believes the Attorney General's compliant is unfounded. And has filed counter claim for injunctive and other relief based upon the Mississippi, Public Utilities Act, and the Federal Power Act. Entergy Mississippi believes that this matter should be resolved in appropriate regulatory forum, and should not be tried in the court of public opinion. In a separate action in January, the MPSC rejected Entergy Mississippi's stipulated agreement with the Mississippi Public Utilities staff. Given the order to deny the settlement with virtually no explanation, Entergy Mississippi appealed the decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court. In Louisiana, the commission unanimously approved the water for 3 Steam Generator Replacement project and in December, consistent with the LPSC's direction, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion to consolidate its Phase II request for cash earnings and construction work in progress for this project, with a Little Gypsy Phase II proceedings which request the same relief. In December, Louisiana Department of Environment Quality issued the Little Gypsy draft air permit and send it to the EPA for review. If no objections are received before February 6th, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality will issue a final permit. At Entergy New Orleans, it's rate case continues pursuant to the procedural schedule. To the council advisors filing recommends a net rate reduction just over 4.5 times the amount of Entergy New Orleans filing. More specifically, an approximate net $45 million reduction compare to Entergy New Orleans proposed net reduction of nearly $10 million. Hearings from the proceeding are scheduled in March, with the council's decision expected by the end of April. Regarding our portfolio transformation strategy you may recall the last call we took a pause to reevaluate a number of key considerations given the rapidly changing market and the economic outlook. With such consideration and to detect a data lag (ph) to go forward with the western region RFC seeking up to 550 megawatts of load following CCGT, flexible capacity for 2014 and beyond. Utility operating subsidiaries will need (ph) resource needs that needs to be managed through shorter term procurement for some period of time. In a related matter, Entergy's new nuclear utility development temporarily requested suspension, of Federal Regulatory Reviews of its two new nuclear license applications that would utilize the ESPWR technology at the Grand Gulf and the River Bend site. Simply put, we need more time to consider alternative technologies, and other vendors. Utility operating companies continue to see value preserving and developing the new nuclear options, and the temporary suspension of the license application review aspect does not reflect a change in positions regarding the importance of new nuclear as it relates to the goal of energy independence, environmental cleanliness and economic growth. Utility operating companies still see cost effective new nuclear technology to be part of its future. Its more a matter of with who and when. At Entergy Nuclear, the non-utility fleet closed out the year with outstanding performance record achieving the highest level of generating outputs in Entergy ownership. Another record was achieved at the Indian Point energy centre for the longest phase continuous operational service, in unit III reached 617 days of continued operations on January 8. Further, in the December we acquired Nuclear Engineering International, Indian Point-3 was ranked second in the world, for the 12 month average load factor ending June 2008. Again we're talking about Indian Point. In the same year too Vermont Yankee was ranked in the top 10 in the world, for equivalent full power output achievement. Commitment with ongoing operational excellence was first supported in the State reliability study of Vermont Yankee. Overall conclusions of the report show that Vermont Yankee is reliable now, and can be operated reliably in the future. Provided Yankee completed its review, a comprehensive vertical audit and plans to estimate its response to State and Public Service Board in the near future. In other license for new development in November, The Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled in favor of Vermont Yankee, on two of the three conventions and imposed a conditional favorable ruling on the third condition (ph). Vermont Yankee complied with the ASLB condition on that third contention by submitting additional strategic calculations on January 8th. Entergy Nuclear (ph) has 59 days to file new contention if they can demonstrate that Vermont Yankee did not satisfy or meet the ASLB condition. Progress on license renewal was also received for the Indian Point. On December 22nd NRC issued its draft supplemental environmental impact statements with the conclusion supporting its license renewal. Almost a month later, the NRC released safety evaluation report with open items regarding additional information for further evaluation. Entergy Nuclear continue to work with the NRC and has since provide the responses to all open items requiring follow-up response from the Entergy Nuclear. In closing, on 2008 accomplishment. Entergy was proud to receive a special award of excellence at the 10th Annual Platt's Global Energy Award. Entergy was recognized for its extraordinary track record of standout performance year-after-year over the entire last decade. One of only four companies worldwide to achieve this special award Entergy was cited for being finalist, 39 times in the Platt's Global Energy Award competition. Far more than any other energy company in the world. This exemplary recognition was made possible by the extraordinary performance of Entergy employees, both in their everyday responsibilities, and the moments of unexpected crisis. Appropriate seg way into 2009. There's no question we face the extraordinary challenges in our industry, and in our society. Certainly some of the toughest we've ever faced. That being said, it's fair to say that both our critics and our supporters, will probably agree on one thing about Entergy. We go our own way as always. We don't run with the herd, and particularly in uncertain times that has generally taken us in a good direction. In 2009, the Utility has a huge portfolio full of regulatory agenda. Utility operating companies will continue to work with their commissions, including a number of newly elected or appointed commissioners to pursue constructive outcome. Despite progress in the recent years on regulatory initiatives, even more progress is required. Particularly, as utility operating segments moving to a potentially capital intensive investment phase. In today's environment, Utility operating companies recognize that investors are demanding substantially improved compensation for risk, or at a bare minimum greater anti-assurance as for the risk taken and greater certainty that exposed the deal as the deal. That translates for the requirement for each Utility operating center to give a reasonable opportunity to earn year-in, year-out, a fair return on equity consistent with investments, of similar risk in order