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

Good morning. And thank you for joining us. We'll begin this morning with comments from our Chairman and CEO, Wayne Leonard, and then Leo Denault, our CFO will review results. In an effort to accommodate everyone with questions this morning, we request that each person asks no more than two questions. After the Q&A session, I will close with applicable legal statements. Wayne? J. Wayne Leonard: Thanks, Michele. Good morning. I'll begin by highlighting the events since we last met with you at our Analysts conference in New Orleans. Starting with the Utility, I'm pleased to report that today, Louisiana Public facilities authority is closing $688 million, securitization bonds with... bond proceeds earmarked for Entergy Louisiana. Louisiana authority is also in the process of marketing an additional $279 million of bonds for Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana storm restoration with closing expected in the near future. Louisiana full stead fast efforts to pursue this alternate securitization path will yield a minimum $40 million in customer savings over and above those that would have been achieved than its traditional securitization approach. The near term receipt of these proceeds, close to $1 billion closed in the book are regulatory recovery for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In addition, the utility also settled its other excess insurer minus Katrina claim in July, received $71 million of proceeds completing recovery from the two excess insurers. Belatedly, in its December consolidated over the Arkansas Public Service Commission indicated that it was also open to consideration of alternative, extraordinary, storm restoration cost methodology. In June, Entergy Arkansas filed a joint application with other Arkansas utilities that will enable the use of storm reserve accounting. Utilities requested us to set a procedural schedule that would allow resolution of this proceeding no later than December 15. So that the calendar year 2008, would be included under the proposal. In rate proceedings, Entergy Texas reached a non-unanimous settlement with a broad coalition of customers, represented by seven interveners as co-signatories. The settlement called for a $59.5 million two step base rate increase. The customer coalition represents virtually all of Entergy Texas retail customers. At the same time a competing non unanimous settlement was introduced by the Texas commission staff and three interveners. Hearings on Entergy Texas non-unanimous settlement began at the end of June, and the reaching process is currently underway. We remain optimistic, this commission will provide a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return. Essentially, after 17 years on a rate increase. Regarding 2007 test year formula rate plans or FRP filings, Mississippi City reached settlement for it increased just under $4 million which the Mississippi utilities passed and is pending commission approval. In May, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana made their final filings under the current FRP framework, seeking FRP increases through evident deficiencies both in the $5 million to $6 million range. Ultimately rate changes will also reflect throughout the capacity payments. Later this fall, Louisiana companies will make the decision to either perceive extension of the FRP framework, or to initiate new base rate proceedings. Pursuant to its rate settlement, Entergy New Orleans, will file its required rate case later this week. In other regulatory matters, Entergy Mississippi responded to enquire from the commission regarding the 28% overall rate increase in the third quarter fuel adjustment filing resulting from escalating natural gas cost. Earlier this month, the commission held a two day hearing regarding all Mississippi utility fuel adjustment clauses. The hearing was reassessed in order to allow the commission time to review the information supplied, and schedule the reconvening next week. Rising natural gas prices have received the attention of not only the regulators in Mississippi, but also the law makers. This spring, Governor Barbour signed into law, new base float generation legislation, to help meet the state's growing energy needs, or encouraging diverse sources of energy. This legislation gives new authority to its commission, to allow utilities to seek, pay as you go financing during the planning, licensing, design, development and other early stages of construction for approved new base bulk facilities constructed in Mississippi. The new legislation in Mississippi, similar to the May 2007 Louisiana Public Service Commission general order, prevents opportunities for significant savings for customers, in meeting the energy needs of the future. And is one of the utilities necessary conditions for moving forward with a potential new nuclear facility. In nuclear, at the end of June, Entergy Louisiana petitioned Louisiana commission to replace two steam generators. Reactor vest for closure head, and the control element drive mechanisms that water for three at an expected cost of approximately $511 million. The long lead time to design, manufacture and transport search equipment to the site requires approval now, in order to lead the project in 2011. The need to replace the equipment is consistent with normal degradation and equipment choose [ph] for life. Actually due to careful maintenance for all of three years, one of the last nuclear plants of its type to replace its steam generator. Of the 14 plants in United States with similar pressurized water reactor designs, only one other plant has not replaced the equipment already. Entergy Louisiana is also taking approval for procedure for synchronizing permanent base rate recovery when the project is placed in service. Providing the time of certainty needed for major construction projects, in order to solidify the utilities access of capital markets. In the phase II filing, Entergy Louisiana will seek cash earnings for construction work in progress. Our portfolio transformation initiatives, Entergy Louisiana filed for a limited reopening at Little Gypsy air permit [ph], to conduct an additional layer of environmental analysis, in order to demonstrate that the re-filed [ph] plan will meet the maximum achievable controller technology standard. With its modern redundant and state-of-the-art emissions [ph] technologies Entergy Louisiana fully expects that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, will find those standards are met. The souvenir standard permit is issued in the first quarter of 2009 and spring levels cooperate, construction could commence by mid-2009, and the project could be in service by mid-2013. The delay is expected to increase the total project cost from approximately $1.55 billion to $1.76 billion. Primarily, due to price escalation on non-contracted equipment and material and increased carrying cost, due to extending of the construction period. The economics of the project remain compelling for customers, particularly given that natural gas prices or even higher then when the projects was approved last year. Entergy Louisiana expect to supplements and resume its Little Gypsy phase II piling in the fall, seeking cash earnings on equip and approval for the procedure synchronizing permanent base rate recovery when placed in service. Regarding the Ouachita acquisition, both the Arkansas and Louisiana public service commission has granted approval for this transaction. Entergy Arkansas expects the closing the fall on the acquisition of it's highly efficient 789-megawatt load-following resource and at a cost of approximately $325 a KW, including generation upgrade and transaction cost. At Entergy Nuclear, the non-utility, fleet turn in the solid performance achieving a 92% capacity back up in the second quarter which included the remaining 19 days on a previous quarters refueling outages 18.2. On license renewal; we are pleased to report that