Good day, everyone and welcome to the Entergy Corporation third quarter 2009 earnings conference call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time for opening remarks and introductions I'd like to turn the call over to Michele Lopiccolo of Investor Relations.

Good morning and thank you for joining us, we'll begin this morning with comments from our Chairman and CEO Wayne Leonard and Leo Denault will review 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.

Thanks, Michele. Good morning, we the EEI financial conference rapidly approaching our comments today will be limited to significant events occurring during the third quarter. Next week we have our regularly scheduled board meeting which includes review of the 2010 financial plans, and how they align with other plans, strategies and aspirations. We'll have more to share with you on all of that in the EEI. Today I'll begin with review of the regulatory developments at the utility, since our last update. And overarching objective at our utility operating companies as receiving authorized returns from our regulatory commissions at an appropriate level to attract capital and to maintain solid investment grade credit and then to actually earn those authorized returns. So we have two gaps to close. Generally authorized returns have been below our view of a fair return and we haven't consistently earned even those. To address these issues Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi initiated new regulatory filings into the quarter. Entergy Texas is preparing a new filing for late this year. And Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana reached and contested settlements in early October that improved their opportunities. You may recall that Entergy New Orleans obtained a constructive rate case settlement last April that that implemented a three-year formula rate plan beginning with the 2009 test year. That's a good start. Here is what is ahead. On September 4, Entergy Arkansas filed a rate case requesting $223 million increase, reflecting an 11.5% ROE and Formula Rate Plan, including mechanisms that provide Entergy Arkansas the ability to actually earn its allowed return. Those mechanisms include midpoint ROE resets with rates changed on a perspective basis where earnings fall outside the prescribed plus or minus 25 basis point bandwidth and provisions addressing timely recovery of commission approved expenditures for certain generation and transmission-related projects. In addition, the proposed FRP includes a recovery and incentive mechanism in alliance to shareholders economic interest with successfully implementing the state's energy efficiency and conservation and objectives. Over the course of the past year the Arkansas commission examined similar concepts in a series of dockets. The preliminary procedural schedule sets the case for hearings to begin in next May with new rates effective in July. It’s also noteworthy to point out that even with the proposed rate increase in July Arkansas customers can expect lower bills because other expect reduction such as a significant reduction expected in the rough production cost equalization rider as a result of lower natural gas prices in 2009. On September 18, Entergy Mississippi filed modifications to its Formula Rate Plan, the proposed modifications more closely aligned Entergy Mississippi FRP with FRPs of other regulated Mississippi utilities which were allowed for streamlined review process. These modifications will provide the Entergy Mississippi the same earnings opportunities as the other Mississippi utilities it competes with for capital to serve its customers. Modifications include resetting Entergy Mississippi’s return to the middle of its bandwidth each year, broadening the current annual rate change limitation or cap and implementing a projected test year concept instead of a historical test year as a sole measure of determining just and reasonable rate levels. Given Entergy Mississippi’s expected need to make significant transmission related capital expenditures, these changes are critical to provide a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return The proposed modifications are expected to be heard by the Mississippi commission at the same time it is considering rate making for Southern Company’s Mississippi’s subsidiary. Entergy Texas is also planning to file a rate case by the end of the year. In addition to seeking appropriate rate and return levels this filing it will align Entergy Texas provisions contained in a recent legislation that supports the timely recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvements and recovery of wholesale transmission charges. In the interim, on September 18, Entergy Texas filed an application to implement a power cost recovery factor to timely recover purchase power capacity costs for a single-based load contract, recently offered to the Entergy system and projected to save Texas customers $9.5 million to $16 million over three years. Entergy Texas requested this mechanism to recover the capacity costs until such time as the costs reflected