ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC

Risk Management and Strategy

Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries maintain a security-risk-management system with defined roles, duties, governance, and accountability. Under this physical- and cyber-risk model, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries streamline security into a centralized program. The Chief Security Officer (CSO) is responsible for establishing the security and reliability risk strategy, setting policies, monitoring controls and compliance, providing support activities, and reporting on the security program. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) is responsible for establishing the cybersecurity strategy and implementing physical and cyber security systems for the security program. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for ensuring that Entergy’s information technology infrastructure is secure and reliable. The Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer works with the CSO to address requirements of external security-related regulations, and where applicable, incorporate them into business policies. Management is responsible for identifying and managing risk directly through execution of the security program and compliance with security policies. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk management model addresses compliance with certain regulatory constructs, such as the NERC Reliability Standards, the NRC Code of Federal Regulations, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, among other regulations. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk management model continuously evolves to improve and implement protections, controls, and monitoring to mitigate risks to their part of North America’s electric grid, to protect sensitive information, and to maintain secure business operations. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries manage cybersecurity threats as an enterprise risk with close coordination and information sharing with its federal, state, and local partners. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries also engage with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies on initiatives to share threat information and participate in a wide range of industry collaborations and classified briefings on cybersecurity developments and evolving risks.

Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries maintain access-management controls, including a layered multi-factor authentication process for network and system access, and a defense-in-depth security ecosystem that includes advanced threat detection from independent third parties and federal agencies, security logging and monitoring, and independent third-party penetration and vulnerability assessments. Relevant employees and contractors must complete cybersecurity trainings periodically to heighten security and threat awareness, promote best practices, and meet regulatory requirements. Additional multi-layered prevention and detection processes and technologies to mitigate and minimize the effects of cybersecurity risks include email security, continuous monitoring, vulnerability scanning, anti-virus and anti-malware software, backups and recovery strategy, network segregation, third-party security, and information protection.

Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries have incorporated certain cyber-specific response protocols and procedures into their Entergy Incident Management System framework for responding to emergency incidents. This includes the Entergy Incident Response Team Plan, which outlines Entergy’s procedures, steps, and responsibilities for preparing for, detecting, containing, and recovering from an incident. The plan details the roles and responsibilities of Entergy’s officers who would be engaged in such a response to an emergency incident, including key questions to be addressed, critical decision points, and sources of key information to support decision-making. Senior management and the Emergency Incident Response Team periodically review and drill on the plan.

As cybersecurity risks continue to evolve with multiple threat vectors, including artificial intelligence related threats, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries maintain a comprehensive security strategy to keep current with the changing threats. To inform this effort, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries utilize the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework, which consists of standards, guidelines, and best practices to manage cybersecurity risk across the enterprise. A risk-based approach is used to direct security initiatives to the most significant risks and provide the most value in terms of risk reduction and protection. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries use a vendor risk management program to assess and monitor security risks that arise from certain third-party vendors. In addition, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries utilize technology and threat-intelligence services to assess and continuously monitor the cybersecurity risk of key vendors, as identified through the vendor risk management program.

While Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries have experienced cybersecurity incidents, except as otherwise summarized above or discussed elsewhere in this report, the risks from cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any previous cybersecurity incidents, havenot materially affected them including their business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. See “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A for a detailed description of the risks related to cybersecurity.

Corporate Governance

The Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of the identification, management, and mitigation of enterprise-wide risk, including cybersecurity risk. The Audit Committee has the primary responsibility for overseeing risk management, including oversight of cybersecurity risk management practices and performance. The Audit Committee generally receives reports at each regular quarterly meeting provided by the CSO, the CISO, the CIO, and the General Auditor on the cybersecurity management program. The reports focus on the programs and protocols in place to mitigate cybersecurity risks, led by the CSO. Among other things, the reports may include: recent cyber risk and cybersecurity developments; industry engagement activities; legislative and regulatory developments; cyber-risk governance and oversight; selected cyber risk metrics and activities; cyber risk incident response plans and strategies; cybersecurity drills and exercises; assessments by third party experts and Internal Audit; and major projects and initiatives.

While the Board of Directors and Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity risk management, Entergy’s management is responsible for managing cybersecurity risk. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ security-risk-management system, as discussed above, is comprised of a three lines of defense model to enhance risk management efforts and define roles in the security program. The first line of defense, comprised of business units performing operational functions, including the CISO and CIO, is responsible for identification and management of security and reliability risks directly through design, implementation, and execution of control activities. The second line of defense, comprised of the CSO, performs and supports security and reliability risk management and governs and oversees the execution of security and reliability controls by the first line of defense. Ownership of specific security operations may migrate from a business unit in the first line of defense to the second line of defense, as determined to be appropriate by the Chief Security Office. The third line of defense, which includes Internal Audit, independent third parties, and certain regulatory constructs, such as the NERC Reliability Standards and the NRC Cyber Rule, provides assurance of selective actions taken by the first and second lines of defense to senior management and the Board of Directors.

