FALL 2003 RFP

1. FALL 2003 RFP ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003 This presentation summarizes certain matters related to ESI’s Fall 2003 Request for Proposals (as it may be amended or modified, the “Fall 2003 RFP”). This presentation (which has been updated since the presentations at the LPSC Technical Conference on October 21, 2003 and the Bidder’s Conference on October 23, 2003 for various typographical errors and other edits), as well as any oral answers to the questions of any interested parties provided during or following this presentation, are qualified in their entirety by reference to the Fall 2003 RFP, including the Reservation of Rights set forth in the Fall 2003 RFP and the terms and acknowledgments set forth in the Proposal Submission Agreement, and any verbal answers shall be superceded by any written answers subsequently posted on the RFP web-site, https://emo-web.no.entergy.com/ENTRFP/index.htm.

2. Agenda Items • Introductions • RFP Process Overview - Background • Fall 2003 RFP • RFP – Process Safeguards • System Overview/Resource Needs • Proposal Evaluation Process • Proposal Submission Process • Question and Answer Session ESI requests that all questions be submitted in writing so as to allow ESI the ability to provide written responses which will be made accessible to all parties on the RFP web site. ESI will respond orally to some questions during the Question and Answer Session today.

3. Introductions Presenters • Bill Mohl Director of Asset Management, ESI • Sue Tierney Principal, The Analysis Group • Bob Cooper Manager of Generation Planning, ESI • Patric Stafshede Manager of Asset Management, ESI • Kristin Dalrymple Senior Analyst, ESI Other • Dave Harlan Sr. Vice President, ESI • Laura Berryman RFP Administrator, ESI • Julie Ell ESI Legal

4. ESI’S RFPPROCESS OVERVIEW ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

5. Entergy’s Market-Based Resource Procurement Process - Overview • Designed to support ESI’s resource planning objective to provide a portfolio of low-cost, reliable resources matched to both the near-term and long-term supply needs of our customers • Cyclical Procurement Process • Formalized RFPs will be issued in accordance with regulatory requirements and policies, including the LPSC’s Market-Based-Mechanism order • Will seek limited-term (1-3 year) and long-term resources on an as-needed basis • Seeks to limit exposure to fuel and market risks and uncertainties • Types of Resource Supply Roles • Baseload • Dispatchable/load-following • Peaking

6. ESI Resource Procurement Options - Overview • Formal RFP Products • MUCPA/MUCCO (1-3 yrs.) Limited-Term • Asset acquisition or life of resource purchase from existing generation resources • Acquisition, ownership position, or life of resource purchase from new generation resources • Ongoing short-term purchase process • Annual Plan Products (e.g., call options, 5x16 block energy purchases, etc.) • Weekly and monthly RFP Products • Supplemental RFP Products • Self Build/Self Supply Options • Identify and execute when and, if appropriate, “Real Options” for self build opportunities including: • New Opportunities • Repowering • Upgrades of existing facilities

7. ESI has Received Strong and Distributed Market Response Note: Non-conforming proposals are not included in the summary

8. Summary Results from Previous RFPs Note 1: ESI continues to be in discussions with one Bidder for one resource resulting from the Fall 2002 RFP process. On May 2, 2003, ESI signed a letter of intent to purchase a 725 MW generating plant located in Monroe, Louisiana. ESI did not execute a purchase agreement before the letter of intent expired, but continues to be in discussions regarding the purchase of the plant. Note 2: Currently ESI is evaluating proposals representing over 2000 MW for various long-term resources which were shortlisted resulting from the Spring 2003 RFP process or identified as Self Build Options. Note 3: It should be noted that this table does not reflect the River Bend 30% life-of-unit power purchase agreements totaling approximately 300 MW between Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (“EGS”) and Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (“ELI”) and between EGS and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (“ENO”) related to EGS’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station which portion was formerly owned by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. or the Entergy Arkansas Inc. (“EAI”) wholesale baseload capacity life-of-unit power purchase agreements totaling approximately 220 MW between EAI and ELI and between EAI and ENO related to a portion of EAI’s coal and nuclear baseload resources (which were not included in retail rates) to ELI and ENO executed earlier this year.