at base rates or general rate case or the transaction expires, whichever occurs first. In Louisiana, last week at its business and executive session, the commissioner approved the uncontested settlements related to its formula rate plans for both Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana. The settlements resolved outstanding test year issues related to previous formula rate filings resulted in a total refund of $16.6 million. The settlement also provided for new formula rate plans for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 test years, retaining previous ROE ranges, and incorporating a number of unique recovery provisions, such as, the continuation of capacity rider, pro forma treatment for the (inaudible) Black Star Project, making provisions to reflect wholesale contract expirations in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s retail wholesale allocation, and establish in a placeholder provision to request future cost recovery outside of the FRP for energy efficiency and environmental requirements. Effective with November billing cycle, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana are permitted to reset their rates to achieve their allowed ROEs of 10.65% and 10.25% respectively. 2008 test year filings support cost of service increases in the amounts of $36.9 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $16.3 million for Entergy Louisiana. Rates are subject to refund pending review of the filings, of course. Further, parties to the settlements committed to work together to attempt to develop a transmission cost recovery rider with a schedule to be set that provides for the LPSC to address this matter at its March 2010 session. A common objective you may have noted among all regulatory commissions is transmission upgrades. And a common concern among all Entergy jurisdictions is timely cost recovery. The utility operating companies recognized that America is in a process of amending certain reliability planning standards, and if approved by FERC, these amendments will result in more stringent planning criteria. These revised planning standards will result in significantly increased expenditures for the utility operating companies. Also in recent weeks and months utility operating companies have engaged in ongoing discussions with FERC and retail regulators regarding its independent coordinator transmission arrangement which is authorized through November 2010. As a result of the transmission discussions, the retail regulators of the utility operating companies formed the Entergy Regional State Committee, what we call the ERSC, to consider these matters jointly in an advisory role, at least initially. Among other things, the ERSC will supervise the cost benefit analysis comparing the ICT arrangement with another alternative becoming part of the [STPRTO]. The utility operating company strongly support the actions of its retail regulators to work collaboratively in order to develop consensus among themselves to provide input on the appropriate direction structure for the operating company's transmission assets and for the guidance on other system-wide transition matters. Another significant regulatory development during the quarter including the resolution of the storm procedure in Texas where settlements were achieved. Entergy Texas reached an unopposed black box settlement and a storm cost recovery proceeding and subsequently reached a unanimous settlement in its financing order docket, both of which were approved by the public utility commission of Texas. Pursuant to the settlements Entergy Texas expects to securitize roughly $540 million including carrying costs of $43.5 million, to a projected October 26 bond issue. Securitization proceeds are net of an estimated $70 million of projected insurance proceeds subject to true-up. Entergy Texas received $75.5 million in September, following resolution of the hurricane Ike claim which will be factored into the final carrying cost calculations when the bonds are sold. In Nuclear, operations continue to record-setting levels. At utility Waterford 3 exceeded 400 days of continuous operations before shutting down in October for their scheduled refueling outage. This notable accomplishment ranks in the top debt file of the industry proposed loss rates. The rare breaker-to-breaker run as they were forced to shut down about a year ago when Gustav came through. You might recall they were chasing the record set by Vermont Yankee and ANO2 which previously had breaker-to-breaker runs. It's rare but at Entergy when they come out of an outage they always expects to go breaker-to-breaker before they go down again. At Entergy Nuclear our non-utility fleet did have a near perfect run this quarter with a capacity factor rounding to 100%. Moreover, Indian Point completed another major milestone during the quarter. I will review the final safety valuation report, the advisory committee on reactor safeguards which reports directly to the NRC commissioners, concluded that the renewal applications should be approved enabling this vital resource to operate