to assure continued access to capital. The market is dictating the terms. The capital simply will not be available, if we can't compete, with the many alternatives investors and lenders have available. Entergy's Utility operating company's rates to return are where they need to be, to provide those kinds of assurances. One of the top priorities for the Utility business in 2009 obviously, is going to be storm recovery, with regulatory proceedings targeted to be completed around year-end and recovery expected through a securitization process. Utility operating segments will also attempt to obtain closure on regulatory proceedings currently in progress across all jurisdictions, including appeal cases in Arkansas, Mississippi, rate cases in Texas and New Orleans, and Louisiana formula rate plans, and Phase II proceedings for Little Gypsy and Waterford 3. After many years of study, Entergy Texas will also seek a final determination, on it's appropriate qualified power region, and a plan to transition the competition or a final determination to just stay put. At the same time, Utility operating segments will continue to advocate constructive regulation going forward, with a variety of means; including the Arkansas commissions request for innovative regulation approaches, Louisiana commissions discussion, a potential formula, rate plan extension, the Mississippi commission's focus on fuel related issues, New Orleans city council's provision to potentially reinstate a formula race on an after biz (ph) rate case is included, and everyone's interest at potential successful arrangements to the system agreements, where necessary. Plans will be made to file new rate cases or tariff, and legislative actions and also be support -- maybe sought to support access to the market public quality goals, or other items in the public interest. As an example, Entergy Texas needs new legislations similar to that in Louisiana to permit storm securitization that is clearly in the best economic interest of its customers. Utility operating centers will also continue to advance its portfolio transformation strategy, by resolving the main issues on construction of Little Gypsy, making new resource decisions pursuant to the Western region's request for proposal, and seeking new nuclear alternatives to our failed negotiations on the ASPWR (ph). As greater clarity is obtained on market related uncertainty, Utility operating companies will make the appropriate determination of whether to reengage the market for other long-term resource consumer effort. At Entergy Nuclear, the commitment to safety, security, operational excellence at nuclear state will remain at the forefront, followed by license renewals. Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee are both in the final stages of the license renewal process, we can see approval expected for Pilgrim by mid-year, and for the Vermont Yankee by the second half of 2009. Vermont Yankee also continues to seek approval for specific public (ph) good for another 20 years in Vermont. On that point the consultants, hired by the Department of Public Service, quantified substantial benefit of the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee including a best expectation of nearly $740 million related to value sharing and $1.5 billion of value from economic activities and net government revenue. Those benefits alone provide an adequate economic basis for issuance of the CPD. Obviously Vermont has a lot to lose without the Vermont Yankee, likewise New York has a lot of lose if Indian Point is decommissioned. Into 2009, the reliability needs assessment issued (ph) January 12, the New York ISO identified a series of potential risk to reliability including power plant retirement. More specifically, it said -- the assessment indicates that unexpected retirement of significant generation facilities could create reliability concerns and acquire new resources in New York. Obviously Indian Point falls into the unexpected category. Due to its location and a constrained part of the system, retirement of one of the two Indian Point nuclear power plant units will cause an immediate violation of reliability standards if other resources are not available immediately to address that need. In the event up to the 2014 retirement of Indian Point 2 the assessment estimates the need for over 1000 megawatts in the Lower Hudson valley, New York City or the Long Island zone. In the event of the 2016 retirement of Indian Point 3, the total need would increase to over 2000 mega watts. In any event consistent with the process, the Indian Point license renewal process will continue throughout 2009 with license renewal targeted for the first quarter of 2011. In support of the license renewal Indian Point will continue to implement recommendations from the independent safety evaluation report. Likewise, Vermont Yankee will do the same for the comprehensive vertical audit result. Turning now to spin-off of the non-utility nuclear plan since we last met with you, Entergy nuclear engaged in settlement discussions in New York and executed a credit facility on behalf of the Enexus. Now let me be as clear as I can be without engaging in speculation on what may or may not happen in these very uncertain times. What we have committed to you is our diligence in seeking to maximize the value or at least eliminate the value destroyer in our non-utility nuclear fleet. The proposed spin-off provided the opportunity to eliminate most of the value destroying issue. It was then necessary, but not sufficient conditions to maximize the value of business. The world has changed since then. In particular the debt markets have changed. The sequence of events may need to change for the market force themselves out. The time frame may need to change. Our objective to maximize the value of these assets will not change, nor do we intend to take a long time out when we have submitted to exhaust all reasonable possibilities to maximize the value of this opportunity. We are not a bigger is better company. We're a point of view company. And I assure you we're considering all reasonable alternatives to get to where we need to be for our own (ph). In the interim, while things sort themselves out in the market and we do what we can, on our end, we still own the non-utility nuclear plan and the underlying value continues to accrued to you. I distinguish that from values as the current market seems to impute (ph) to those assets. On the financial front our aspirations remain unchanged and our focus will remain on the principles of sustainable growth. It has successfully served us in the past. While our long term point of view remains bullish; we've got a lot of work to do in the near term, both get into (ph) and to realize our objectives and our aspirations. Our Board isn't satisfied with excuses and you don't want to hear them and they stick in my throat as well. We aren't where we need to be or want to be, but we know what we need to achieve and we will exhaust all efforts to get there. In our 10 years of success, you all know we've been here before. We all expect results and that's our mission in 2009. Now let me turn the call over to Leo. Leo?