9. FALL 2003 RFP- OVERVIEW ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

10. Upcoming Fall 2003 RFP -Highlights • Final proposals will be due by 6:00 p.m. CPT on November 20, 2003. • ESI has developed an electronic proposal submission process which is being implemented to simplify the proposal submission process for Bidders and to help streamline and make more efficient ESI’s RFP process in support of its effort to ensure that all proposals are consistently, accurately and thoroughly evaluated by ESI. • ESI will have an RFP “Hotline” available during November 10th through 20th to assist Bidders only with respect to technical questions regarding the electronic registration or proposal submission process. • No short-term or long-term resource proposals are being requested in the Fall 2003 RFP, only limited- term (1-3 year) unit contingent products are being solicited. • ESI has added several new limited-term products in this RFP in an effort to provide Bidders additional opportunities to participate in this RFP process and in an attempt to standardize some products and to support ESI’s effort to achieve more transparency in the evaluation and comparison of proposals to standard market products.

11. Fall 2003 RFP –Adjustments from Previous RFPs • Based on feedback from several market participants, ESI will require all limited-term proposals to be the Bidder’s best and final offer, but has changed the requirement that a proposal be “binding” to a requirement that the proposal should be “irrevocable” unless otherwise specified by the Bidder. • A change in the Factor Evaluation process, where the scorecards for each proposal have been eliminated reflecting the reliance on the economic evaluation consistent with previous RFPs. Factor Evaluators will only highlight issues of concern on shortlisted proposals and these issues will be addressed in any negotiations with short-listed Bidders. • Consistent with practice in some previous RFPs the process will now formally lead to a primary award short-list, and a secondary short-list • A clarification as it relates to the requirement for Firm Network Resource designation in which ESI will purchase a limited amount of resources which do not qualify as a Firm Network Resource. • ESI has more clearly identified the possibility for Bidders to add unit contingent capacity from more than one plant together, and provide a “combined proposal” for evaluation. (Each unit will still provide unit contingent capacity, not the equivalent of a system sale.)

12. RFP Participants – Fall 2003 • Potential RFP Participants • Electric Utilities • Marketers • Wholesale Generators • Independent Power Producers • Qualifying Facilities • Entergy Competitive Affiliates • Entergy Competitive Affiliates • Entergy Competitive Affiliates will be allowed to bid in this process • Entergy Competitive Affiliates will be required to meet the same bid requirements and evaluation criteria as any third party • Entergy Competitive Affiliates will be allowed to bid only during the formal RFP process • All interactions with affiliates are subject to FERC, state, and local affiliate rules

13. Fall 2003 RFP Process Timeline Tech. Conf. w/ LPSC & Interested Parties Baton Rouge 10/21/03 Final RFP Issued On or about 11/10/03 Proposals Due 11/20/03 Evaluation & Negotiation 12/12/03 Decision on Limited-term Proposals 1/30/04 Execution of Definitive Agreements Bidder’s Conf. Open to all parties Houston 10/23/03 Bidder Registration Process completed 11/17/03 Fall 2003 Formal RFP Solicitation Process

14. Fall 2003 RFP Products Limited-term product proposals being sought in the Fall 2003 RFP: • MUCCO Product – CCGT, Cogeneration or Other - a call option on the purchase of capacity, energy and all Other Associated Electric Products from a specific CCGT, cogeneration facility, or other type of generating resource; • MUCCO Product – CT/Quick response - a call option on the purchase of capacity, energy and all Other Associated Electric Products from a specific CT; • MUCPA Dispatchable Product – CCGT, Cogeneration or Other - a dispatchable unit contingent MUCPA Product (purchase or tolling) from a specific CCGT, cogeneration facility, or other type of generating resource; • MUCPA Dispatchable Product – CT/Quick Response Capacity - a dispatchable unit contingent CT/Quick Response MUCPA Product (purchase or tolling) from a specific CT; • MUCPA Must-take On-Peak Product– a “must take” on-peak unit contingent MUCPA product (5x16 with ramp energy – purchase only) from a specific CCGT or cogeneration facility; and/or • MUCPA Must-take Standard Baseload Product– a “must take” baseload unit contingent MUCPA product (7x24 – purchase only) from a specific CCGT, cogeneration facility, or other type of generating resource.