last week the New York State Department of environmental conservation issued that fixed prices Water Permits necessary for the NOC to perceive its license renewal. In addition, the New York department of state concurred with the consistency certification for the [ph] management program, setting up a clear path for the NOC to renew Fitzpatrick's license in the near future. At the recent legislative hearing not a single party spoke in opposition to the plans to building from it, or through license renewal. Also last week the Atomic Safety licensing board conducted hearing for the three remaining contentions for the Vermont Yankee license renewal application. Given the Boards plans to reach its decision around the end of November, Vermont Yankee now anticipates NRC license renewal in the first quarter of 2009. Further in a recent statement the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board indicated that the decision will be made by late July on which depending hearing divisions will be admitted for the Indian point license renewal process. Finally, we understand that the Indian point independent safety evaluation panel has completed its work, and will hold a public hearing on Thursday in New York to present their findings and recommendations As for the spin off of the non utility nuclear plants all senior executives have been named, including Dean Keller, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Steven Augusta [ph] General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer. Keller joins the nexus after more than a decade of financial markets experience in Citigroup global markets, most recently as Managing Director of Investor Banking and co-head of North American power group would it buy us a wide range of energy focus clients and participate in transactions exceeding a $100 billion. Our best attempt to in access from Houston berg LLP of Washington DC where he led the energy group. His experience improved with foreign and domestic energy company's on activities ranging from nuclear const ruction operation to de-regulation of electric markets to power marketing and our mergers and acquisition. For our results of continuing to regulatory front. We are greatly pleased to report that yesterday the ARC, approved their license transfer for the Enexus nuclear plant. More specifically the NRC approved that the post structure with Entergy Nuclear as the operating license and the next is companies as license owners of the plant NRC approval follow stock approval received earlier received earlier in the quarter. Just to review, NRC criteria for approval requires a determination that in excess and [indiscernible] meet the rigorous standards for financial stability technical qualifications and maintenance of decommissioning plant, safely maintained and operate the plan. Fourth approval ensured the transaction will have no adverse effects on competition, wholesale or resale rates and federal and state regulation. But also determine that there will be no cross subsidization by on players or encumbrances of utility assets for the benefit of a non-utility associate company. At the state level, last week the Ministry law of judges in a New York proceeding issued a ruling concerning discovery and seeking comments on a proposed process and schedule. The route to New York proceedings has been conducted in a professional manner and the ALJs remain steadfastly committed to their obligation to provide for the orderly inefficient completion of this proceed in a manner that could really serve as an adequate record is established for commissioned decision. To accomplish these twins' objectives the ALJs proposed the process for completing the eliminated prescribed discovery process filed three weeks later by the filing of initial comments addressing to find issues with reply comments in two weeks after the initial comment dead-line. Following we received all comments and review will be made on whether and to what extent an evidence theory hearing is required. That being said the ALG acknowledge that the post process will not facilitate the commission decision in September consisting with an excess request. But we are open to very real prospect that a decision shortly thereafter. In Vermont hearings begin today. Regarding SEC and IRS approvals, the post a minute in excess Form 10 is expected to be filed soon. Incorporated amongst others changes to address the comments provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also expect to receive a private letter ruling very soon from the internal revenue service indicated in transaction qualifies for tax free treatment. As you may recall we consider both the filing of eminent Form 10 and receipt of the IRS private letter ruling pre requisites for issuing any present debt especially with in our or addressed in these remarks. As we have indicated completing the spin off remains our number one strategic priority for the year. While we are making good progress including the critical NOC approval received yesterday, the state approvals are now the critical path. Considering the New York ALC really last week we now expect the same completion to occur in the fourth quarter given that remaining approvals could be forthcoming early fall let me outline the sequence of activities you should expect once we have received the state regulatory approval. Within roughly a week of approval a special Entergy Board meeting will be conducted to seek final approval of the spin off. In week two the security exchange commission will declare the Enexus Form 10 effective with issue trading to getting the following day. So there after a record date will be established for Enexus spin off and finally Enexus stock will be distributed to Entergy holders on the closing date which will occur on a month end. Note the current transaction close occurred on a month end given the price limitation in closing the books of financial reporting purposes that being said, unlike our merger the closing date is not nearly so critical value of their holding. They are already owned and issued it and the underlying value continues to occur to you during the period required to close the transaction. With that getting recent trends in the gas markets we've already see pricing in 2012 the GE-levels consistent with or exceeding an excess $2 billion EBITDA aspiration. As further evidence by entering into a 2012 contract for over $100 of megawatt hour during this quarter. At eight to twelve times EBITDA that provides strong support from the point of view we continue to provide for market prices and market capitalization point exit. Before I turn it over to Leo, I want to summarize the obvious. There seems to be an overwhelming number of legal, regulatory and operational activities and initiatives underway at Entergy this year. We realize, we have set aggressive goals for both the timing and result of all of these initiatives, consistent with those goals and objectives thus far this year has been essentially non eventful. We really continue to move forward aggressively on all fronts and we have not suffered any significant set back's on any of our initiatives despites the volume of activities or the height of the bar that we've have set. At the same time we remain committed to other things that matter, like achieving our $1 per share annual earnings growth aspiration and operational excellence. With 2008 on track to set new standards of excellence, in particular in safety which is our most important assignment every minute of every day. Given everything we are trying to achieve, that represent a very, very good year so far. And perhaps more importantly the momentum we've seen since the announcing since announcing spin-off those rates the option value this transaction and the importance of providing our owners its separate liquid tradable financial instruments, where you get to make the me call whenever prices align with your point of view. And we're committed to making that happen. Now, let me turn the call over to Leo.

