Item 8.01 Other Events.

As discussed in "Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis - State and Local Regulation - Filings with the PUCT" in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, Entergy Texas, Inc. ("ETI") made a compliance filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUCT") in January 2008 describing how 2007 rough production cost equalization receipts allocated to Entergy Gulf States, Inc. ("EGSI") under the Entergy System Agreement were reallocated between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. ("EGSL") and ETI for the period immediately preceding EGSI's jurisdictional split effected December 31, 2007. A hearing was held at the end of July 2008, and in October 2008 the administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued a proposal for decision recommending an additional $18.6 million allocation to Texas retail customers. The PUCT adopted the ALJ's proposal for decision in December 2008. Because the PUCT allocation to Texas retail customers is inconsistent with the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("LPSC") allocation to Louisiana retail customers, the PUCT decision results in trapped costs between the Texas and Louisiana jurisdictions with no mechanism for recovery. The PUCT denied ETI's motion for rehearing and ETI commenced proceedings in both state and federal district courts seeking to reverse the PUCT's decision. On May 12, 2009, certain defendants, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the PUCT, filed a motion to dismiss ETI's pending complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. ETI also filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") a proposed amendment to the Entergy System Agreement bandwidth formula to specifically calculate the payments to EGSL and ETI of EGSI's rough production cost equalization receipts for 2007. On May 8, 2009, the FERC issued an order rejecting the proposed amendment, stating, among other things, that the FERC does not have jurisdiction over the allocation of an individual utility's receipts/payments among or between its retail jurisdictions and that this was a matter for the courts to review in the pending appeals noted above. ETI is reviewing the FERC's decision and is assessing its available options. However, given the current FERC order, ETI expects to record the effects of the PUCT's allocation of the additional $18.6 million to retail customers in the second quarter of 2009. On an after tax basis, the charge to earnings is expected to be approximately $13.0 million (inclusive of interest).