for another 20 years. Next steps to official license extension clearly obtain a final supplemental environmental impact statement by February 2010. In addition, significant progress was evident on the proposed spin off with the ultimate resolution now clearly in our line of sight around the end of the year. As you are aware, an amended petition was filed in New York in August further enhancing the financial flexibility and strength of Enexus, while the same time preserving Entergy's legitimate business reasons and financial objectives for pursuing the separation. Following a technical conference in the first half of September, the administrative law judges established a procedural schedule to move the proceeding to an orderly closure that could lead to a commission decision in December. The next date of interest is October 29, when initial comments on the amended petition are due from all parties. In Vermont, a significant milestone was achieved when the department of public service entered into an agreement to settle all issues in the spin off docket has documented in a memorandum of understanding. In the agreement, the department of public service acknowledges that Enexus agreements and obligations and MOU will provide material benefits to Vermont and on that basis shall recommend to the Vermont public service board that it approve the MOU and issue the final order for the spin off. As a result and in view of the substantial passage of time since filing briefs, Entergy Vermont Yankee requested the Vermont public service board expedite its final consideration of the transaction and issue its decision in final order approving the transactions by mid-November. In other procedural matters [boards] approved the emitted spin off application filed in August. Enexus also filed its fourth amendment to the Form 10 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Entergy submitted a request for a supplemental ruling from internal revenue service to reflect the addition of the exchange trust agreement, among other things. Having said that, and having received approvals from FERC and the NRC, in order to move forward with the proposed spin off we are awaiting approvals from Vermont and New York. If Vermont adopts the MOU as recommended by the Vermont department of public service that leaves are open only the New York public service commission and final approval by the Entergy Board of Directors. Before closing, I wanted to acknowledge how thrilled Entergy was to announce the election of Dr. Stewart C. Myers to its Board of Directors since September. Dr. Myers is a legend in the field of finance and I expect many, if not all of you consider yourself a student of his. Or at least of his many works and highly regarded and sided research papers. Of course he's the co-author of the classic graduate level textbook 'Principles of Corporate Finance' which is now in its 9th edition. As we interrupt here which will undoubtedly be increasingly complex, with alternative strategies or investments to achieve cleaner energy and more efficient usage, as we consider and evaluate equally complex financing arrangements and structures to achieve those objectives, Dr. Myers' expertise and experience will be invaluable in providing guidance and oversight. He makes an already outstanding board even better. And finally, Entergy is proud to achieve a pair of awards demonstrating its long standing commitment to integrate the basic principles of sustainable development into all areas of its business. For the 8th consecutive year, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index included Entergy on their exclusive World Index. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index recognized Entergy as the only US utility on the World Index in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and Entergy was only one of two US utilities selected to the World Index in 2009. This year, Entergy performed highest and was ranked among the best in corporate governance, score cards and measurement systems, occupational health and safety, environmental policy and measurement systems, climate strategy and talent and retention. The carbon disclosure project also named Entergy to the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index for the company's approach to climate change. 2009 marks the sixth consecutive year. Entergy has been committed for its corporate governance with respect to carbon disclosure practices. Entergy was also honored to be named the business league's Best Places to Launch a Career list. Entergy was the only energy company included in the ranking. Personally, we think it's a pretty challenging and rewarding place to work. Everyday we have customers to serve, communities to strengthen, investors to please. Although the third quarter includes the lot of progress on all these fronts, we recognize, we have much work ahead of us and it all comes down to the same way we think about safety. We can never be complacent, not even for a second, and I assure you we aren't, and we won't be. More about that at EEI. Now, let me turn the call over to Leo.