Thank you, Wayne and good morning. In my remarks today, I'll cover quarterly results, and updated cash flow, the latest in our share repurchase activity and brief comments on our earlier guidance. I will close with an update on our current thinking around an excess financing options. Looking at our financial results for the quarter, slide 2 shows an increase in second quarter '08 as reported earnings compared to a year ago. This increase was achieved even though the current quarter included expenses in connection with the Nuclear spin-off transaction. These expenses reflected as a special item in the current period, offer a range of services from third parties assisting in the transaction. Turning to operational earnings; we achieved strong results in the second quarter '08 compared to the comparable quarter one year ago. The increase in operational earnings came from higher results at Utility, Parent and other, and Entergy Nuclear, partially offset by lower results of the non-nuclear wholesale business. Slide 3, presents the factors that drove the quarter-on-quarter results. The 20% increase in Utility, Parent and Other came primarily from higher revenues, due to sales growth, including the effect of warmer than normal weather. Partially offsetting higher revenues, was an increase in operational and maintenance expense. The expense increase came primarily from storm costs, expense at Entergy Arkansas, increased loss reserves, and higher benefits expense. While year-to-date operational and maintenance expense, has trended over the prior year, we expect this trend to reverse in the second half of the year as certain known reductions materialize in timing differences aligned year-on-year. At Entergy Nuclear, we achieved an increase of 35% in operational earnings with the primary contributors being increased production, due to fewer planned and unplanned outage days, the additions of power saves and increased revenue from higher pricing. Also in Entergy Nuclear, we experienced an increase in operational maintenance expense as we have recorded an impairment for certain decommissioning trust fund investments. The primary reason for the O&M increase was due to lower plant spending deferred for future amortization as a result of fewer planned refueling outage days during the quarter. In addition, the increase reflects the effect of expenses associated with including Palisades as part of the portfolio for the full quarter this year. The decommissioning impairment recorded this quarter reflects sustained underperformance in certain investments within our decommissioning trusts. The accounting standards require a continuous assessment of individual investment performance. These standards require that sustained unrealized losses must be recognized. I believe it's important to consider a couple of points relative to this item. First, the impairment reflects the underperformance of certain individual investments, in a large portfolio, and is primarily associated with assets acquired in price in April of 2007, as part of the Palisades transaction. And also, the impairments of non-cash charges to earnings. We continuously monitor the performance of our decommissioning trusts, and remain confident in the long-term earnings opportunities of these investments. However, extended periods of underperformance in the financial markets have resulted in impairments in the past, we can offer no assurance, this won't occur at some time again time again in the future. Also, while we would expect these unrealized loses to reverse as the market improves, the subsequent gains will not be taken into income but rather directly to the balance sheet in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Absent this accounting impairment Entergy Nuclear's operational earnings would have been 48% higher than a year ago, and consolidated results would have seen an increase of 16% quarter-over-quarter. At non-nuclear wholesale business, results in the current quarter were lower compared to the same quarter last year. The decrease was due, primarily, to the absence in the second quarter of 2008, of the benefit of lower income tax expense recognized last year, when tax audit issues were resolved. The last item that contributed to higher consolidated results this quarter was the accretive effect of our share repurchase program. Slide 4 includes a recap of our cash flow performance this quarter, which shows a small decrease compared to the same period last year. The major items affecting cash flow during the second quarter, include reduced collections of deferred fuel costs totaling $243 million and the absence of $177 million of CDBG storm funding received by Entergy New Orleans last year. Both of these items, negatively affected relative cash flow and were essentially offset by higher