15. Multiple-Year Unit Capacity Call Option (MUCCO) • Products • Unit contingent capacity and associated energy from a • Combined cycle gas turbine (“CCGT”), Cogeneration, or other generating resource; or • Simple cycle gas turbine (“CT”) • Term • Full year proposals for one (1), two (2) and three (3) years • Beginning May 1, June 1, or July 1, 2004 • Quantity • Up to 200 MW (in 50 MW increments) per proposal (although other amounts will be considered) • May offer entire capacity of unit • Pricing • Premium ($/kW-year) • Shaped monthly and paid monthly in arrears subject to an adjustment based on actual capacity availability • Guaranteed heat rate multiplied by gas price index, or guaranteed heat rate curve (if for entire unit) • Other • Bidder has the option of combining two or more separate unit contingent proposals and requesting these to be considered as a “combined proposal” for evaluation purposes. This provides Bidders the opportunity to combine unit contingent resources but the capacity committed from each plant will continue to be considered as unit contingent (in other words, this does not provide Bidder the option to provide capacity from any or all of the plants specified in the package at their discretion).

16. Dispatchable Multiple-Year Unit Capacity Purchase Agreement (MUCPA) • Products • Proposals for unit contingent gas purchase or tolling products which include rights to capacity and energy • Combined cycle gas turbine (“CCGT”), Cogeneration, or other; or • Simple cycle gas turbine (“CT”) • Term • Full year proposals for one (1), two (2) and three (3) years • Beginning May 1, June 1, or July 1, 2004 • Quantity • All amounts will be considered and Bidder may offer entire capacity of a unit • Pricing • Capacity Payment ($/kW-year) as proposed by Bidder • Shaped monthly and paid monthly in arrears subject to an adjustment based on actual capacity availability • Guaranteed heat rate, or (if for entire unit) guaranteed heat rate curve as proposed by Bidder • Fuel • Buyer may provide fuel pursuant to a gas tolling agreement or Bidder may provide fuel through a purchase power agreement • Other • Bidder has the option of combining two or more separate unit contingent proposals and requesting these to be considered as a “combined proposal” for evaluation purposes. This provides Bidders the opportunity to combine unit contingent resources but the capacity committed from each plant will continue to be considered as unit contingent (in other words, this does not provide Bidder the option to provide capacity from any or all of the plants specified in the package at its discretion).

17. “Must Take” Multiple-Year Unit Capacity Purchase Agreement (MUCPA) • Products • Proposals for unit contingent purchase products which include rights to capacity and energy • Combined cycle gas turbine (“CCGT”), Cogeneration or other resource type • On-Peak Product (5x16); or • Standard Baseload Product (7x24) • Term • Full year proposals for one (1), two (2) and three (3) years • Beginning May 1, June 1, or July 1, 2004 • Quantity • 225 MW block only • Pricing • Capacity Payment - $12.00 per/kW-year • Shaped monthly and paid monthly in arrears subject to an adjustment based on actual capacity availability • Guaranteed heat rate as proposed by Bidder • Fuel • Bidder must provide fuel through a purchase power agreement • Other • Bidder has the option of combining two or more separate unit contingent proposals and requesting these to be considered as a “combined proposal” for evaluation purposes. This provides Bidders the opportunity to combine unit contingent resources but the capacity committed from each plant will continue to be considered as unit contingent (in other words, this does not provide Bidder the option to provide capacity from any or all of the plants specified in the package at its discretion).