Entergy’s CSO is responsible for overseeing physical, cyber, and reliability risk, including governance, compliance, and threat intelligence. The CSO’s background includes serving as the Global Lead Business Information Security Officer for a multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, Vice President of Cybersecurity Solutions for an international consulting firm, and an operations manager for a multinational technology company. The CSO is also a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, with experience in the Fleet Marine Force, Joint Staff J-2/Defense Intelligence Agency, and Headquarters Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4I). The CSO participated in numerous exercises and crisis operations during his time in the military. The CSO is a member of the Information Systems Audit and Control Association and a certified Information Privacy Manager from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. The CSO also completed the Harvard Kennedy School Executive Education Program in Cybersecurity and the FBI Domestic Security Executive Academy.

Entergy’s CISO is responsible for enterprise strategic and operational cybersecurity, physical security systems, and regulatory compliance. The CISO oversees investments in tools, resources, and processes that allow for the continuous improvement and maturity of Entergy’s cybersecurity posture. The CISO has expertise spanning more than 25 years in the realm of information technology, information security, and cyber/physical security management. The CISO’s background includes serving as the Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer for an electric utility with responsibility for enterprise cybersecurity covering corporate, electric, nuclear, and gas operations. Additionally, the CISO served as the Chief Security Officer for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas with overall responsibility for its cybersecurity, physical security, and emergency management programs. Her previous experience includes multiple technical, managerial, and strategic roles within industries ranging from energy, telecommunication, software development, and cybersecurity consulting. The CISO is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional, Certified Information Security Manager, and Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control.

Entergy’s CIO is responsible for ensuring that the organization’s information technology systems, infrastructure, and applications are designed, implemented, and maintained to provide secure and reliable performance in support of Entergy’s business objectives. The CIO establishes and enforces IT policies, procedures, and controls to mitigate information technology policies, procedures, and controls to mitigate information technology-related risks and provides guidance and support to the business units in the effective use of information technology resources and the management of information technology-related risks. By fulfilling these responsibilities across the three lines of defense model, the CIO plays a critical role in ensuring that Entergy’s information technology-related risks are effectively identified, managed, and mitigated, thereby supporting Entergy’s overall risk management and governance framework. The CIO’s background includes serving in senior leadership roles, including CIO for multiple global manufacturing companies, serving on the board of directors for a telecommunications company, and consulting leadership positions providing services for numerous large, global organizations.

In the event of a suspected or actual cybersecurity incident, the Security Incident Response Team (SIRT), which includes the CISO, has primary responsibility for initial identification and evaluation of potential business impacts and escalation of the incident’s severity classification using pre-established criteria with a specified communication matrix and escalation thresholds. The Security Incident Commander, which role is served by a leader in the CISO organization, provides tactical leadership and oversight management at the cross-functional level for the incident. The SIRT remains engaged throughout the incident response lifecycle, including detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery, and post-incident remediation, and coordinates with the impacted business functions, if warranted. Once a cyber incident is confirmed, the SIRT is responsible for maintaining situational awareness and continuous monitoring of the need for escalation or de-escalation of the incident’s severity classification. As certain escalation thresholds are exceeded, additional levels of management notification are required by the SIRT, including notification of and recurring communication with Entergy’s Incident Response Team, which includes the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the CSO, other executive management, and members of the affected business functions. Depending upon the facts, analysis, materiality, and anticipated or current impacts, the Chief Executive Officer and the General Counsel will determine the timing and cadence for communication of the cyber incident with the Board of Directors or Audit Committee.

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

See the “Winter Storm Fern” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Winter Storm Fern. Entergy Arkansas’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $50 million to $60 million, with the majority of the costs being capital. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Arkansas for January 2026 are $74 million compared to natural gas purchases for January 2025 of $25 million.

Net income increased $118.0 million primarily due to a $131.8 million ($99.1 million net-of-tax) charge, recorded in first quarter 2024, to reflect the write-off of a previously recorded regulatory asset as a result of an adverse decision in the opportunity sales proceeding in March 2024, higher volume/weather, and higher retail electric price, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher other operation and maintenance expenses, higher interest expense, an $18.3 million reduction in income tax expense in third quarter 2024 as a result of the resolution of an Arkansas state income tax audit, and higher taxes other than income taxes. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the resolution of the Arkansas state income tax audit.

Entergy Arkansas’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to an increase in industrial and residential usage. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to an increase in demand from large industrial customers, primarily in the primary metals and technology industries, and an increase in demand from small industrial customers. The increase in residential usage is primarily due to an increase in customers.

The retail one-time bill credit variance represents the disbursement of settlement proceeds in the form of a one-time bill credit provided to Entergy Arkansas’s retail customers during the August 2024 billing cycle through the Grand Gulf credit rideras a result of the System Energy settlement with the APSC. There is no effect on net income because Entergy Arkansas previously recorded a regulatory liability for the effects of the System Energy settlement with the APSC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Energy settlement with the APSC and discussion of the Grand Gulf credit rider.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan rates effective January 2025. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2024 formula rate plan filing.

Total electric energy sales for Entergy Arkansas for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 are as follows:

See Note 19 to the financial statements for additional discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s operating revenues.

•an increase of $14.0 millionin power delivery expenses primarily due to higher vegetation maintenance costs;

•an increase of $13.9 millionin non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a higher scope of work, including during plant outages, in 2025 as compared to 2024;

•an increase of $6.1 million in bad debt expense;

•the expensing of $5.0 million of certain wind and solar project costs associated with the decision to evaluate alternative generation solutions; and

The increase was partially offset bycontract costs of $11.5 million in 2024 related to operational performance, customer service, and organizational health initiatives and a decrease of $10.9 million in energy efficiency expenses primarily due to the timing of recovery from customers.