net revenues in Entergy nuclear producing $195 million of cash, and reduced working capital requirements of $159 million like utility, parent and other. We continued to utilize our share repurchase program during the quarter, the details of which are reflected on slide 5. We repurchased 1.8 million shares in the second quarter, with roughly 75% of the repurchases coming through our $1.5 billion program. At the end of the second quarter, we had approximately $700 million of repurchase authority remaining. We continue to see our '08 operational earnings guidance in the range of $6.50 to $6.90 per share. Slide 6 includes the components of guidance. The main drivers to guidance remain unchanged, with steady utility results and strong performance at nuclear keeping us on track, toward achieving our earnings aspirations. Turning to the next slide, we update you on where we stand with respect to executing our financing plan. We continue to target $4.5 billion of debt associated with the spin, with $4 billion facilitating the Entergy recapitalization and $500 million remaining with an excess for working capital purposes. We previously discussed with you the prospect of issuing pre-spin debt for this business. And we continue to view that as a potentially attractive opportunity. As we assess the benefits of pre-spin financing, a crucial factor that will drive both the timing and size of any issue is the market timing... market environment. After showing some signs of improvement and windows of opportunity for financing in April and May, the high yield market has softened again. However, we believe there is still a market for good deals. The power sector continues to hold up reasonably well, and the financing backlog continues to move down. We remain confident that we can complete a successful pre-spin financing, should that be appropriate. However, we're not ready today to take financing to the market, and we realize market conditions continue to evolve. One item we consider necessary to initiate the financing plan is the receipt of the private letter ruling from the IRS. We expect to receive that ruling from the IRS in the near term. Once we have the PLR in hand, we'll be prepared to move quickly, should we determine that financing deployed has been appropriate. Depending on timing of receipt, we also recognized that our schedule could very well move into the September timeframe as activity in the financial markets slows considerably in the latter part of August. Again, the state of the market at any particular point is a major determinant of our timing. We've made substantial progress through the first half of the year, in advancing our financial initiatives. This progress provides a clear indication that our people are again stepping up to the plate with extraordinary effort. We know that our people obviously makes the difference. And we feel, we have the very best team in the industry. On a related note, we recently named the person who will assume the CFO role at Enexus. Many of you know Dean Keller, and will realize what an excellent choice he is for the job. For those of you who do not know Dean, I can tell you that you'll enjoy working with him, and I know Rick agrees that we're fortunate to have Dean as part of the Enexus leadership team. In addition to Dean's selection, we have staffed a number of the key leadership positions in his organization. The Accounting, Tax, Investor Relations leaders have all been named, as well as the Chief Risk Officer for Enexus. A number of the positions within these organizations have also been filled. So, we're confident, the talent who will be called on to deliver the value at new company, will perform as well as the outstanding team here at Entergy. In closing, I want to mention that we've an extremely active investor calendar over the next few months, including potential financing road shows activity, as early as August or September, two Bank Conferences in September. Following these Banks Conferences, will come additional debt road show for Enexus and Equity road shows for both Entergy and Enexus, and finally the annual EEI Finance Conference in November. As we work through this schedule, you should expect us to continue our communication our Entergy plans to achieve both its near-term and long-term growth aspirations. Also, as we share more details, you will hear a familiar theme. That theme being our continued commitment to providing top quota of shareholder returns, and reliable, affordable service to our customers. Regarding Enexus, we will continue to update you on our progress on the strategic regulatory and execution fronts. Also, we will begin to introduce to you the members of the Enexus leadership team over the coming months. Now, the Entergy team is available for your questions. Question And Answer