Thank you Wayne and good morning everyone. In my remarks today I will cover third quarter results and cash flow performance followed by an update on our share repurchase activity, and a recap of 2009 earnings guidance. I will close with a few thoughts on the utility and the nexus that we'll be discussing with you further at the upcoming EEI conference. Starting with our financial results on Slide two, third quarter earnings decreased compared to a year ago due to lower results at utility, parent and other, partially offset by an improvement in the non-nuclear wholesale assets business. On an operational basis, Entergy Nuclear also produced modestly higher earnings. Once again, operational results exclude two special items related to the spin-off. Third party expenses at utility, parent and other that we began reporting in the second quarter of 2008. In incremental, these synergies reflected in Entergy Nuclear results since the start of this year. Looking closely at third quarter results we delivered a solid quarter outlined with expectations in our adjusted earnings guidance. As expected, quarter-over-quarter variances reflected several income tax adjustments recorded at all three business segments in 2008. The net effect of these income tax items on a consolidated basis provided around $0.40 per share benefit to the third quarter earnings last year. Both the utility and nuclear businesses delivered net revenue growth due primarily to the absence of hurricane activity in 2009 at the utility, and strong operational performance of the non-utility nuclear plants resulting in a fleet-wide capacity factor of 100%. Slide three presents the factors that drove the quarter-on-quarter results in more detail. Utility, parent and others operational earnings decline was due primarily to the absence of the 2008 adjustment reducing income tax expense. This adjustment was associated with the liquidation of a subsidiary. Higher operation and maintenance expense also contributed to lower current period earnings. Positives at utility, parent and other this quarter include higher net revenue, and higher other income. Weather was not a major factor considering both build and un-build sales periods. The second half of June saw some of the highest daily average temperatures throughout our service territory in 10 years, and the related sales and weather effect were generally reflected in July build sales. The revenue effect however, had been captured in un-build revenue during the second quarter. The most significant driver in utility net revenue was the absence of hurricanes Gustav and Ike which reduced revenue in all customer classes in the third quarter of 2008. Because of how our billing cycles work however, not all of the storm effects are captured in the build KWH sales statistics in our earnings release. For residential and commercial customers, positive sales growth is largely due to the return to normal activity this year. However, for the most part, the hurricane effect was not reflected in the quarter-over-quarter change in industrial sales. Industrial customers are typically build at the beginning of the month following usage. Therefore, lower build industrial sales due to the hurricanes last year, didn't generally show up until the fourth quarter of 2008. The continued weak economy was the major driver in industrial sales. Overall, industrial sales did decrease by 6.3% versus the third quarter of 2008. Still, month-to-month industrial sales trends have been generally positive over the last six months, and September's industrial sales decline of only 2.1%, versus the same month last year, marked a significant improvement. As we look to next quarter, the ramp-up of industrial expansions plan for the year, as well as improving fundamentals in manufacturing and the overall economy, are expected to positively impact the industrial segment. Utility net revenue in the third quarter also includes the charges for the Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate refunds, that Wayne mentioned earlier. Going forward, the extension of the formula rate plans and one-time ROE midpoint reset provide a path or anyhow allowed ROEs at these two companies. Turning to Entergy Nuclear, quarterly results were modestly higher than prior year. Positive variances were due primarily to higher revenue from fewer planned and unplanned outages and increased other income. Two factors associated with decommissioning trust funds combine to produce the higher other income. First, third quarter 2008 results included an impairment on certain decommissioning investments. Additionally, third quarter 2009 reflected realized gains on sales in these decommissioning funds. With the stock market producing another quarter of 15% plus returns, a portion of the realized gain is attributed to the recovery of investment values above levels reflected in prior quarter's impairments. Partially offsetting these positive items were higher operation and maintenance and income tax expenses. In Massachusetts state law change in 2008, reduced income tax expense at Entergy Nuclear to a greater extent than in 2009. Finally, earnings for non-nuclear wholesale assets business improved this quarter due primarily to lower income taxes. Third quarter 2008 results reflected higher income tax expense driven primarily by the redemption of the previous investment in that business. Slide four recaps our cash flow performance for the current quarter. Excluding the impact of nearly $1 billion of securitization proceeds received in the third quarter of 2008, operating cash flow was higher than the prior period. As you recall, the securitization financings at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana closed out our recovery for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Securitization proceeds last year also included funds for future storms, which were drawn down shortly thereafter for hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Turning next to an update of our share repurchase programs on Slide five. During the third quarter we completely roughly $600 million of shares repurchases planed for 2009. We purchased a total of 7.7 million shares at an average price of $80 per share. Nearly all of the repurchases were made under the now complete $2 billion board authorized programs. The balance was repurchased to offset the dilutive effects of stock option exercise. As a reminder in early 2008 the board granted incremental share repurchase authority for $500 million for opportunistic market repurchases in the event they become available before the spin-off takes place. During the third quarter, we completed this incremental program utilizing cash generated by the Entergy Nuclear business. Therefore at spin-off, $500 million of share repurchases made this quarter will be applied to Entergy's targeted repurchases from spin-off proceeds. Slide 6, details of 2009 earnings guidance that we are affirming today. On an operational basis, earnings guidance ranges from $6.20 to $6.80 per share. As reported earning guidance of $6 to $6.60 per share, reflects spin off to synergies and transactions costs for the spin off incurred through June of 2009. We adjusted our earnings guidance in July to reflect a steep decline in power prices on Entergy Nuclear's open position since the start of the year and significant impairments taken on decommissioning trust fund investments. With three quarters now behind us we continue to see full-year 2009 performance in line with our adjusted earnings guidance range. In closing, we continue to see the value creation opportunity through this spin off. Post-spin we are positioning Enexus with the financial strength and flexibility to manage its business and act on opportunities. Regarding Enexus financing, you may recall that the senior secured revolver executed last December in the midst of the financial crisis, included a condition to complete the spin off by October 1. A few weeks ago, Enexus obtained amendment to this facility that increased the total amount to $1.2 billion and extended the period to complete the spin off by nine months to July 1 of 2010. At the utility, we have opportunities to add value in the business through organic growth, including load growth and ROE improvements portfolio management, including capital investment opportunities and the spin off recapitalization made up of share repurchases and the split-off. We look forward to talking more about this with you at EEI, where we also plan to initiate 2010 guidance. And now the Entergy senior team is available for your questions. Question-And –Answer Session: Operator (Operation instructions). We'll first hear from Greg Gordon with Morgan Stanley.