Thank you Wayne and good morning everyone. In my remarks I will cover quarterly results followed by cash flow performance including our liquidity positions, our share repurchase activity and a review of our 09 earnings guidance. Looking first at our financial results for the quarter, slide two shows a decrease in fourth quarter 08 as reported earnings compared to a year ago. This decrease came from lower results at Utility, Parent & Other, which were partially offset by higher earnings at Entergy Nuclear. As has been our practice in previous quarters, spin-off expenses are reflected as a special item in the current period. Turning to operational earnings, results were lower compared to fourth quarter 07 due to a loss at Utility, Parent & Other. Improved nuclear results offset a portion of the decrease at the Utility. Slide three presents the factors that drove the quarter-on-quarter results. The decrease at Utility, Parent & Other came primarily from the Arkansas regulatory charges that Wayne mentioned in our associated tax treatment. These regulatory charges reflect the write-off of costs to previously accumulated in that company's storm reserve, and the removal costs associated with the termination of the lease, as well as the tax flow through effects of the regulatory charges. Higher tax expense associated with consolidated tax adjustments we typically make in the fourth quarter of each year, also contributed to the decrease in earnings. Weather also contributed to the quarter's decrease at the Utility. In fourth quarter of 08, we experienced milder than normal weather, while fourth quarter of 07s weather was warmer than normal. Entergy Nuclear produced another excellent quarter, posting an increase of nearly 50% in operational earnings. The increase was produced by higher pricing from energy sold along with a very strong operational quarter, reflected in its 94% capacity factor. Lower income taxes associated with consolidated tax adjustments, we typically make in the fourth quarter of each year, also increased earnings. The non-nuclear wholesale business recorded operational results this quarter equal to the $0.14 realized in the fourth quarter of 07, income tax benefits were primary drivers in both years. The last item contributing to consolidated results this quarter was the accretive effect of our share repurchase program. Moving to full year results. Slide four reflects as reported an operational result for 08 compared to 07. As reported results were higher in 08, led by strong performance in Entergy Nuclear. On an operational basis, sales in 08 were improved compared to 07 again, due to the nearly 50% increase in operational earnings at Entergy Nuclear. The increase in earnings at Nuclear came primarily, from higher pricing and energy sold, the highest generation output ever achieved by the fleet, and lower income tax expense. The lower income tax expense was driven primarily, by the benefit of consolidated tax savings. Operational results in 08 for Utility, Parent & Other were lower, compared to 07. The decrease was due primarily, to higher operations and maintenance expense, higher depreciation, and lower net revenue. The increase in O&M, and operation and maintenance expense was due primarily to the regulatory charges at Entergy Arkansas discussed earlier, and higher O&M from Arkansas storm expense, and the Ouachita acquisition. Partially offset by the absence of minimum bill credit write-offs taken last year, as well as lower payroll and benefit costs and O&M diverted to storm restoration in 08. The increase in depreciation expense was a result of planned additions in 08. Additional depreciation expense recorded at year-end to align regulatory and book depreciation in the absence of an 07 adjustment, related to the storm settlement achieved last year in Louisiana. Lower net revenue at Utility, Parent & Other reflects the effect of two hurricanes and it shows up most clearly, on our industrial sales numbers for the quarter. The magnitude of the sales decreased this quarter looks odd, but is driven in part by how industrial billings cross over reporting period. Basically what you are seeing is significantly lower usage from September, when the storms hit, coming through customers billed in the fourth quarter, contributing to the 11% industrial decline for the quarter. On a year-to-date basis, industrial sales are down approximately 3%, reflecting both the storm effect and weak economy. Results for the non-nuclear wholesale business were lower in 08 compared to last year, due primarily to higher income tax expense. The increase in income tax expense resulted from the absence in 08 of benefits associated with the resolution of tax audit issues in 07 and higher tax expense in 08 from the redemption of the investment this year. As noted in our third quarter earnings call last October, one element of our overall liquidity management strategy in 08 was to take a measured approach to share repurchases. We continued with that philosophy throughout the fourth quarter, while pursuing opportunistic share repurchases. The detail of fourth quarter activity are reflected on slide five, at the end of the year, we had roughly $600 million of repurchased authorities remaining. Slide six reflects a recap of our cash flow performance this quarter, which shows a decrease compared to the same period last year. The major items that contributed into the lower net cash flow provided by operating activities include the net effect of two hurricanes last September that required cash resources specific (ph) repairs are also reducing revenues due to customer outages with a total impact of $444 million. Higher nuclear refueling outage spending totaling $34 million of Utility and $29 million in Entergy Nuclear and higher working capital requirement of 86 million at the Utility, $46 million at Entergy Nuclear. These items were partially offset by increased collections at the Utility differed fuel recovery totaling $267 million and higher net revenues at Entergy Nuclear of $80 million. For the year cash from operations increased over $3 billion primarily due to receipt of just under $1 billion of storm securitization proceeds in Louisiana, lower income tax payments and higher earnings of Entergy Nuclear. These are partially offset by the effects of hurricanes, Gustav and Ike and the absence of community development broadband funding received by Entergy New Orleans in 2007. While, the overall market reflects the national economy that continues to deliver bad news as reflected on Slide seven, our current liquidity position and outlook for 09 