18. Transmission Service for Limited-Term Products Accepted as FNR A. FNR designation received from ETO • Rejected as FNR • A. ESI waives requirement based on business judgment • B. ESI accepts a 1-year unconditional agreement based on limits as specified above *ESI will submit request for System Impact Study upon execution of a definitive agreement

19. Other Key Considerations • Regulatory Approvals • All definitive agreements greater than one year in term be conditioned upon receipt of regulatory approval, acceptable to ESI • Contract Terms • Draft model contracts detailing terms and conditions have been provided and are expected to be utilized for final contract execution without any material changes. Bidders should take the terms and conditions specified in these agreements into consideration in the pricing of their proposals

20. FALL 2003 RFP- PROCESS SAFEGUARDS ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

21. RFP Process Safeguards • Code of Conduct • Independent Monitor • RFP Process Design and Implementation • e.g., question/answer process, communications with ESI • Confidentiality Protections

22. RFP Process Safeguards • Code of Conduct • All employees of ESI, any Entergy Operating Company, or any Entergy Competitive Affiliate, including those involved in the RFP process, must adhere to the appropriate Affiliate Rules and Codes of Conduct as applicable and further outlined in the Fall 2003 RFP. • RFP Process Design and Implementation • Various elements of the RFP process have been designed to assure fair treatment of all Bidders (as described in the following slides)

23. RFP Process Safeguards –Role of Independent Monitor • ESI has retained an independent consulting firm (the “Independent Monitor”) to assist in the development of the RFP solicitation, evaluation and selection process in support of ESI’s efforts to ensure that the RFP and evaluation process will be objective and impartial. • The Independent Monitor also will monitor the design of the RFP and the conduct of the RFP solicitation, evaluation, selection and contract negotiation processes to provide an objective third-party perspective in support of ESI’s efforts to ensure that all proposals are treated in a consistent fashion and that no preference is provided to Entergy Competitive Affiliates participating in the RFP process.

24. RFP Process Safeguards – Role of Independent Monitor (continued) • Seeks to ensure objectivity and impartiality of the RFP process through the oversight and monitoring of the following: • RFP Design • Review of design of RFP process, products and documents • Solicitation Process • Review of Bidder registration information from prospective Bidders • Oversight of receipt of all proposals • Classification and distribution of proposal information • Evaluation Process • Review of evaluation processes and criteria prior to receipt of proposals • Monitoring of actual evaluation process • Selection Process • Monitoring and review of final portfolio selections • Due Diligence and Contract Negotiation • Direct oversight of all interactions with any Entergy Competitive Affiliates • Ability to oversee any due diligence and contract negotiations with third parties • Interaction with Regulatory Staff • Available for any discussions or inquiries by any regulatory staff personnel

25. RFP Process SafeguardsCommunications with ESI regarding RFP issues before Proposal Submission • For all purposes related to the RFP, except the submission of questions relating to the Entergy Transmission System, there is only ONE contact – Laura Berryman, the RFP Administrator. • Any inquiries about the Entergy Transmission System should be directed to the Transmission Organization through the OASIS web site http://oasis.e-terrasolutions.com/OASIS/EES. • Unapproved contact with ANY other ESI Employee for ANY purpose in connection with the RFP is prohibited, and may, depending on the circumstances, constitute grounds for disqualification. • All questions from market participants relating to the RFP should be submitted through the question and answer process outlined in Section 2.6 of the RFP. The procedure for issuing questions regarding the transmission system is outlined in Section 2.7 of the RFP. • ESI will have an RFP “Hotline” available during November 10th through 20th to assist Bidders only with respect to technical questions regarding the electronic registration or proposal submission process.

26. RFP Process Safeguards - Q&A ProcessThe objectives of the Question and Answer Process include the following: • To ensure to the extent practicable that all Bidders have equal access to information that may be potentially relevant to their proposals. • To minimize the need for either ESI or Bidders to disclose confidential information. • To maintain to the maximum extent practicable the confidentiality of proprietary information that is disclosed in Bidders’ proposals or otherwise in connection with the RFP. • To ensure compliance with all applicable affiliate rules and codes of conduct and other information sharing rules.