Thanks, two quick questions, the first is with regard to how market fundamentals as you see them. We've observed over the last four to six weeks that power the long end of the curve in terms of round the clock power prices has gotten demonstrably better in most markets including the New York and New England market. Are you seeing $3 to $4 improvement anyway, are you seeing improvement in market fundamentals, that just driven by, the back end of the gas curve having gotten a little bit better? Can you give us some color on that?

Yeah, Greg, we've seen the same thing in terms of recovery in those prices, as you look at the gas market, the support that you've seen in the 2011, 2012, 2013 time frame, has been a support for power prices in that time frame, and certainly as you think about things like economic recovery, in those regions, if you think about what’s going on with gas prices, if you think about things around CO2, which we really don't think there is anything there yet in the market prices, those are all contributing to support for power prices and we have see them move. We saw them hang in there a little bit better than obviously on the front end of the curve to begin with, and they have certainly continued to strengthen over the course of the last several months.

Do you think that’s primarily a function of gas and hasn't really factored in a substantive economic recovery or carbon?

I think that there is recovery in there, but probably not much for carbon and at the moment.

Second question is less specific. We've been focused on your opportunity to execute the spin off for a long time now, as we're awaiting on New York as the final uncertainty, but think about your management style, you guys have delivered value to shareholders, a lot of different ways, over the course of the 15 years that I've covered the company. And you've always seemed to have a backup plan when one direction seem to become less executable. So can you talk about what your backup plan for shareholder value creation would be, if New York does reject the spin?

Well I think Greg; we'll probably save that discussion more for EEI. We're in middle, obviously, of a comment period. We've came a long way in Vermont and New York and we prefer at this point to wait and see what comments look like, and let this play out, and we'll be in a better position to talk about what the backup plan is. But you're completely right, I mean, in terms of the way we think about the business, whether it's a backup plan or an exit strategies, or whatever if you go down the list of stuff that we've done over the years, from selling EK, to spinning the non-utility nuclear to, putting ENOI into bankruptcy within a couple weeks after the Katrina, when most people said there is no way they do it to sell in the turbines to putting dam head, and turning the keys over on dam head. We always try to do the rational economic thing and have some alternative in mind to achieve the value that we've committed to you all. And this was a tough one. It's a tough one because of the optionality we put at such a high value on it and giving the shareholders two pieces of paper and two very different businesses. So this is really kind of a conversation for another day, but it's I know you're all interested in that, and it's one that we continue to think about, and particularly as the market evolves, and I can't say we'll have a specific answer to EEI, but we'll have a better one.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Leslie Rich from Columbia management.

Hi, Leo, could you just review again what you said about the share repurchases? You said you finished as of September 30 and that that did you say that that was really accelerating the share repurchases that were planned post-spin proceeds?

Yeah, we finished the share repurchases that we baked into our initial and then revised guidance for the year as of September 30th, and that was the completion of the $1.5 billion program that we had from a couple of years ago. And then as you recall we had put in another $500 million worth of authorization from the board last year, when it looked like the spin was, obviously not going to occur as quickly as we had desired it to do so. That authority really was a roll-forward of part of the original of 2.5 billion that we had said would be repurchased from the spin. And as you recall we discussed that in relation to we were going to go out and do the financing associated with the spin off, but given the fact that we hadn't done that, the distributions that would have occurred out of the Nuclear business for example, interest costs and plus whatever capacity they would have had during 2009 to distribute capital was still there, even though we owned the business, it just wasn't going to interest expense. So we utilized that cash as for the repurchase authority.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Steve Fleishman from Bank of America-Merrill Lynch.

Hi, on your hedging for the nuclear business, I think you added some decent amount of hedges for '10 and '11 in this quarter. And I think you added a decent amount in the last quarter. Couple of questions on that first, what are you seeing as the unit contingent discounts in your markets? Are they the same as they used to be, roughly, when you're putting in these new hedges? Are they still like, what was it used to be about 5% or something?

