# Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. Doyle Webb, 122 F.4th 705 (8th Cir. 2024) > *Operative-text excerpts of a published Eighth Circuit opinion, retrieved 2026-06-04 from the CourtListener API (opinion id 10754421, `html_with_citations`). The direct CourtListener page returned an HTTP 202 (Cloudflare) to non-browser clients; the full opinion (21,504 chars) is durably available at the reporter citation 122 F.4th 705 and at the Wayback snapshot recorded above. The saved `original_file` is the operative-text excerpt captured from the API.* ## Source metadata - **Court**: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 24-1586 - **Panel**: Gruender, Kelly, Grasz, JJ. (opinion by Gruender, J.) - **Submitted / Filed**: Sept. 24, 2024 / Dec. 4, 2024 - **Citation**: 122 F.4th 705 - **Below**: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Hon. Brian S. Miller), affirmed - **CourtListener**: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287833/entergy-arkansas-llc-v-doyle-webb/ ## Extract **Parties.** Entergy Arkansas, LLC (plaintiff-appellant) v. **Doyle Webb** (Chairman), **Katie Anderson** (Commissioner), and **Justin Tate** (Commissioner), each "in his/her official capacity" at the **Arkansas Public Service Commission** — the same three commissioners now adjudicating the GAJA Rider, Cypress SRC, and CIAC dockets in [[Who Pays for Entergy's New Generation]]. **The cost-allocation dispute.** A 2000–2009 series of EAL "opportunity sales" led the Louisiana PSC to complain to FERC; FERC found EAL violated the Entergy System operating agreement, producing a net refund to other System members of "approximately $135 million" (incl. interest). FERC pointedly "did not decide how the refund costs should be allocated — that is, whether the costs should be borne by Entergy Arkansas's shareholders or passed on to its retail ratepayers." **What the APSC did.** "In May 2019, [EAL] petitioned the APSC for permission to increase its retail rate to recover the $135 million net refund from its retail customers. **The APSC denied this request** and further ordered that Entergy Arkansas refund the $13.7 million bandwidth offset (plus interest) to its retail customers. The APSC reasoned that the original overpayments had been paid by Entergy Arkansas's retail customers and thus should be refunded to them." **Holding (affirming for the APSC).** The filed-rate doctrine did not apply because "FERC made no preemptive decision regarding the refund's cost allocation" and explained that "[t]he setting of retail rates within the Entergy system is a matter for state commissions." The dormant Commerce Clause was not violated; the court endorsed the district court's statement that the "**APSC has the power to ensure that public utilities, including [Entergy Arkansas], can only recover costs that are reasonably necessary in providing utility service to ratepayers.**" Judgment affirmed. ## Notes - **Tier 2** — a published federal appellate opinion (primary public record). It establishes, at the federal-appellate level and as of December 2024, that (a) the APSC has the authority to decide whether costs fall on EAL's **shareholders** or its **ratepayers**, and (b) the APSC has a recent, judicially-affirmed track record of **refusing to let EAL pass ~$135M of costs through to retail ratepayers**. It does not address the GAJA Rider or data centers; it is offered as cost-allocation precedent and as the institutional backdrop to the pending data-center dockets. - It is **not** Tier-1 evidence of what the APSC did in the data-center dockets; those determinations are pending (see [[T001 - CIAC Classification of Google Generation Payments]]). - Related precedent cited in the opinion: *Entergy La., Inc. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n*, 539 U.S. 39 (2003) (filed-rate doctrine); *Middle South Energy, Inc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n*, 772 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (an earlier APSC order struck down under the dormant Commerce Clause for shifting Grand Gulf costs onto out-of-state ratepayers). - Cited by: [[Who Pays for Entergy's New Generation]]; [[Entergy Arkansas]].