Asset write-offs includes a $131.8 million charge, recorded in first quarter 2024, to reflect the write-off of a previously recorded regulatory asset as a result of an adverse decision in the opportunity sales proceeding in March 2024. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes resulting from higher assessments and millage rate increases.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the Walnut Bend Solar facility, which was placed in service in September 2024, and the West Memphis Solar facility and the Driver Solar facility, which were placed in service in December 2024.

Other regulatory charges (credits) - net includes:

•the reversal in third quarter 2024 of a $92.3 million regulatory liability recognized for the obligation to return to customers the refund from the System Energy settlement with the APSC. The reversal of the regulatory liability offsets a reduction in gross revenues from the retail one-time bill credits provided to customers in the August 2024 billing cycle through the Grand Gulf credit rider. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Energy settlement with the APSC and discussion of the Grand Gulf credit rider;

•a regulatory credit of $28.3 million, recorded in fourth quarter 2025, to reflect the amount of the 2024 historical year netting adjustment to be collected from Entergy Arkansas’s customers during the 2026 rate effective period as included in the 2025 formula rate plan filing. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2025 formula rate plan filing; and

•a regulatory credit of $15.5 million, recorded in fourth quarter 2024, to reflect the amount of the 2023 historical year netting adjustment to be collected from Entergy Arkansas’s customers during the 2025 rate effective period as included in the 2024 formula rate plan filing. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2024 formula rate plan filing.

In addition, Entergy Arkansas records a regulatory charge or credit for the difference between asset retirement obligation-related expenses and nuclear decommissioning trust earnings plus asset retirement obligation-related costs collected in revenue.

Interest expense increased primarily due to the issuance of $400 million of 5.45% Series mortgage bonds in May 2024 and an additional $300 million in a reopening of the same series in May 2025.

The effective income tax rates were 19.8% for 2025 and 18.9% for 2024. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 21% to the effective income tax rates and for additional discussion regarding income taxes.

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS -Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2025, for discussion of results of operations for 2024 compared to 2023.

See the “Income Tax Legislation and Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of income tax legislation and regulation.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $356.4 million in 2025 primarily due to:

•higher collections from customers;

•net cash proceeds of $242.6 million received by Entergy Arkansas in 2025, including $215.2 million of proceeds received from Entergy Arkansas’s transfer of 2024 nuclear and solar production tax credits to third parties in 2025 and net cash receipts of $27.4 million from affiliates in 2025 in accordance with the Unit Power Sales Agreement and the MSS-4 replacement tariff related to the transfer of 2024 nuclear production tax credits by Entergy Arkansas and affiliates to third parties in 2025. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the nuclear and solar production tax credits;

•income tax refunds of $29.7 million in 2025 compared to income tax payments of $9.5 million in 2024. Entergy Arkansas received income tax refunds in 2025 and made income tax payments in 2024, each in accordance with Entergy’s tax allocation agreement;

•a decrease of $23.7 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages in 2025 as compared to 2024; and

•a decrease of $19.6 million in pension contributions in 2025. See “Critical Accounting Estimates –Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

•higher fuel and purchased power payments. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of fuel and purchased power cost recovery;

•the timing of payments to vendors; and

•the receipt of $92.7 million in settlement proceeds in 2024 as a result of the System Energy settlement with the APSC, which was subsequently refunded to retail customers in third quarter 2024 with one-time bill credits through the Grand Gulf credit rider. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Energy settlement agreement with the APSC and the Grand Gulf credit rider.

Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $535.5 million in 2025 primarily due to:

•the initial and substantial completion payments totaling approximately $392.8 million in 2024 for the purchase of the Driver Solar facility;

•the initial and substantial completion payments totaling approximately $240.4 million in 2024 for the purchase of the West Memphis Solar facility;

•the initial and substantial completion payments totaling approximately $185.5 million in 2024 for the purchase of the Walnut Bend Solar facility;

•a decrease in cash used of $38.2 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity due to variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements, materials and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle; and

•a decrease of $30.0 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to decreased spending on various transmission projects in 2025.

The decrease was partially offset by:

•an increase of $201.0 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to higher spending on the Ironwood Power Station (formerly Lake Catherine Unit 5) project and the Jefferson Power Station project;

•an increase of $92.0 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to higher capital expenditures for storm restoration in 2025;

•cash collateral of $37.0 million posted in 2025 to support Entergy Arkansas’s obligations to MISO; and

•money pool activity.

Increases in Entergy Arkansas’s receivable from the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s receivable from the money pool increased $21.7 million in 2025. The money pool is an intercompany cash management program that makes possible intercompany borrowing and lending arrangements, and the money pool and other borrowing arrangements are designed to reduce the Registrant Subsidiaries’ dependence on external short-term borrowings.

See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Driver Solar facility, the West Memphis Solar facility, and the Walnut Bend Solar facility purchases.

Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $622.2 million in 2025 primarily due to:

•the issuances of $400 million of 5.45% Series mortgage bonds and $400 million of 5.75% Series mortgage bonds, each in May 2024;

•capital contributions of approximately $695 million received from Entergy Corporation in 2024 to partially finance the acquisitions of the Walnut Bend Solar facility, the West Memphis Solar facility, and the Driver Solar facility;

•the issuance of $70 million of 5.54% Series O notes by the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity in March 2024; and

•a decrease of $16.6 million in advance payments from customers for construction related to transmission, distribution, and generator interconnection agreements.

The decrease was partially offset by:

•the repayment, at maturity, of $375 million of 3.70% Series mortgage bonds in June 2024;

•the issuance of $300 million of 5.45% Series mortgage bonds in May 2025;

•a decrease of $120 million in common equity distributions paid in 2025 in order to maintain Entergy Arkansas’s capital structure;

•money pool activity; and

•a decrease in net repayments of $38.9 million on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility.

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased $15.2 million in 2025 compared to decreasing by $130.2 million in 2024.

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS -Liquidity and Capital Resources -Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2025, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2024 compared to 2023.

Entergy Arkansas’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt and equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Arkansas uses the debt to capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition. The net debt to net capital ratio is a non-GAAP measure. Entergy Arkansas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Arkansas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, to the extent funds are legally available to do so, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure. To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure. In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reduced distributions, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s planned construction and other capital investments.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes investments in generation projects to modernize, decarbonize, expand, and diversify Entergy Arkansas’s portfolio, as well as to support customer growth, including Ironwood Power Station (formerly Lake Catherine Unit 5), Jefferson Power Station, and Arkansas Cypress Solar; investments in ANO 1 and 2; distribution and Utility support spending to improve reliability and customer experience; transmission spending to improve reliability while also supporting customer growth and renewables expansion; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, governmental actions, including the trade-related governmental actions discussed below, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital, including any changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies.

Recent announcements of changes to international trade policy and tariffs and further similar changes may impact Entergy Arkansas’s business, operations, results of operations, and liquidity and capital resources. Potential impacts may include increases in costs associated with Entergy Arkansas’s capital investments or operation and maintenance expenses; operational impacts, such as supply chain, manufacturing, cost and availability of qualified, skilled labor, or raw materials sourcing disruptions which may affect Entergy Arkansas’s ability to make planned capital investments as and when expected and needed; legal uncertainties, such as potential legal or other challenges to presidential tariff authority; or broader economic risks, including changes to domestic monetary policy, shifting customer demand, impacts on customer investment decisions, and volatile or uncertain credit and capital markets, which may affect Entergy Arkansas’s ability to access needed capital. The nature and extent of any such effects will depend on, among other things, the specifics of the changes that are ultimately implemented both domestically and internationally, the responses of vendors, suppliers, and other counterparties to those changes, indirect effects on the price and availability of non-tariffed goods, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Entergy Arkansas has incurred incremental cost increases due to certain tariff-exposed inputs, including select equipment, components, or underlying raw materials. As of the date of this Form 10-K, such increases have not had a material effect on its current and planned capital projects. Entergy Arkansas is not able to predict any further effects of such tariffs or the effects of potential changes in regulation and law, changes to governmental programs, such as loans, grants, guarantees, and other subsidies, and trade-related governmental actions, such as tariffs and other measures, on its current and planned capital projects.

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments).

Entergy Arkansas currently expects to contribute approximately $29.7 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $710 thousand to its other postretirement plans in 2026, although the 2026 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2026, valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2026. See “Critical Accounting Estimates –Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Entergy Arkansas has $235.4 million of unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes plus interest for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition, Entergy Arkansas enters into fuel and purchased power agreements that contain minimum purchase obligations. Entergy Arkansas has rate mechanisms in place to recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs incurred under these purchase obligations. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Arkansas pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Ironwood Power Station

In November 2024, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of Ironwood Power Station (formerly Lake Catherine Unit 5), a 446 MW simple cycle natural gas combustion turbine facility to be located at the existing Lake Catherine facility site in Hot Spring County, Arkansas. The facility will primarily be powered by natural gas, and it will also be enabled for future carbon capture and storage and for hydrogen co-firing optionality. In December 2024 other parties, including the APSC general staff, filed testimony opposing the resource, although the APSC general staff recognized the capacity need for the resource. Entergy Arkansas filed testimony in January 2025 further supporting its application, and in February 2025 the opposing parties filed responsive rebuttal testimony continuing to dispute the estimated costs and to dispute that Entergy Arkansas performed a market solicitation sufficient to demonstrate that this resource is the most reasonable option for customers. Also in February 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed surrebuttal testimony responding to the opposing parties’ testimony. A hearing was held in March 2025, and in April 2025 the APSC issued an order approving certification of the facility. The order also provided a presumption of prudence finding with respect to a benchmark project cost. In May 2025,

Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for clarification concerning the appropriate calculation of the benchmark that was below the estimated cost of Ironwood Power Station and was based upon older technology and dated pricing. Entergy Arkansas will have the opportunity to present later all actual costs to the APSC for review and a prudence determination of final costs, including costs incremental to the benchmark. In June 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed its independent monitor proposal with the APSC and is awaiting direction on the proposal and the motion for clarification. Entergy Arkansas proposes to recover the costs of constructing Ironwood Power Station through the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act rider. The facility is expected to be in service by the end of 2028. See “State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery -Retail Rates -Generating Arkansas Jobs Act Rider” below for discussion of the Generating Jobs Act rider, which was approved by the APSC in October 2025.