Well, we've always talked about them, Steve, in terms of ranging between 4% to 10% and they've continued to be in that range when we're looking at them.

Okay. And then another question related to the fact that you're doing more hedging. In '10 and '11, should we view this as kind of your a point of view that pricing could stay much weaker in '10 and '11, than may be where it is now, or should we view it as you just wanting to just have more locked up for credit purposes, at Enexus. What’s the reasoning for kind of doing more hedging than you had for several quarters before that?

Well, the driving factor behind it really is, as part of Entergy, we have certain limits that we place around what our open position can be. And those are, as you said, based on credit. They're based on liquidity; they're based on point of view, a variety of factors, that go into it. And while we anticipate regulatory approval and that in 2010, a Enexus will be a standalone entity. Again going back a little bit to what Greg mentioned, in the world of planning, it is still owned by Entergy, and so we still start with it's going to adhere to Entergy's credit policies, Entergy's hedging limits, etcetera. So that's the basis for where we start. Then we look at what our point of view is we look at credit, we look at liquidity and where we think Entergy would be if we continue to hold it and then we layer in there what are the Enexus parameters that would drive it liquidity, their credit metrics, etcetera. So, really, Steve, it is a combination of all of those factors, and not to say that any one of them weighs greater than another, but, the credit, the liquidity and ideas have to be overwhelmed by the point of view to get us outside of our bounds. There has to be an exception made to get outside the limits and we just haven't made that exception, yet, particularly as it relates to 2010.

And we'll hear from Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Good morning. Just a quick question on Vermont, and the ongoing negotiations we see commented on around a new contract. Do you see that as something which is the necessary precursor for the spin? Is it more part of the re-licensing debate? And just any update or color on what's going on there.

Okay (Inaudible) will cover this.

Jonathan, it really has nothing to do with the spin. I mean, it's solely related to the certificate of public good as it relates to the re-licensing of the plant and the approval we have to get from Vermont legislature, and commission up there. So those activities continue to move forward and conversations continue to be progressing well.

Okay. And if I may, the second question, you mentioned improving trends and recent months in sales that the utilities. Can you give us a little more color on where you are seeing that, which kinds of industries, and I think you were going as far as saying that there would be much better comp in the fourth quarter, just some more discussion around that area.

Sure, Jonathan, this is Gary Taylor. And to build on what Leo was saying, I think first we really look at and have talked about each time I think it would be good to cover as one. You look at that our sales information, we look at things like write-offs, arrears and disconnects. And that continues to be pretty much same with our historical levels. We have not seen a real growth in those class of customers. We're really seeing an improvement in manufacturing. I think that's where you really see much more for us in the chemical and refining area. The biggest hit we had seen was typically in things like woods and primary metals but tends to be a very, very small part of our industrial load. And so as a result of that, I think as we've seen the price of commodities come up like oil and things like that and the decrease in natural gas pricing, we have seen the industrial rats [always] Leo take a look at each quarter its actually improved. Last quarter we talked about the fact that we had thought we had seen a bottoming out probably in the springtime frame that trend is continuing, we see it in pretty much all our classes of customers. Our unemployment tends for the most part to be below the national averages to about the national average we see some good housing start permits which drives some of those industries, as well. And the weaker dollar helps us as far as exports, in some of those same business like (Inaudible) and we're seeing some improvements along those trends. And the biggest thing for our industrial customers is they have seen this quarter versus the quarter last year, close to about a 40% decrease in their rates and our customers overall have seen somewhere around a 20% to 25% decrease. So, I think there is a number of things that have encouraged production in our area and at the same time I think we are starting to see the impact of an economic recovery and I think we're seeing that pretty much as Leo said September's month I think was a good indicator of what we have seen compared to last year and even with our residential and commercial, we would say we would probably net with everything and the hurricane probably at least flat to last year.

In Q4?

In Q4 will actually continue to see some of that growth continue to go on. I mean, that trend seems to be moving back as we have looked its been a pretty positive trend over the past several months.

Are you saying we could see up industrial sales in fourth quarter versus last year?

No, I think you may see up industrial sales as we see in the trend, but I think you're still going to see those lagging even overall from last quarter, but I think you're going to see them start to recover.

Thanks a lot, Gary.

Next we'll hear from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.