remains very solid. At the end of the fourth quarter, we had more than $2.5 billion of liquidity available and only 2 billion of which was cash. In looking at 09, we expect to have new nearly $3 billion of liquidity available at the end of the year reflecting another strong year of operating cash flow generation and a successful financing program. We continue to believe that credit markets will improve as we move through the year. We currently have approximately $500 million of debt maturities in 09 all in the fourth quarter and we anticipate other financing activities as well. Already in 09, we've seen some indication of the rebound in the credit markets. Spreads in five and 10 year Triple B bond financings completed in the January were much improved over prices being quoted in the fourth quarter of 08. We benefited from the improvement, as just last week we successfully closed the $500 million bond financing for Entergy Texas, aside from the 300 million initially we saw. This was the first ever debt issuance by the company created through its our jurisdictional separation. We believe that a 10 year Triple B issuance at seven and eight is another indication of some recovery taking place in the market. We've also seen signs of strength in the bank lending space as Enexus successfully closed its credit revolver in late December. This $1.175 billion 3 year agreement was the only $1 billion plus sub-investment great multi-year bank deal closed since the first quarter of 2008, excluding certain asset backed and commodity based facility. We believe this signals not only some recovery in the credit market but also a very strong support for our Nuclear business. We acknowledge that what we've seen recently maybe market windows rather than structural recovery in the market. However as we've been telling for sometime windows present opportunities, we're constantly working to be positioned to seize on those opportunities. We're initiating 09 operational earnings guidance on a business at usual basis projected to be in the range of $6.77 to $7.30 per share with the components shown on Slide eight. Our -- as reported earnings for 09 is projected to be in the range of 6.56 to 7.16 reflecting $0.14 of the synergies associated with the Nuclear spin-off transaction. We initiated our discussion of 09 earnings at EEI conference last November sharing earning drivers with you. In reconciling our thoughts reflected by those drivers and the actual guidance detail on this slide you'll notice some changes. Since providing our thoughts and drivers we've had few items move against us that we expect to affect our result this year. The two regulatory decisions Entergy Texas rate case settlement and the Entergy Arkansas rate proceeding appeals are short of our initial expectation. In addition excluding the effect of 08 storms and industrial expansion expected in 08, our projection for overall sales of Utility this year cost a little at any growth due to the slow pace of the economic recovery. Also the outlook for power prices has changed since we discussed the earning drivers with you in the fall. Prices in the regions where we saw power from Entergy Nuclear fleet have steadily declined over the past several weeks. Another item worth noting on guidance is that our 09 numbers do not reflect any benefits associated with capital deployment such as the $0.15 we included at EEI. We still need to consider a range of options as to how we will deploy capital going forward. Options are available to us because of the flexibility that comes from having nearly $3 billion of projected net liquidity sources by year-end. Our 09 guidance was developed using the same approach this year as in the past that is our starting point was 08 actual results. Although clearly not satisfied with the results delivered last year; we do feel there were achievements as one a base for future success. Absent the effects of the regulatory charges in Arkansas, the utility held its own in an extremely challenging economic climate and a very active storm season. At Entergy Nuclear, we reached the highest level of generation output ever achieved by the fleet. And our consolidated results were the highest ever achieved at Entergy. Finally we were successful in managing our liquidity through one of the most challenging credit markets of recent times and generated more than $3 billion of cash flow from operating activities. In 09, we expect to again have to overcome some things that we cannot control, such as a prolonged economic slump and retreating power prices. However, we will actively pursue positive outcomes through actions we can influence, including operating our fleet to achieve the highest level of efficiency in a safe and secure environment, controlling our spending and rate of protect value and effectively executing on our point of view to create new value in a challenging market. The disruption we see in the market today presents capital deployment opportunities and makes liquidity especially valuable. The flexibility, we have available in 09 positions us to achieve positive outcomes in this market. With additional liquidity to protect -- protection for downside risks, liquidity to fuel growth within our existing business, and the liquidity for strategic opportunities. One last point specific to our 09 number relates to the quarterly buildup of earnings this year as reflected on Slide nine. We have three planned refueling outages at Entergy Nuclear this year all in the spring including one at our largest plant in Indian Point-3. While we had three refueling outages in 08, only one was in the spring, the other two being fall outages. During quarterly comparisons between 08 and09, the timing differences of these outages will effect quarterly results. In summary the well known economic challenges of today could've tempted us to abandon the financial aspirations we previously shared with you. However, we continue to believe that our fundamental approach in achieving long-term financial success, can weather even the most difficult of times. As Wayne noted earlier, our financial aspirations for both the utility and non-utility nuclear business are unchanged. We recognize there are challenges on the horizons, but we've been tested before, and we've never backed away from a challenge. Throughout the course of this year, we expect opportunities will present themselves to us, and we planned to be active in seeking out others that may be less apparent. We know you have come to expect this, and we expected no less of ourselves. Now the Entergy's senior team is available for your questions.