Jefferson Power Station

In August 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of Jefferson Power Station, an approximately 754 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle combustion turbine facility to be located in Jefferson County, Arkansas. The facility will primarily be powered by natural gas, and it will also be enabled for future carbon capture and storage and for hydrogen co-firing optionality. The estimated cost of the project is $1,602 million. In September 2025 other parties, including the APSC general staff, filed testimony opposing the resource pending further information, although the APSC general staff recognized the capacity need for the resource and that Entergy Arkansas had satisfied the statutory requirements for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. Much of the opposition focused on the fact that the resource was not identified through a competitive solicitation. Entergy Arkansas filed testimony further supporting its application in September and October 2025. A hearing was held in October 2025 and November 2025. In January 2026 the APSC issued its order finding that Entergy Arkansas had demonstrated a need for the resource but had not met its burden with respect to supporting the prudence of the costs to construct the resource. The APSC acknowledged that the costs would be greater if Entergy Arkansas waited to pursue the resource. The APSC authorized Entergy Arkansas to proceed with Jefferson Power Station as a strategic investment with estimated costs set at a benchmark, which the APSC erroneously believed reflected the current cost estimate but is, in fact, $90 million below the cost presented. Entergy Arkansas is evaluating whether to make a request for rehearing to correct the benchmark. Additionally, the APSC found that Entergy Arkansas should conduct all-source competitive solicitations moving forward with a limited exception for certain resources associated with customer growth projects. Entergy Arkansas proposes to recover the costs of constructing Jefferson Power Station through the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act rider. Subject to receipt of required regulatory approval and other conditions, the facility is expected to be in service by the end of 2029. See “State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery -Retail Rates -Generating Arkansas Jobs Act Rider” below for discussion of the Generating Jobs Act rider, which was approved by the APSC in October 2025.

Special Rate Contract and Arkansas Cypress Solar

In September 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of a long-term special rate contract between Altitude, LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc. (Google) and Entergy Arkansas for the sale of electricity to a new large-scale data center in West Memphis, Arkansas. In October 2025 the APSC general staff filed testimony finding that based on its evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s application and the results of the ratepayer impact measure test, the special rate contract meets the requirements of the APSC’s promotional practice rules and is in the public interest. No other parties filed testimony. In December 2025 the APSC issued an order approving the special rate contract but denying the requested ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments and deferring a decision on the treatment under the contract pricing providing for the deferral and amortization of the investment tax credits from the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility (discussed below). Also in December 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC regarding these findings, noting that they would require renegotiation of the special rate contract. In January 2026 the APSC issued an order maintaining its position on the ratemaking treatment of Google’s upfront payments but reversing itself on the treatment of the Arkansas Cypress

Solar facility investment tax credits and allowing those to be used in the pricing of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility to Google as provided for in the contract.

In September 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the construction and operation of the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility, a planned 600 MW solar photovoltaic array with a 350 MW battery energy storage system and associated transmission facilities interconnecting at Entergy Arkansas’s White Bluff substation. The estimated cost of the project is $1,602 million. Entergy Arkansas is seeking public interest and prudence findings from the APSC no later than 180 days from the filing, pursuant to Act 373 of 2025, to construct the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility in support of its long-term special rate contract with Google. In October 2025 the APSC general staff and the Arkansas Attorney General filed responsive testimony opposing the project cost and seeking additional information. Subsequently, the APSC general staff submitted supplemental testimony to update its initial conclusion and recommendations, noting that the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility is a reasonable project and recommending the APSC approve the project under certain conditions. Entergy Arkansas proposes to recover the costs of constructing the Arkansas Cypress Solar facility through the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act rider. A hearing was held in December 2025, and an APSC decision is due in March 2026. Subject to receipt of required regulatory approval and other conditions, the facility is expected to be in service by the end of 2028. See “State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery -Retail Rates -Generating Arkansas Jobs Act Rider” below for discussion of the Generating Jobs Act rider, which was approved by the APSC in October 2025.

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

Circumstances such as weather patterns, fuel and purchased power price fluctuations, and unanticipated expenses, including unscheduled plant outages and storms, could affect the timing and level of internally generated funds in the future. In addition to the financings necessary to meet capital requirements and contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas expects to continue, when economically feasible, to retire higher-cost debt and replace it with lower-cost debt if market conditions permit.

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval. Debt issuances are also subject to requirements set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s bond indenture and other agreements. Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs for the next twelve months and beyond.

Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $300 million scheduled to expire in June 2030. Entergy Arkansas also has a $25 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2026. The $300 million credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2025, there were no cash borrowings under either credit facility and no letters of credit outstanding under the $300 million credit facility. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to two uncommitted letter of credit facilities as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2025, $93.3 million in letters of credit were outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facilities. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in June 2027. As of December 31, 2025, there were $13.7 million in loans outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorization from the FERC through February 2028 for the following:

•short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding;

•long-term borrowings and securities issuances; and

•borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity.