27. RFP Process SafeguardsQ&A Process at today’sConference • At today’s conference, all questions will be submitted in writing • Oral responses will be provided where practicable at the technical conference • Written answers will be posted on the RFP website • Written answers may contain information different from or in addition to information provided orally at the technical conference, in which case the written answer will supercede the oral response

28. FALL 2003 RFPSYSTEM OVERVIEW / RESOURCE NEEDS ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

29. Resource Planning Process • Resource Planning in Recent Years • Supply needs met through a variety of short-term supply resources • Limited procurement of mid- to long-term supply resources • Resource Planning in Future Years • Broaden range of supply resources while meeting both short- and longer-term reliability needs • Overall Resource Planning Process • Retains long-standing elements of the planning process • Forecast of System Load • Determination of existing resource capability • Determination of additional resources needed to reliably meet System load

30. Resource Planning Objective and Planning Principles • Primary Objective • Provide for both the short-term and long-term capacity and energy needs of the Operating Companies’ regulated retail customers through the selection of a supply portfolio that is expected to result in the lowest reasonable total production costs consistent with operational constraints. • Planning Principles • Planning for Uncertainty • Load • Market Structure • Fuel Prices • Minimum Criteria for Resource Supply Planning • Adequacy of Resources for Peak Period Reliability • Security of Long-Term Supply Through Long-Term Controlled Capacity Resources • Adequacy of Base-Load Resources • Supply Technology Efficiency • Diversity of Supply • Price Stability • Financial Integrity Risk Management

31. Resource Plan – Needs Assessment Peak Period Reliability Requirements (MW) 2004 2005 2006 Firm Load (Excl. Interruptible) 19,936 20,413 20,592 Forecast of System Load Reserve Margin 3,359 3,440 3,470 Firm Load Plus Reserves 23,295 23,853 24,062 Total Controlled Resources (20,980) (21,048) (21,048) Acquired Long-Term Resources (621) (621) (621) Acquired Short-Term Resources (966) (185) 0 Existing Resource Capability Total Resources (22,567) (21,854) (21,669) Additional Resources Needed to Reliably Meet System Load (1) Forecast Need for Firm Load 729 1,999 2,394 Potential Long-Term Resources (2) 0-2,000 0-2,000 (1) Does not include resources which may be procured for economic reasons (2) Potential Long-term resources resulting from the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 RFP Processes

32. Comparison of ESI Regional Load Requirements and Supply Supply decisions must consider regional supply needs and supply alternatives, including transmission availability. Some regions require existing ESI generation for reliability and operating flexibility. Supply Sources Legend Off-System Import Capability Intra-System Import Capability North Arkansas Region ESI L-F/Peaking Capacity ESI Base Load Capacity ESI Peak Load L-F Base Load Central Region ESI Peak Load Load Type Legend ESI L-F/Peaking Load ESI Base Load L-F Base ESI Peak Load ESI Peak Load L-F WOTAB Region Amite South Region L-F Base Load Base Load Note: Import Capability, Load & Capacity are forecast estimates for 2004

33. New Merchant Generation by Region • Load forecast estimates for 2004

34. ESI Supply Procurement Objectives • Resource Procurement Objective • Retains long-standing objectives for Entergy Operating Companies • To ensure that newly acquired resources, together with existing resources, have the necessary characteristics to satisfy customer needs efficiently, effectively and appropriately • Determination of Type of Capacity Needed • Identify generation supply role: • Base-load • Intermediate dispatchable load-following • Peaking/reserve • Assess Operating Company Resources versus Load Shape requirements • Evaluate how existing resources compare to the approximate level for each supply role category that is typically desirable over a long-term planning horizon

35. ESI Supply Procurement Objectives ESI 2004 Forecasted System Load vs. Existing Resources

36. FALL 2003 RFP- PROPOSAL EVALUATION ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

37. Proposal Evaluation Process - Objective The primary objective of the proposal evaluation is to identify the proposals that result in the highest benefit to its customers The highest benefit is realized through proposals that: • Result in lower total system production costs; • Can be acquired at reasonable costs; • Meet incremental capacity needs; • Match ESI’s planning objectives and constraints, and • Can be controlled by ESI System’s dispatchers.