Thank you. The question-and-answer session will be conducted electronically, [Operator Instructions]. Our first question will come from Greg Gordon from Citigroup.

Thank you, gentlemen. J. Wayne Leonard: Hi, Greg.

This term, I hate to dance on the head of pin here, but let's talk a little bit about the New York schedule. From my reading of the ALJ, they exceed spend [ph] of the initial timeframe to August 8, as you were saying that's basically five weeks added on to the end of that [ph], then after that there is the potential for hearing, is that correct? J. Wayne Leonard: Greg, I mean that would be the outside he gave additional days for the interventions of the Attorney general and the staff to respond to all the discovery that we filed with them last Friday. So practically I don't think it's going to get us through August 8 and so--

Whenever that ends there is another five weeks? J. Wayne Leonard: Yes, that's true.

And then there will be hearings and hearings will generally on the last J. Wayne Leonard: No, --

But there potentially be hearings?

And then so if there is hearing there may or may be hearings and then I guess my question is, is it protocol for an ALJ to write a proposed decision in this type of case or not because from my prospective that could add another's three to four weeks before you get a window for the commission to move. J. Wayne Leonard: Well I mean if you got all the way through that could be, but I mean our anticipation is still that we'll get through this briefing processes with out the discovery... it kind reason, his order, I think he is pretty comfortable and the staff waiting on that then one we had to file briefings on whether to extend the discovery period that you did a pretty job, in laying out that there's been a significant volume in discovering any questions. Answers and the only reason he gave a couple of more days is to make sure we that we all our responses in and they had an opportunity to ask the whole of questions. But I think there is plenty on the record in front of him and now we are in the process that kind of summarizing our different positions through these next three weeks and then we will have an opportunity to reply to those different positions.

But will he or wont he write a decision that generally takes a couple of weeks to turn around? J. Wayne Leonard: Yes so I would stick that on the end of that five week period.

Okay. And then as it pertains to the NRC approval, could you talk about the difference standards that the NRC apply to their book of process and how they relate directly to some of the issues that to your task it is and there seems to me that the NRC directly or indirectly address in their approval a lot of the issues or at least a big chunk of the issues that New York is also considering that very true or not? J. Wayne Leonard: No I think it's best if I read Greg, the probably the biggest outstanding issue is the value sharing payments which the ALJ has just raised which more of a concern in New York than with the NRC

Okay so if you did a side-by-side analysis of the issues being considered as the NRC and the issues being considered at New York, the one that sort of hasn't been addressed indirectly is the value sharing payment right? J. Wayne Leonard: I would say that's right.

Okay, thank you gentlemen.

Our next question will come from Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse

Hey, good morning. Just a follow up on what Greg was asking, in a in this period of a glass half emptied what could delay into the end of the fourth quarter or roll into next year as you look at the schedule or do you think that even with the New York the ways you are comfortable bringing that fourth quarter to get resolved? J. Wayne Leonard: I mean I think that would be right Dan, I mean we would look and we will be filing some time this week to comment on the process and obviously we are not going to push on September based commodities there but we will give a margin and provided October doesn't. But it doesn't need to trail into October but we're comfortable we will get through this at the end of that five week period.

Okay and I guess you are just shifting gears at the utility, can you just give a little bit of color if you guys have see any thing as far as conservation or demand elasticity, your kind of response to higher fuel inputs, roll in [ph] doing the bills and any commentary on customer bad debt expense?

I guess this Gary Taylor. No we really haven't seen a large impact as far as like price lift elasticity. We do and count that in our sales forecast. We look at that but we have not seen a how. We've monitored write-offs and we've not seen an increase in write-offs to date. But clearly that company has got to continue to monitor as we lost our increase in fuel price. But the relief we've seen here recently, is a positive.

Good, thank you very much. J. Wayne Leonard: Thank you.

we'll move to SAC Capital's, Ashar Khan.

Good morning. J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning

I was just trying to a little bit elaborate us to, however are you looking at your hedging policy in light of this transaction, if I heard Wayne right you said you bought something in 2012. So I was trying to understand why 2012, not 10 and 11, I am just trying to understand the hedging policy as you look forward. J. Wayne Leonard: We will have [indiscernible], speak for that?

Ashar, I mean it... I mean we've always been kind of open to transactions that are in a range that we think kind a hit our point of view. So over the last quarter there is been a few those still up and we have other counter parties that have both stuff about locking in some additional sales. So I mean we are open to locking them in once they kind of reach a level that we are pretty comfortable where we see prices going based on what we've laid down the aspiration whether that be key rate expansion or CO2 or also gas prices, so I mean we hit some of those prices on that period so.