See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. In addition, the APSC has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy Arkansas’s first mortgage bond/secured issuances. Entergy Arkansas has obtained first mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2027.

The rates that Entergy Arkansas charges for its services significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Arkansas is regulated, and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the APSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

In July 2023, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2023 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2024 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2024 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2022. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2024 projected year was 8.11% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $80.5 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2022 historical year was 7.29% resulting in a $49.8 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2024 projected year and 2022 historical year netting adjustment was $130.3 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $88.6 million. The APSC general staff and intervenors filed their errors and objections report in October 2023, proposing certain adjustments, including the APSC general staff’s update to annual filing year revenues which lowers the constraint to $87.7 million. In October 2023, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a settlement agreement reached with other parties resolving all issues in the proceeding, none of which affected Entergy Arkansas’s requested recovery up to the constraint of $87.7 million. The settlement agreement provided for amortization of the approximately $39 million regulatory asset for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic over a 10-year period as well as recovery of $34.9 million related to the resolution of the 2016 and 2017 IRS audits from previous tax positions that are no longer uncertain, partially offset by $24.7 million in excess accumulated deferred income taxes from reductions in state income tax rates, each before consideration of their respective tax gross-up. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the resolution of the 2016-2018 IRS audit and the State of Arkansas corporate income tax rate changes. In December 2023 the APSC approved the settlement agreement as being in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2024.

In July 2024, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2024 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2025 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the 2025 projected year and a netting adjustment for the 2023 historical year. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2025 projected year was 8.43% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $69.5 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 historical year was 7.48% resulting in a $33.1 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2025 projected year and 2023 historical year netting adjustment was $102.6 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $82.6 million. The APSC general staff and intervenors filed their errors and objections report in October 2024, proposing certain adjustments, including the APSC general staff’s update to annual filing year revenues that increases the constraint to $83.5 million. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal in October 2024, and later in October 2024 the parties submitted a joint issues list and stipulations setting forth the disputed issues and the noncontested issues. In December 2024 the APSC approved the parties’ stipulations without modification, approved Entergy Arkansas’s adjustment with respect to storm costs, directed Entergy Arkansas to adjust its projected year distribution reliability capital closings, and deferred the recoverability of Entergy Arkansas’s opportunity sales legal fees until the next general rate case. Also in December 2024 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2025. As a result of the proceeding, the total revenue change was $82.7 million, including a $63.7 million increase for the 2025 projected year and a $31.4 million netting adjustment for the 2023 historical year. In fourth quarter 2024, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $15.5 million to reflect the amount of the 2023 historical year netting adjustment that it collected from its customers during the 2025 rate effective period. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulations, Entergy Arkansas made a filing with the APSC in January 2025 to refund customers $30.1 million in excess accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the reduction in the State of Arkansas’s income tax rate from 4.8% to 4.3% in 2024. Entergy Arkansas began refunding this amount over a 24-month period effective with the first billing cycle of February 2025.

In July 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2025 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2026 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the 2026 projected year and a netting adjustment for the 2024 historical year. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2026 projected year was 8.45% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $68.9 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2024 historical year was 7.71% resulting in a $48.8 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2026 projected year and 2024 historical year netting adjustment was $117.7 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $92.3 million. The APSC general staff filed their errors and objections report in October 2025, proposing an adjustment to the coupon rate for the projected long-term debt issuance in 2026 and an update to annual filing year revenues that increases the constraint to $93.9 million. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal in October 2025. A hearing was scheduled for November 2025, and an order was expected in December 2025. Due to no contested issues remaining outstanding among the parties to the proceeding, in October 2025, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC general staff filed a joint motion requesting the APSC cancel the hearing and issue a decision based on the pleadings and testimony in the record. The APSC granted this request. In December 2025 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request as modified by the APSC general staff’s errors and objections report and Entergy Arkansas’s rebuttal testimony. Also in December 2025 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2026. As a result of the proceeding, the total revenue change was $93.9 million, including a $65.6 million increase for the 2026 projected year and a $48.8 million netting adjustment for the 2024 historical year. In fourth quarter 2025, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $28.3 million to reflect the amount of the 2024 historical year netting adjustment that it expects to collect from its customers during the 2026 rate effective period.

Grand Gulf Credit Rider

In June 2024, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a tariff to provide retail customers a credit resulting from the terms of the settlement agreement between Entergy Arkansas, System Energy, additional named Entergy parties, and the APSC pertaining to System Energy’s billings for wholesale sales of energy and capacity from the Grand Gulf nuclear plant. See “Complaints Against System Energy -System Energy Settlement with the APSC” in Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Energy settlement with the APSC. In July 2024 the APSC approved the tariff, under which Entergy Arkansas would refund to retail customers a total of $100.6 million. Entergy Arkansas refunded $92.3 million of the total through one-time bill credits under the Grand Gulf credit rider during the August 2024 billing cycle. In March 2025, Entergy Arkansas included the remaining balance as a credit to retail customers in its energy cost recovery rider rate redetermination filing. See further discussion within “Energy Cost Recovery Rider” below. In April 2025 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s proposal to include the remaining balance in its energy cost recovery rider effective with the first billing cycle of April 2025 and the withdrawal of the Grand Gulf credit rider after all credits had been issued. Credits to retail customers were completed in second quarter 2025, and the Grand Gulf credit rider was subsequently withdrawn.