(operator instructions). And our first question will come from Greg Gordon Citi Investment, your line is open. Greg Gordon - Citi Investment: Thank you. First question, can you tell us -- I think your guiding to an overall corporate tax rate for 2009 of 37%, but there is a -- what are the assumed tax rate at nuclear and those two tax rate at the utility, because there is some pretty big swings in the underlying guidance?

Well, we really don't, -- haven't given out what they are by -- put that in terms of, by utility by business unit. We look at that consolidated tax return and then we allocate those at the end of the year. So to some extend it jumps around year-to-year. When you look at that consolidated tax number Greg, it kind of evens out in terms of where it goes one year versus the other. So if you've got for example this year is $76 million or so and those -- it showed up, it's benefit to one side and its reduction to the other. It really depends on how the positions that we've had over the course of the year play themselves out. You can call Michelle and she can get you into more detail in terms of what exactly was within those numbers and then how we're looking at it in terms of what's going on in 09, but it really does depend a lot on the tax position we've taken and how they show up in the year in terms of whether its audit or reserves or what have you. Greg Gordon - Citi Investment: Second question is on your sales assumptions. Given your exposure to the petrochemical industry, is it reasonable to assume that you'll have weather adjusted and hurricane adjusted growth in sales in 09 versus 08 you mentioned that there is industrial expansion that's a part of the assumption there. Can you go through how you got comfortable with that baseline? J. Wayne Leonard: Yeah. I think if you look at our sales, firstly go back what Leo talk about in 07 versus 08 results, if you adjusted for the storm our industrial would have been down about 1.8%, but we would have seen at about a 2% growth in our residential and commercial. Looking forward as we are trying to (ph) adjust for the storm that gets us down to about 1.5% growth rate and as Leo said we do have some expansions one of those are actually complete and we actually will see that coming forward and then talking with them and we believe we will still see that expansion and the others that's coming along. But as Leo has said that we have clearly seen as a result if you adjust for those basic flat growth in our business from 08 to 09, but we are now starting to see some of those same general economic conditions and impacting our larger customers that you're seeing in another areas and as a result of that we may see some further impact going forward into 09. Greg Gordon - Citi Investment: Okay. Thank you.