Just a question on storm cost recovery from Gustav and Ike. You're looking at over the next six to nine, six to 12 months, bringing in a significant amount of cash into the various subs that were impacted by the storms. Can you talk about plans for utilization of that cash? I mean, netting out storm reserves and that type of [step] kind of rough number round a $1 billion or so that's a pretty big number?

Michael, I think we'll, again, I hate to say it, but again, but I think at EEI that will be a fairly rich piece of our presentation on what we plan to do, how much cash we think we'll have and what we plan to do with it. So we'll talk to the board next week about that and then we'll talk to you all in a couple of weeks, if that's okay.

All right. No problem. And this may be a Gary question, had a question about Texas regulation. Specifically what does the existing legislation around utility regulation in Texas allow you to do that could be a structural change in terms of being able to come closer to earning and authorized return on capital and reducing regulatory lag there? You all touched on it a little bit on the transmission side, but what about on the kind of the core distribution and regulated generation piece at Texas?

Yeah, I think the biggest opportunity there is what was passed in the Senate Bill 1492 which really talked about transmission cost recovery. And structurally that is one of those that if you look at it, it has been a large investment for us over the years of both distribution and transmission, but allows us to address the regulatory lag that that has created. So that is one of the fundamental components. And when you look at the rate case that Wayne was talking to I wonder those because you have to set a baseline as a result of that and we plan to do that so for future transmission cost recovery. So I think that attacks clearly that structural piece of it.

And what about on, you know, for distribution and generation capital spend?

Well, I think as we're working through, as you've seen in the other filings, our intents in this next filing is to address those pieces with the public survey like capacity cost, which has a tendency there have been a drag on earnings in that business, and more timely recovery of generation assets. So as you've seen, its kind of a plan for us to try to make that and really address the lag in that business. So legislatively you got the transmission piece, and then the filing well we will we tend to try to and address those other structural pieces.

Got it. Thank you, guys. Operator Next we'll hear from Andrew Levi with Incremental Capital.

Hi, guys, just I don't know what you can tell us, whatever, but you mentioned the board meeting and obviously you don't want to tell us what you are going to be actually coming out with and obviously I don’t know board is going to say. But can you just give us an idea of kind of what topics may be discussed, on a broad sense?

Well, I think one of the big things certainly that we're going to be discussing is what the longer term aspirations are. At the time we've been talking at the board level its really for years about non-utility fleets that we were building and the utility, and some of the structural problems at utility earning our returns and trying to fix those and at this meeting, as really this it is the normal meeting where we present our 2010 plans, but we will be with this spin, I think relatively imminent here, will be going into more detail about what the aspirations will be and should be for Entergy in particular. I know a number of people have different points of view with regard to what the prospects are, and we want to establish an agreement at the board on how we're going to proceed going forward and what the expectations will be, and it does center around the issues of cash and how we use our cash. So, I think there is always a lot of other things at the board meeting to talk about, in terms of longer-term plans. It takes transmission is a big issue obviously with the changing, I like to mention, and we'll talk to the board a lot about what that means to the company and what our plans are going forward there, but the aspirations in getting those straight, the agreement, will probably be one of the most important things we'll talk about.

Yeah, and actually that was my next question. You mentioned about transmission, but is there any more detail that you can give us on what you're thinking there when you say transmission?

I guess to make a long story short, what we're thinking is that, this is going to take longer than what we hoped. The favorable development certainly is all of the states putting together a advisory committee to look at these issues, and spending the time to understand, what the new planning criteria might be and what the impacts of that might be, and trying to come to some agreement with regard to things like tariffs and structures, whether its an RTO or enhanced ICT and whether its cost (inaudible) cost allocation, across the jurisdiction, who is going to stay, who is going to go? And the study I mentioned for STP is six to eight months out in terms of them coming up with an advisory opinion with regard to where we should be and, that may or may not be unanimous, in any event. But, so obviously, you can't go very far in any direction if your regulators aren't on board and don't believe it's in the best interests of the customers, in particular. So, I can't share a lot with you because they're doing their study. The good news is they are doing a study, they are involving themselves, and they're trying to come to the right answer, and that's a good thing. It should streamline the process in some respects, but there's a lot of issues, because it obviously involved also, but, we're kind of just breaking it down and there is structural issues on how we should be organized, whether its RTO or enhanced ICTs there or the tariff issues, on what's the best way to upgrade your transmission, secretary (inaudible) are. I was in a meeting with him a couple of weeks ago, and he said it very, very clearly and plainly to a group that probably didn't want to hear it and he said, it was like four people in the White House working on this issue and he said it comes down to, should the people pay for it, that create the costs or benefit? Or should it be paid for by all of society? That's a societal type of benefit, and that's an issue that our state regulators will also take up and then we'll be asking them also to take up the issue of given the amount of capital that we're talking about, given the credit issues at Entergy and other markets that are available, and other finance vehicles, what's the cheapest way to source this capital in the deepest top possible markets, when you have an obligation to serve. So there is no answer there right now, but the dialog is already been taking place, and the process is set up to continue it…