Generating Arkansas Jobs Act Rider

In March 2025 the State of Arkansas passed the Generating Arkansas Jobs Act of 2025, now Act 373 (Act 373), that authorizes the recovery of financing costs during construction of generation and transmission investments through a rider separate from the formula rate plan. Act 373 also permits cost recovery of those investments, when completed and in service, either through the next general rate case proceeding or under the formula rate plan. Act 373 streamlines and simplifies the regulatory approval process and provides increased timeliness and certainty of cost recovery.

In July 2025, Entergy Arkansas submitted a tariff filing with the APSC requesting approval of a strategic investment recovery rider, consistent with the provisions of Act 373. In October 2025 the APSC issued an order approving the proposed rider with several revisions, including elimination of an annual true-up adjustment, a change in cost allocation methodology, the removal of excess and deficient accumulated deferred income taxes to a separate rider, and the addition of reporting requirements. As directed by the order, in October 2025, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing. In November 2025, the APSC general staff recommended additional updates to the compliance filing, including limiting the accumulated deferred income tax adjustment to excess accumulated deferred income taxes. Also, in November 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a second compliance filing, which was approved by the APSC.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills. The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year. The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its upcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was made in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate $65.9 million of incremental fuel and replacement energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information was available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs and costs related to the incremental oversight previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. In October 2023, Entergy Arkansas made a commitment to the APSC to make a filing to forgo its opportunity to seek recovery of the incremental fuel and purchased energy expense, among other identified costs, resulting from the ANO stator incident. As a result, in third quarter 2023, Entergy Arkansas recorded a write-off of its regulatory asset for deferred fuel of $68.9 million, which includes interest, related to the ANO stator incident. Consistent with its October 2023 commitment, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to forgo recovery in November 2023, and the motion was approved by the APSC in December 2023. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statementsfor further discussion of the ANO stator incident and the approved motion to forgo recovery.

In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.

In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for suspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the tax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a supplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the increase should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The timing of the audit’s completion is uncertain at this time.

In March 2023, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01639 per kWh to $0.01883 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase was a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2022 and a $32 million deferral related to the APSC general staff’s request in 2022 for Entergy Arkansas to defer its request for recovery related to the February 2021 winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination. In February 2023 the APSC issued orders initiating proceedings to address the prudence of costs incurred and appropriate cost allocation of the February 2021 winter storms, and in September 2023 the APSC issued an order finding Entergy Arkansas’s practices during the February 2021 winter storms to be prudent. The under-recovered balance included in the March 2023 filing was partially offset by the proceeds of the $41.7 million refund that System Energy made to Entergy Arkansas in January 2023 related to the sale-leaseback renewal costs and depreciation litigation as calculated in System Energy’s January 2023 compliance report filed with the FERC. See “Complaints Against System Energy - Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue” in Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the compliance report filed by System Energy with the FERC in January 2023. The redetermined rate of $0.01883 per kWh became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2023 through the normal operation of the tariff.

In March 2024, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease in the rate from $0.01883 per kWh to $0.00882 per kWh. Due to a change in law in the State of Arkansas, the annual redetermination included $9 million, recorded as a credit to fuel expense in first quarter 2024, for recovery attributed to net metering costs in 2023. The primary reason for the rate decrease was a large over-recovered balance as a result of lower natural gas prices in 2023. To mitigate the effect of projected increases in natural gas prices in 2024, Entergy Arkansas adjusted the over-recovered balance included in the March 2024 annual redetermination filing by $43.7 million. This adjustment reduced the rate change that was reflected in the 2025 energy cost rate redetermination. The redetermined rate of $0.00882 per kWh became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2024 through the normal operation of the tariff.

In March 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.00882 per kWh to $0.01333 per kWh. The annual redetermination included a credit related to the remaining balance due to retail customers from the System Energy settlement with the APSC, plus carrying charges and interest. See “Retail Rates - Grand Gulf Credit Rider” above for further discussion. The primary reason for the rate increase was an adjustment to account for projected increases in natural gas prices in 2025. This adjustment is expected to reduce the rate change that will be reflected in Entergy Arkansas’s 2026 energy cost rate redetermination. The redetermined rate of $0.01333 per kWh became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2025 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources; (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity; and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requested refunds. In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint arguing among other things that the System Agreement contemplated that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company. The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement was ambiguous, it did provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith. The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement did not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority. The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement. The FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision. The hearing was held in May 2013 and the ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2013.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The hearing required by the FERC’s second April 2016 order was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision addressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties.

Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which included interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, and a deferred fuel regulatory asset of $75 million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million.

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to cap the reduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the LPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing.

In December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. The compliance filing provided a final calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payments to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. Refunds and interest, totaling $135 million, were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018.

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset with a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.

The FERC’s opportunity sales orders were appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020. In July 2021 the D.C. Circuit issued a decision denying all of the petitions for review filed in response to the FERC’s opportunity sales orders.

In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an application and supporting testimony with the APSC requesting approval of a special rider tariff to recover the costs of these payments from its retail customers over a 24-month period. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. Entergy Arkansas believed its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, were recoverable, and in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments.