So it's basically if am right, you are saying that you have a price target which lines at your aspiration and if someone is coming and giving you a contract on similar basis, you are ready to enter into those contracts. Is that is? J. Wayne Leonard: We said at the time when we set the aspiration. Price of course were oil $180 and our aspiration was consistent with the range of our point of view. Like Rick said a number of variables could influence that but it was... that aspiration was consistent with that in a little clearly [ph] determined point of view. So when we receive trends and are bringing changes all the time relative to the things we talked about. But we see real transactions in a market place that are consistent with our current point of view and the range around those point of view with good credit quality counter parties. That we consider and into those contracts, but in so is that so much our aspiration which again for we are setting our aspiration and aspiration today whether they would be the same number or not I am not going to speculate on, that's kind of becoming Enexus point of view at this point in time. But the transactions we entered into are I think it's probably more correct to say consistent with our point of view and it's nice so they happen be equal to greater than the aspiration that we gave you a few months ago.

Okay, and if I can just stand up with I am assuming we will get our guidance for next year at the end of the third quarter call and I don't know really if you can comment how much of buy back is still planned by the end of the year assuming if the spin happens by the end of the year?

Well they the two the buyback associated with the existing programs, the $2 billion of authority that refer the $1.5 billion program and the additional 500 authority that we have that's still outstanding, the $1.5 billion program we would anticipate being completed before the end of the year, before the spin potentially, the $2.5 billion associated with the spin itself will come... boost spending, it will not all be done immediately, it will take a little while to get that out of system but it will be pretty front end loaded.

Okay and we expect guidance at the end of the third quarter for next year?

When we get to the end of third quarter depending on where we are with spin and how guidance looks, we would anticipate coming forward with something at that point in time I would imagine we just are going to have to look at the Entergy only guidance at that point, what Enexus will do too. Most likely that will be when we give guidance for 2009.

Okay, thank you.

John Kiani with Deutsche Bank, please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning, John.

I was just looking at the appendix of your press release today Appendix E has the plan CapEx for the company on a consolidated basis and the numbers for Entergy Nuclear there in '09, and beyond look higher than what I see in the Enexus Form-10, under the capital commitments line. Can you help me understand what the difference is there?

Yes, John. This is Leo. The major difference there is the inclusion in the Entergy CapEx numbers of the dilutioning and the --

Okay.

And the Form-10. But, as you call that's a capital item, it went through capital not through EBITDA.

And, how should we think about that going forward, based on the progress thus far in New York? J. Wayne Leonard: This is Wayne, everybody pointed at me, so, I guess... the... which I had a real answer for you there. Let me just switch on read the newspapers and talked to lot of people, let me just real quickly, make sure you understand what we've said. The original agreement did not contain a provision, that the value share impairments will continue if we were not the owners. That agreement was negotiated at arms length, while we were discussing the spin possibilities, and it was discussed at some way that we might not be the owners for the entire period. The counter party in negotiations, which was the state was more concerned or seem to be more concerned in striking a deal that provides the highest number they could get, and less concerned with solidifying the payments for the entire period of the agreement. What they got was a higher number than we were really thinking of negotiating at the time, and they got two years guarantee, which they didn't have at all in the original contract. But, the other period was open after the two years expired, but they didn't secure for themselves a higher number than we brought to the table. So, since the spin filing, with all the rhetoric and everything you read in the newspaper and all the different views on it. Essentially, nobody has asked us to reform the contract, they are not happy with it, but nobody's asked us to reform it, they simply tried to get us to ignore it. Most of that has not been face-to-face. Almost none of it has been face-to-face, it's been through the press. What we have said in our Form-10 is the contract says what it says, and was negotiated head-on swing [ph] and our intent was to live up to what's in the contract. Now, if the parties that have argued this issue believed that our reading was incorrect in the contract, then the contract calls for arbitration, not lawsuits and things like this that have been suggested. And naturally, if it went through arbitration, then we will be prepared to standby whatever decision will take place. Now having said that, that's kind of little bit of an issue, but, having said that ALJ's are asking the question of whether or not we intend to change the language in the Form-10, that basically says that no payments are due. It's a legitimate question, but the real question is, should the contract be reformed, not should the language be changed, because the language follows the contract. And like I said up until this point, or up until throughout this process, let me put it that way, nobody has come to us and said let's reform this contract, let's sit down and talk about this issue. If this did go to hearing, then obviously that there would be a lot of evidence put on the table with regard to why the state believed it to be in the public interest at the time they negotiated this at arms length. And then the ALJ's and the commissioner has to make a decision, about why it was in the public interest then versus why it isn't now. But, having said all of that, the defense is that reasonable people generally sit down and negotiate or talk about these kind of issues across the table, and get them resolved. That's the way these things get done, not through the newspapers, not through the legislative process, by just sitting down and talking about it. Now, having said that, I am really not at liberty to go any further than just explain what's happened and how these things generally get done.

No, that color was actually very helpful. Wayne, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Take our next question from Scott Engstrom with Glennhymn Capital Management.

Good morning. J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning.