And next we'll hear from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates.

I just want to do touch basic in sort of on the nuclear side. Is there any possibility of having a settlement with the New York parties or are we still pretty much looking at a litigated process still?

Paul, there is always an opportunity to settle issues. It's probably not right for that right now, because we're so close to all of us filing our initial comments. Once everybody sees those comments, then there would be an opportunity, and then on November 12th, we file reply comments. There is not a lot of time to kind of resolve some of those issues, and maybe we can do one or two items, and we would have an opportunity through our reply comments or other parties' reply comments to do something, but it's going to move pretty quickly now.

Okay. So…

Paul, just you have to really keep in mind, we went through that process and we tried every way to expedite this, and we weren't playing around. We put our best offer on the table and we filed it. And there might be some ways to discussion, something around the edges, but we've came a long way to try to meet the needs, and we think we have. So, if there's a settlement opportunity, we obviously listen to it, but we put a good faith offer on the table to meet what they said the objectives were. So we're hopeful that it works.

On the Vermont Yankee side and the contract and the extension of license, you guys mentioned I think in last quarter, that there was a possibility of a global settlement with that and with the Enexus bin and it looks like the Enexus bin was still separately, I'm just wondering when we're looking at the Vermont legislature and everything that sort of has to happen here, is there sort of a time certain that you guys have to have some clarity on 2012, in other words, you can't wait I would assume, till a month before the license expires. Could you just give us a little bit flavor in terms of what the actual sort of deadline is here in terms of getting some clarity specifically with those remaining issues?

What we're targeting today is put something together that the legislature can review starting next year. So, our objective is to put something together and we're pushing hard on the PPA negotiations with the utility. What file that with the commission and then they'll make a recommendation to the legislature, and the legislature comes back the second week in January. That's really what we're pushing for, is to get something resolved early next year.

So it pretty much has to be finished by the beginning of next year or early next year. I mean, it can't go on indefinitely, I would assume. Correct? At what point do you have to sort of pull the plug and decide what you're going to do?

Well, if we don't get a certificate of public good out of the commission in the legislature, then we can't operate past 2012. So, that's why for planning purposes we're trying to really get something accomplished in this next legislature because it will force us otherwise to make some pretty tough decisions around that plan. So, next legislative session is very critical.

Okay. And that's basically the spring of next year.

Yes.

We'll take our last question today from Kit Konolige from Soleil.

A lot of my questions have been answered. Just it's struck me that there is still a pretty wide range in your guidance for the year. I know this is a little forward-looking, but can you give us some sense of with one quarter left why that range is still so wide?

Kit, we typically just don't move it around other than if there's some major, major item. Like what we had in July, what we were looking at, the impairments on the decommissioning trust and the significant fall in the price of power, that prompted us to move the guidance range, but traditionally once we said that as long as we think we're in it, we would leave it alone. The thing I'd mention to you is that, as I said in the script, we are in line with what we expected in terms of earnings and sales, and things like that when we reset the guidance in July. So, it's just not something that we've been doing in the last couple of years of moving the range around, other than when there's some significant thing, like what we saw this summer.

Fair enough. If this isn't pushing too far in the same direction, can I just follow with, if you were aware of the imports were higher end or lower end, a lot of companies will say we're going to be at the higher end or the lower end. Would you be saying that, or if its in the range or you're just going to say that's the range?

We're just, right now saying we're in the range, Kit.

And ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I'll turn it back to our speakers for closing remarks.

Operator, and thanks to 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 was recorded and can be accessed for the next seven days by dialing 719-457-0820, replay code 4133911. This concludes our call. Thank you.