38. Primary Award Shortlist Primary Award Shortlist Proposal Evaluation Process - Overview ILLUSTRATIVE Limited Factor Evaluation Complete Factor Evaluation Specific Proposal Data Points Shortlist Evaluations Decision by Operating Committee Proposal Segregation Proposal Data Reports Individual Economic Evaluation Portfolio Economic Evaluation • Due Diligence, • Negotiations (incorporating issues from Factor Evaluation), • Execution of Definitive Agreement, • Regulatory Approvals

39. Proposal Evaluation Process – Data Segregation The objective of the Proposal Segregation Process is to limit data distribution on a “need-to-know basis” within the ESI organization, and to reduce to the extent the possible distribution of confidential information. • Proposal Segregation is performed automatically by electronic processing of all proposals. • Pre-formatted proposal data reports for particular factor evaluators are prepared by the automated process • The proposal data reports are reviewed by the Independent Monitor before distribution to the Proposal Evaluation Team. • This process supports the effort to keep the Bidder identity unknown to the Proposal Evaluation Team • This process captures relevant information submitted in “Special Considerations” fields • Proposal data reports are limited to the data necessary for each sub-team to perform its specific analysis. • Economic Evaluation required details regarding dispatch flexibility, pricing, availability, and mutual exclusivity of the proposals • Factor Evaluation requires details regarding the specific area of evaluation (i.e., Fuel, Transmission, Credit, Operations)

40. Proposal Evaluation Process – Key Evaluation Drivers The Economic Evaluation is the primary determinant in the selection of proposals for the primary award shortlist and the secondary shortlist. Key drivers for the Economic Evaluation: • Energy price – heat rate and basis adder, or fixed price • Operational flexibility – ramp rate, minimum up- and down-time, minimum generation level • Availability – required annual maintenance days • Proximity to load centers – transmission zone After the shortlists have been determined, subject matter experts “Factor Evaluators” will review the shortlisted proposals to provide a comprehensive evaluation and identify specific issues or concerns, if any, to be considered in negotiations.

41. Proposal Evaluation Process – Limited Factor Evaluation • A limited amount of specific information is required from the Factor Evaluation in order to perform the Economic Evaluation. • No scoring or ranking of proposals based on Factor Evaluation • The Economic Evaluation requires two inputs from the Factor Evaluation. • Transmission Factors - Transmission zonal location is determined based on the location of the facility. All proposals are required to be unit contingent and therefore tied to a specific location. • Fuel Factors - Estimated fuel transportation cost and basis adder are determined for proposals with tolling arrangements.

42. Existing Units and Contracts Existing Units and Contracts + Proposal Proposal Evaluation Model Proposal Evaluation Model + Fuel priceEconomy energyLoad forecastEtc. Fuel priceEconomy energyLoad forecastEtc. System Production Cost2004 2005 2006 2007 System+Proposal Production Cost2004 2005 2006 2007 System Benefit (Cost) per Proposal ILLUSTRATIVE Proposal Evaluation Process – Economic Evaluation

43. Proposal Evaluation Process – Factor Evaluation The Factor Evaluations capture additional information regarding each of the shortlisted proposals. • The Factor Evaluations do not change the ranking of the proposals; no specific scores are assigned • The issues identified in the Factor Evaluations will be addressed in the negotiations, which will follow the selection by the Operating Committee • Credit Factor Evaluation • Identifies whether the proposal will require collateral from the Bidder • Fuel Factor Evaluation • Highlights fuel-related issues such as known delivery problems, lack of swing capacity available, or high concentration of selected proposals on the same pipeline • Transmission Factor Evaluation • EMO’s evaluation of potential transmission issues (e.g., deliverability to the Entergy system, deliverability within different subregions of the Entergy System). • Operations Factor Evaluation • Considerations of limitations on dispatchability, operator experience, environmental limits and other operational issues