And our next question comes from John Kiani, from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Good morning.

Morning. John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Greg actually asked most of my questions, but one thing I was wandering about is if you could give a little bit of additional color on the change that you saw relative to your 08 results in the non-nuclear wholesale assets?

Nuclear wholesale assets, in terms of what's going on between 08 and 09? John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Exactly that $0.11 per share decline.

Well we've got a couple of things, one you have the absence of the tax benefits that we saw this year. John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Right.

And then we have an above market capacity contract that's going to roll off of one of our plans thereto. John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Got you. Okay. And from an amortization perspective it looks like I think the Palisades below market PPA, amortizes in a smaller amount in 2009, relative to 2008. How does that look beyond 09 as far as revenue accretion is concerned?

It shows up in a declining basis as it goes forward. If you looked in the 10-Q you'll have more details in terms of how that's calculated but you're right, it does decline year-over-year and it will decline again as we go forward. John Kiani - Deutsche Bank: Okay. Alright, thank you.

And next we'll go to Leslie Rich from Columbia Management, your line is open. Leslie Rich - Columbia Management Group: Thank you. I wondered if you could go into a little bit more detail to the extent that you can about some of your last comments Leo, about having a lot of financial flexibility to take advantage of opportunities and plan to be active in seeking opportunities, could you explain that for me? Are you talking above and beyond the consideration of the spend no-spend decision, are you thinking about M&A or acquisition of distressed assets or some other form of restructuring? J. Wayne Leonard: Les this is Wayne, Leo is forcing that question on me, I'm sorry. Leslie Rich - Columbia Management Group: That's fine, you know the answer too. J. Wayne Leonard: I wish I didn't know the answer it's a -- it will be an opportunistic answer ultimately. We have certain things that we would like to see happen with that opportunities that may or may not happen just like nuclear, we spent quite a bit of time in those negotiations and that did not turnout as we hoped. I just predicted the case so I think you'll get your answer on what we're thinking of. To maximize the value of this business as we see it needs to be more than just a set of assets that are disconnected from one another each one selling into a different local market and with a small number of buyers. So in order to change that you can add transmits and rights, you can do obviously the things that, that the spin was setup to do, that is do the financing right. Change the way you're selling the products in the marketplace, not just units and digits. Again that would involve getting transmission rights, getting rights to options or forwards, or rights to other assets, for picking up assets on the marketplace or taking that strategy, those individual pieces into something larger, which could be the stress portfolios, or even other companies that matched up well with them. We didn't -- the range of potential options is pretty large right now. And -- but the endgame is pretty clear on our mind, what would look like to maximize the value, and a lot of those things could be done in the interim, hopefully, could be done in the interim, while the debt markets pours itself out, and legal fortune through various structures to make sure that the tax considerations and other things as like that don't destroy value along the way. But I mean, I think your question was on target in terms of what we're thinking about, and which comes first, and those kind of things will depend upon, which opportunities are more right than others, and -- but they're all, there're no perfect sequence here. Leslie Rich - Columbia Management Group: And how do you prioritize the net carbon position as you look at these opportunities? And then, sort of what is your view Leo in terms of -- I mean, Wayne in terms of the Arkansas carbon much inflation (ph)? J. Wayne Leonard: Yes, you'll see we're going to take down on either. The carbon is I think on every body, everybody's radar screens -- even though it's I think that I have thought it over the years, and those I still don't believe, in the science or whatever. They do believe that there is going to be some action taken on carbon. The numbers that we have used in terms of price signals, that we think is necessary in order to solve this problem, and around the world, is in that range of $40 a ton, and we have seen that in Europe at times. We've seen that in study-after-study, we had the same type of number in that 2020 type carbon frame. So we continued to use numbers like that. I think for our own measurements in terms of adding to this portfolio, and it could be a portfolio that has obviously, a portfolio that has a variety of different types of assets, and the strength of an excess of course this has, as you know, it has no emissions at all. And we don't want to destroy that, because we believe strongly that that is a value adder. And so, the assets or positions, or whatever that we look at we want to feel there are propriety to maintaining its competitive advantage from a cleanliness standpoint. And the things that we're thinking about and looking at, we factored in. And I don't know, if anybody does not frankly -- that we're talking -- that we talked to that isn't thinking about carbon as we're giving. Leslie Rich - Columbia Management Group: Okay, thank you.

And our next question comes from Steve Fleishman from Catapult Capital. Your line is open. Steve Fleishman - Catapult Capital: Hi, guys. J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning, Steve Steve Fleishman - Catapult Capital: Hi, Leslie pretty much asked my exact question. I had one other one, which was assuming the company stays as it is right now, do you still have the same less balanced sheet targets that you've had at roughly 45% equity target or certain cash flow to debt targets? J. Wayne Leonard: Leo will take that question.