Question on the nuclear results for second quarter. Not so much relative to last year, but relative to the real strong in first quarter. Wayne, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the size of the write-down you took on the decommissioning trust. And then, just thinking about pricing, I think was down second quarter versus first quarter, about 5%. And given the move in natural gas and coal prices in the quarter, it surprised me a little bit, I know you very highly hedged and you may have higher hedge prices in the first quarter than second quarter, maybe that explained it. But, maybe if you could just comment on those couple of things and why net income at nuclear was down so much second quarter versus first quarter?

This is Leo, I will go ahead and start. One, as far as the decommissioning adjustment that was about $0.07. So, it was a non-trivial number. In terms of the impairment, we also had market price averaged about $87 in terms of what we sold into the market during the second quarter. You're right, we are pretty highly hedged in 2008, and then we also had the end of the 11.2 refueling outage going into the beginning of the other quarter as well. So, all of those things kind of went to get you into a situation where, we had to high capacity factories year-to-date went about 95%, we got about 92% in the second quarter, and that had a lot to do with that... those days with the refueling outage.

Is it fair to assume that your hedge prices would have been higher in the first quarter, than the second quarter?

Year overall pricing year-to-date is higher than it was in the second quarter, that's right.

Okay. And because, you said you got $87 from market prices in second quarter, do you know what that number was in first quarter of the top of your head?

Not at the top of my head, no.

Okay. And then, just thinking about wasn't any write-downs for decommissioning trust at... on the utilities and parents had?

No.

Okay. Is there... is it something specific-- J. Wayne Leonard: I guess, no probably was going to jump on to, what your follow up was. Lot of it has do within the Palisades transaction, when you require the plant, at that point in time, we mark those investments within those stress to market. So, that linkage of those investments it's market value in April of 2007, versus all the other trusts that we have owned for a longer period of time, either because we started them, or because we acquired the plants in the early 2008, 1990's [ph]. The basis in those is a lot lower, it's just the function of the market performance since April as the accounting rules. It's not a long period of time to have what they consider a long period of time, its months not years of underperformance that creates that impairment. So, it's really a major function of our marking-to-market that trust... those investments. And it is investment by investment in terms of within those trusts.

Okay. Thanks. That's very helpful, I appreciate it.

We have a question from Andrew Leidi [ph] with [indiscernible]

Hi, just going back on the New York nuclear issue. Just kind of going by the comments you made, I guess, kind of said if it would go to hearings, and the reasonable people can sit at a table and discuss things, I guess, the reasonable way or whatever you said. But, I guess, my question is with this whole payment issue going on, it seems like that's a good kind of negotiating issue. And, it seems to me that there is potential for a settlement in New York. I don't know if you can get it anymore than kind of the things you got already, but, could just comment on that, there is an opportunity is that or, does it need to go through a whole dedicated process? J. Wayne Leonard: This is Wayne, Lee. Again, you compare it to maybe what you read in the newspapers, there are a lot of reasonable people in New York, of which we maintain good relations with, and there is a it's been a bit of a... on the political front there's just been a bit of uncertainty with regard to what's going to happen in a number of different positions in the state. And that's going I think be resolved very, very soon. And, the people that can sit down and are reasonable, and have the public interest at heart, will be able to do that I think very short, very soon and probably very quickly frankly. Other than that, that's about as far as I can go except to say that again I do think that the people that the they can get this done, could get it down very fast and have demonstrated that in the past and we understand the issue, I mean we really did from beginning and there was regardless of some of the things have been said that this is not baton switch, trying the structure the deal through to get out of making payments or anything of that nature and that was a the simply the way the contract read and we were more than happy to talk about that. And but like I said before the number that was negotiated was a little different number than that may be we had in mind when we entered into those, but hopefully we will be able to sit down and talk to people about what the right answer is and get it done... get something done very fast to give ALJ some comfort with regard to this is not an issue and I guess if there was a settlement or something close to it. Let's see, get rid all our that will be remain for.

These right I don't think you will have much of outcome schedule it might close it down a week or two earlier but that be about it. Thank you very much.

Debra Bromberg with Jeffery and Company has a question. Please go ahead ma'am.

Hi, good morning. J. Wayne Leonard: Good morning.

If you can receive approval for the spin in Vermont which has the higher standard than in New York, could you discuss the next steps in the process that you would likely take and also separately, can you just briefly update us on the Pilgrim licensing? J. Wayne Leonard: Debra I'll take on the Vermont proceeding I'll Mike Kansler talk about the Pilgrim I am pretty confident we are going to get through the Vermont proceedings, I mean the hearings starts today and we are working that issue pretty hard up there right now. So I think the issues that the... laid down and approved in their order are very similar to the issues that we are dealing within Vermont and I think at the end of the day we will be able to resolve those issues and from our Vermont Yankee will be part of the spin.