In March 2024 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued a judgment in favor of the APSC and against Entergy Arkansas. In March 2024 Entergy Arkansas filed a notice of appeal and a motion to expedite oral arguments with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the court granted the motion to expedite. Briefing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded in July 2024 and oral arguments concluded in September 2024. As a result of the adverse decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Entergy Arkansas concluded that it could no longer support the recognition of its $131.8 million regulatory asset reflecting the previously-expected recovery of a portion of the costs at issue in the opportunity sales proceeding and recorded a $131.8 million ($99.1 million net-of-tax) charge to earnings in first quarter 2024. In December 2024 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearingen banc. In January 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition. In April 2025, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In June 2025 the United States Supreme Court denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for certiorari.

Net Metering Legislation

After the passage of an Arkansas net metering law that was enacted effective July 2019, the APSC approved numerous applications allowing Entergy Arkansas customers to enter into purchase power agreements with third parties and to utilize these purchase power agreements to offset power usage by Entergy Arkansas, despite the lack of proximity between the purchase power agreement and the end-use customer. The APSC also allowed the aggregation of accounts by net metering customers. These decisions by the APSC created subsidies in favor of eligible net metering customers to the detriment of non-participating customers. The level of this subsidy grew as additional net metering applications were approved by the APSC. The size and number of customers eligible under the 2019 law present a risk of loss of load and shifting of costs to customers.

Another Arkansas law was enacted effective March 2023 that revised the billing arrangements for net metering facilities in order to reduce the cost shift to non-net metering customers. The new law also imposes a new limit of 5 MW for future net metering facilities, allows utilities to recover net metering credits in the same manner as fuel, and grandfathers certain net metering facilities that are online or in process to be online by September 2024. As of October 2024, new net metering facilities are subject to two-channel billing. Because of the new law, in May 2023, the APSC closed its prior cost-shifting proceeding and grandfathering rulemaking relating to the prior net metering rate structure. Under the new law, the APSC had to approve revisions to utilities’ net metering tariffs to conform to the new law no later than December 2023. The APSC opened a new rulemaking in April 2023 to consider implementation of the new law and tariffs. In October 2023 the APSC issued new net metering rules to conform to the new law, and utilities, including Entergy Arkansas, filed revised net metering tariffs to comply with the new rules on October 16, 2023. Entergy Arkansas’s revised net metering tariff was approved by the APSC in December 2023.

Entergy Arkansas’s large industrial and commercial customers continually explore ways to reduce their energy costs. Entergy Arkansas responds by working with industrial and commercial customers to negotiate electric service contracts with competitive rates that match specific customer needs and load profiles. Additionally, cogeneration is an option available to a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s industrial customer base. Entergy Arkansas actively participates in economic development, customer retention, and reclamation activities to increase industrial and commercial demand from both new and existing customers.

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation – Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Entergy Arkansas owns and, through an affiliate, operates the ANO 1 and 2 nuclear generating plants and is, therefore, subject to the risks related to such ownership and operation. These include risks related to: the acquisition, use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, including the financial requirements to address emerging issues related to equipment reliability, to position Entergy Arkansas’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license amendments, and decommissioning; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts of insurance recoveries for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of either ANO 1 or 2, Entergy Arkansas may be required to file with the APSC a rate mechanism to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning. ANO 1’s operating license expires in 2034 and ANO 2’s operating license expires in 2038. In November 2025, Entergy Arkansas notified the NRC of its intent to submit applications to further extend the operating licenses for ANO 1 and 2. Entergy Arkansas expects to submit the renewal applications for ANO 1 by the end of fourth quarter 2029 and for ANO 2 by the end of fourth quarter 2033.

Entergy Arkansas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy Arkansas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business -Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

The preparation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in these assumptions and measurements could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

Entergy Arkansas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are affected by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms. See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion. Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Arkansas in 2025 was $20.9 million, including $1.5 million in settlement costs. Entergy Arkansas anticipates 2026 qualified pension cost to be $16.5 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed $35.5 million to its qualified pension plans in 2025 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately $29.7 million in 2026, although the 2026 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2026 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2026.

Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Arkansas in 2025 was $6.8 million. Entergy Arkansas expects 2026 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $9.4 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed $1.1 million to its other postretirement plans in 2025 and estimates that 2026 contributions will be approximately $710 thousand.

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes in equity (pages 348 through 352 and applicable items in pages 53 through 246), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2025, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries —Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (the “APSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Arkansas, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the APSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the APSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs and the likelihood of refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC, recovery in future rates of regulatory assets and refunds or future reductions in rates related to regulatory liabilities involved specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process due to its inherent complexities and auditor judgment to evaluate management estimates and the subjectivity of audit evidence.

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC, recovery in future rates of regulatory assets and refunds or future reductions in rates related to regulatory liabilities included the following, among others:

•We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as regulatory assets or liabilities and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.

•We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the APSC and the FERC for the Company to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the APSC’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.

•For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings with the APSC and the FERC and orders issued, and considered the filings with the APSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.

•We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or refund or a future reduction in rates.

•We obtained representation from management regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery, refund, or a future reduction in rates.