Yeah it seems the -- if we kept the company exactly as it is, we would maintain similar financial metrics and strategies in our dividend payout of around our balance sheet, and around what kind of liquidity position we carry. If we stay together in a slightly different form, for example, if some of the things Wayne was just talking about came to solution, and we still work together, we'd have to alter those accordingly to just take into consideration, what may or may not change. But I think just take that one step further back to the other question that Leslie asked as well, that part where we didn't include any capital deployment over and above the $600 million of authority we already had, that would certainly be more ammunition going forward, in terms of what our balance sheet looks like, and what our capabilities would be associated with. Thus that's business as usual is okay. Steve Fleishman - Catapult Capital: Okay. Thank you.

And next we'll go to the side of Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs: Hey guys. Coming back to the regulated portion of the business. Wayne, can you talk a little bit about which jurisdictions for the next one or two years you expect to under earn the most. And what is the event or catalyst or preceding that will reverse that trend? J. Wayne Leonard: Kind of negative outlook there Mike. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs: Tough market right now. J. Wayne Leonard: The -- I'm going to let Gary Taylor address that, because he's been told none of them are allowed are under earn. So might see how he addresses that question.

Well thanks Wayne for lead in. I think that if you look at our business, I think Wayne is exactly right. I mean we have to look at each one and say what are the challenges that are really between us and achieve in our authorized ROE. And I think in each of our businesses those challenges are a little bit different that we have to focus going forward, and clearly I think you see good performance in Louisiana. In Arkansas, I think we are starting to see better performance, but clearly it is going to have to be a rate case type action for us to adjust the ROE and then for us to get that business back on track. I think Texas is a little bit different story. I think we made a positive step in our rate case, but I think what we really see there is that they really are going to have take legislature type that we're going have to work with and work with legislators to address. So we think there are really some fundamental issues in the process that allows us to set an ROE, but really through presence it really impedes us from being able to do that as well as reconcile what we with TCC (ph). I think they're having a decision on the qualified power region is really essential for us for resolving some of those issues. And I think really in Mississippi, Mississippi I think probably even more sell (ph) in our jurisdiction is that we're going to have a continue to work to make sure that business is very transparent, that there is a understanding of our cost and our ability to work with each of the new commissioners who kinds of understands the dynamics of this business going forward. But Wayne makes it very clear to me its not under performing. It is -- you have to work to how you achieve both that balance for our customer and the return to our shareholders. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs: Can you address to the jurisdictions that have formula rate plans Louisiana, Mississippi etc. When, if demand is weak in a particular jurisdiction during a given year and that drives you below the low end to the band. When does that get trued up?

It gets trued up in the case of each of those at the time in your FRP but when you are below the band, in the case of Louisiana which those FRPs have expired and we are now renegotiating those with that to look at fixing up, but typically there's a sharing mechanism of 60/40 between where you are in the bottom of that band. So you really only true back up of potentially to the bottom and then depending on what your decreasing cost would be, you could adjust that. In Mississippi it's a 50/50 split and it's adjusted to the bottom of the band as well. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs: I guess the question I'm trying to get to and I'm struggling a little bit process wise and my apologies on this, is that if you have an abnormal kind of year one, does the revenue adjustment occur in year two or do you have a proceeding in the year two, a short one and the revenue adjustment occurs really in year three? J. Wayne Leonard: It occurs in year three. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs: Okay, thank you.

And next we'll go to Andrew Levy (ph) from Incremental Capital. Your line is open.

Hi guys. How you're doing?

Hey Andrew.

Just a quick question. Just on your guidance for 2009. In the very bottom you have nuclear spin off to synergies. Can you just go over what those are?

Those are the incremental costs associated with carrying (ph) basically three entities, throughout the course of the year. You've got Entergy, EquGen and Enexus. So we have incremental costs associated with the fact that we've got this rolling readiness posture where we're able to -- we've got staff, we've got systems and things like that. They're associated with having an extra company ready to be spot. So those are those things, at no cost, but for the spin we wouldn't have them.

Got it. Thank you.

And our next question comes from Paul Ridzon from Keybanc. Please go ahead. Paul Ridzon - KeyBanc: Since EEI, it looks like kind of the mid point of you guidance is down about $0.40. You named a lot of the factors driving that. Can you kind of quantify each of those and kind of put the $0.40 in context with respect to each of those?