44. Proposal Evaluation Process – Portfolio Evaluation • Subsequent to the selection of the primary award shortlist, an economic evaluation will be performed on the entire portfolio. • The Portfolio Economic Evaluation adds all selected proposals on the primary award shortlist to the Proposal Evaluation Model. • Utilizes the same proposal evaluation model as the evaluation of the individual proposals • The result will verify that the combination of selected proposal is beneficial to ESI’s customers

45. Proposal Evaluation Process - Selection • Entergy’s Operating Committee will make the final decision with regards to the selection of limited-term proposals, which will proceed to negotiations for a transaction. • The Operating Committee is the group of decision makers responsible for administrating the System Operating Agreement. • The Entergy System includes five Operating Companies • The Operating Committee decides on certain issues affecting all the Operating Companies • The Operating Committee will only see selected parts of the evaluation. • The Bidders will not be revealed to the Operating Committee until negotiations have started with the counterparty • All presentations will reveal only necessary information

46. Completion of Evaluation Process – Next Steps • Perform Due Diligence • Verification of proposal parameters • Carry out negotiations • Address potential issues identified in Factor Evaluations • Address potential issues discovered in due diligence • Execute definitive agreements • Contingent on successful resolution of the negotiations • Submit proposals for appropriate regulatory approvals

47. FALL 2003 RFP- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003

48. Benefits of Electronic Proposal Submission Why ESI has changed to a process with only electronic submission of proposals: • Consistent data and formats for required information • Elimination of potential transcription errors and reduction of need to interpret information • Enhanced security and segregation of data (less human intervention) • Improved ability to store and retrieve electronic files (with information removed from view, as appropriate) • Pre-formatted reports and pre-determined access to information

49. Bidders electronically submits proposals to ESI Proposal Submission Sequence ILLUSTRATIVE Bidder electronically submits Bidder Registration Form to ESI Return email sent to Bidder by ESI Final RFP Posted to Website ESI’s automated data review Registration rejected (incomplete) Registration confirmed Return email sent to Bidder by ESI Bidder prepares proposals ESI’s automated data review Proposal rejected (incomplete or invalid) Proposal confirmed After conclusion of Proposal Submission period, segregated data reports generated for evaluation by ESI evaluation teams These data reports are reviewed by Independent Monitor and RFP Administrator prior to distribution to RFP Proposal Evaluation Team

50. Electronic Bidder Registration • Bidder Registration is required of all Bidders and must be successfully completed before 6:00 p.m. CPT on November 17, 2003. • Bidders must complete the Form properly, including completing all required fields. • Proposals from plants which have not been registered will not be accepted by ESI. It is recommended that Bidders submit Forms to register plants even if a Bidder is uncertain about whether to submit a proposal for a particular plant, and even if that plant is not ultimately proposed. • Bidder must provide a correct email address; a confirmation of receipt of Bidder registration will be received only if a correct e-mail address has been provided. • Bidders must submit the Bidder Registration form first via email; upon receiving confirmation of receipt of Bidder Registration, Bidders must fax an executed Bidder Registration Form to ESI’s RFP Administrator. BIDDER REGISTRATION IS NOT COMPETE UNTIL A FAXED, EXECUTED BIDDER REGISTRATION FORM IS RECEIVED BY ESI’S RFP ADMINISTRATOR. • Bidders must submit the Bidder Registration Forms well in advance of the deadline in order to provide adequate time to correct any errors which may be identified in the electronic registration process, and in order to provide ample time to correct any errors and resubmit a valid registration form by the specified deadline. • Bidder Registration Forms submitted after the deadline will automatically be rejected. • Bidders should keep a record of its Bidder ID, Plant ID(s) and Signature ID. This information will be required during proposal submission and for other correspondence. • All Bidders should periodically check the RFP Website for additional information.