And this is Mike Kansler and I'll address Pilgrim. We had one outstanding convention contention at Pilgrim that's before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, we expect their decision in October and that's like the last hurdle for this event, FitzPatrick [ph] license renewal.

Great, thank you.

Merrill Lynch's, Jonathan Arnold is next.

Hey good morning hi. A quick question the press release report refers to potentially filing a second amendment to the Form-10. I am just wondering given the you are still working on the first one, how would know that at this point of what kind of what you would be updating for second time around?

Well this is Leo, Jonathan as we through the process every time we get new information we have to update it every time we get through a new quarter, we have to update the numbers. So as we make progress in implementation around agreements, around tax sharing agreement, around company, the agreements between the company all those things require updates to the Form-10. It is possible that we would envision that the next one after that would be more limited in update in terms of whether there is any further comments from the SEC, which we wouldn't necessarily anticipate that there would be and that it might be pretty close to the final, if not the final update that we make.

Okay. Again my second one was you have a, you said you made... you did some hedging in the quarter that was towards or even above your if you will be... being in consistent with the $2 billion, 2012 EBITDA aspiration for Enexus, and then if I remember back at the analyst meeting you had this assumption around $78 a megawatt hour on the open position. Based on where kind of market is today, for the blended open position you have on the plants that are open in 12, where are we kind on that on that scale between the $1.5 billion and the two, any color you can add on that given the pull back we've had, I guess in prices recently, are we still above the 1.5 and still below the two or somewhere else?

It's somewhere in between, you know prices in 2012 will come down into the 80's. Last time we did the transaction that Rick mentioned we were over 100 and so the gas price retreat that we have seen hasn't effected not only the near term but also the forward curves as well as you would expect. But we continue to see those items that we pointed out last time at the analyst conference in terms of heat rate expansion capacity prices CO2 legislation as having an upward buy off in the overall price we will have going forward.

There used to be... what do you say in the 80's was a good bit of weighted estimates for where pieces are on your price points right on the open position?

Now it's been bouncing around probably between $85 and $82, it just depends on what days you look at it. You keep going, just as when you keep in mine this is... I mean I can't say we are not resolved, but we apparent our transaction the transaction of these prices. We have a point or view and then prices they are going to bounce around, you know how the centre of this market is and the fact that the prices may be up or down at any point in time when we transact is when its consistent with our point of view and markets tends and somewhat time I am trying to middle and somewhat on other events or sentiment and we are talking about four years out here now so we can I guess we've articulated we're with the spin off, we're much more likely to get prices, don't move because of our point of view, they just kind of move more towards spot or much shorter positions. But we have no reason to believe our point of view is not pretty accurate at this point in time regardless of what the market does day-to-day.

That's helpful, thank you very much, can I just on the specific subject that it look like you added about 1% to the hedge position in 2012, 23% to 24% hedged versus last quarter and then the average price was up by $3, 51 to 54, did you to the take out some existing hedges I am just trying to make the math makes sense with that little increment and then the big increase in average price?

Yes Jonathan, the 2012 position is first of all the before this transaction primarily Palisades into the beginning of the year on Vermont Yankee. So those are historical reasonably low price contracts. This one was in at market at the time contract over $100, it also when you doing 1%, 2% you get to some rounding impact in there as well but it really is just a transaction that's motive.

Okay, thanks a lot.

You have a question from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.

Hey guys, actually two questions one on the nuclear side one actually for Texas. On the nuclear side we are starting to see some pretty interesting proposals for major transmission bill, transmission that would come online in the 2012, 13 time frame. And from new renewals especially wind built out both in New England and in New York, just curious what your views is in terms of what that would mean for your nuclear assets in the region? That's a first question, the second one is on Texas. The ENUF [ph] that you've got, I am just curious what implied or it is that enabled State of Texas to earn [ph] that it goes into new effect? J. Wayne Leonard: Michael let me start with Gary on Texas, right Gary.

Okay, just quickly and we were pleased at the end you asked that, we will see because it positions our business to earn an ROE around 10%. So on going forward over the next couple of years and so that... that's a real plus considering about where that business is come from where it been 6% or below 7%. Wayne?

Michael on the transmission and the renewals I mean those are the tax things that we monitor, they are factored into our point of view on what we think prices will be out there. So these are not something that we weren't aware and/or are monitoring but like we've talked before it's still very difficult to get those things done. And in some situations, I think, Leo and I've talked before, some of this trend, some of these transmission projects, helped the deliverability of some of our plants into key markets. So, we're keeping an eye on all of it.

Okay. Thank you, guys.

That is all the time that we have for questions, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Ms. Lopiccolo, I'd like to turn the call back over to you for any additional or closing remarks.

Thank you, 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 2740813. This concludes our call. Thank you.

Once again, thank you all very much for joining us today. That does conclude the presentation. Have a great day.