Okay, I think there is a slide associated with most of that in the web cast and in the release. But effectively we've got a significant amount of assets due, solely due to dropping power prices and the change in sales that Gary had talked about. Those are the two major drivers associated with what's dropped. The other thing that we don't have, and that I mentioned in the prepared remarks is the additional capital deployment that we had on the end of that EEI slide, that $0.15 that additional capital deployment was associated with, if you state as a business as usual company throughout the year and you didn't spend what capacity it's the same, the same things we were talking about earlier with Steve and Leslie. That opportunities and liquidities that we have, the balance sheet that we have, if we were not going to spend how might you deploy that capital differently in that case, which is the case that we intend to spend. But primarily what you are looking at is that you had about a $10 decline where -- not quite $10 but about 10% of decline in the price of power associated with what we're doing in the Northeast. And that's had a significant decline on the earnings and then saw the reduction in the sales growth where we were about underlying 1.1 and securities is now underlying, excluding storm and additions that were about flat. And then we've also -- the Texas rate case settlement we were on the -- going under the basis of a non unanimous settlement at that point of time and the actual unanimous settlement was a little bit shy of where we had expected that to be. Paul Ridzon - Keybanc: Can you just outline your expectations for how you see the Vermont calendar unfolding to resolutions? J. Wayne Leonard: That's right. Well I mean we're working through that right now. I mean we've got two proceedings going on, one is the proceeding before the Public Service Commission in Vermont on the spin itself, so all that data is in front of them and its ready for a decision before them. Somewhat I think they've hesitated because of what's going on in the national market as it relates to ability to finance, but as that opens up I think they'll get back on that. And then the other is as it relates to the license renewal and there is committee meetings going on right now related to that in Vermont. And we have people testifying before those committees, and that will come to fruition whether -- as it relates to certificate of public good around the May timeframe. Paul Ridzon - Keybanc: Thank you.

And our final question today come from Jonathan Arnold from Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: Hi, good morning.

Good morning John. J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: Could I just ask about the hedging because, given the nuclear side you obviously didn't do much additional hedging during 2008, but it looks like you did have some extra hedges in the fourth quarter and from what I can see is they notched the average hedge price up a little bit, so they seem to have been done at relatively decent prices. Could you just address what the policy is going forward, while you are in this revolving (ph) readiness state and the targets and the like, and then was there anything on -- unusual about those hedges you did without the ram-across (ph) type pricing or more related to peak or something of that nature?

Taking the second piece of that first, there was nothing unique, they're the typical kinds of transactions that we normally do. As far as our hedging policies or strategies, they really haven't changed. We're still within the guidelines of what we deem the limit around our strategy. We have a little bit more open this year than we have ordinarily. We didn't hedge in excess of what our limits would allow us to do going into 2009. And that's partially a function of where we sit, and where we sit and this relates to what, we are doing with Enexus. It was a conscious decision to go into it that way. As we look at going forward, we are going to continue to monitor where we sit with, with the spend certainly what we have to do though is hedge around where we sit today in terms of what Entergy's needs are, what our needs are around credit, what our needs are around liquidity, and what our needs are around our dividend policy et cetera. So, we'll continue to reevaluate that on an ongoing basis. So nothing's really changed as it relates to what our strategy is, we are just trying to be positive and that's having one foot in Entergy, and one foot in Enexus basically. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: Assuming those spin, would you anticipate going into 2010 more hedged that year than you currently are in 09, is that -- could we read that into what you've just said?

I would say that it would -- our limits would push us to be about the same hedged as what we're going in. Whether we did more or less would be based on what our point of view was at that point in time. So we continue to evaluate that as we got through the year. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: Okay. And could I just ask one other thing on that, with in your 09 guidance, what is that -- what kind of assumption is there in that for the nuclear fuel, and -- obviously we've seen this run up in the uranium market since pull back, and I know there is a lot of smoothing. But, how should we think about nuclear fuel costs those are earnings driver in 09 than into the next couple of years beyond? J. Wayne Leonard: Michael Kansler, can take that. Mike?

We've been watching that market along with everybody else, and as you know, it went up pretty high last year. But it's kind of settled back down into the 40s. The way we do our new nuclear fuel purchases, we look out several years. And right now, we are pretty well committed for 2010. So, we don't expect to see a big run up in our nuclear costs in 2010, and we're working forward for that later year also. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: So this is a meaningful driver in 09 in terms of the step up, and not in 10 or 09 in neither year is that?

No, that's pretty level as its not going up much at all mainly because of how we purchase things going forward, and it's all included in our net revenue assumptions in the guidance. Jonathan Arnold - BAS - Merrill Lynch: Thank you.

And we have no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to Michele Lopiccolo.

Thank you operator and thank you all for participating this morning. Before we close we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements. Our call is recorded and can be accessed for the next seven days by dialing 719-457-0820. Replay code 6436840. This concludes our call. Thank you.