Good morning. My name is Rodrigo Vilela. I am the person responsible for investor relations, I will host this event. This event will be carried out in Portuguese and simultaneously translated into English. If you'd like to listen, just select the interpretation button on the bottom of your screen. We have with us our CEO, Octávio Lopes, who will make the starting remarks, our CFO, Eduardo Gotilla, who will give a presentation and make comments on our results. This presentation is available for download in our investor relations website, you can also see it through Zoom. I'd like to remind you that right now all participants are connected in listen only mode. After the presentations, during the questions and answer session, I'll give instructions to those of you who wish to ask any questions. This webinar is being recorded and its audio will be available in our investor relations website. As per usual, this is our disclaimer. We'd like to clarify that any statements made during this presentation about the company's business perspectives, any projections, operational and financial goals are simply beliefs and assumptions from the company's management based on currently available information. Remarks about the future are not a guarantee of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. They refer to future events and therefore depend on circumstances that may or may not come to pass. Investors should understand that the general economic conditions, industry conditions, and other operational factors may affect these future results. They may lead us to results that differ materially from those expressed in these statements. Well, with these disclaimers being made, I'll now pass it over to Octávio Lopes. Go ahead, Octávio. Good afternoon, everyone, and we apologize for the delay. We had a technical issue, as you know. This is a presentation of Light's results for 2022 and for the fourth quarter of 2022, and they show the size of the challenge we have ahead of us. I took over as CEO seven months ago to find a sustainable path forward for Light that ensures our quality, our continuity, and the expansion of our energy distribution systems in Rio de Janeiro. As you know, we have major challenges ahead of us with our distribution company, Light SESA. As you know, Light SESA has had structural issues for years. They're historical in nature due to the specificities of our concession area. We're talking about a concession where we have a range of areas with severe operational constraints, which is unique in the country. Combating energy theft and defaults is not possible in these areas. We also know that in some of the conventional areas in our concession area where we can work, we still see higher theft levels than what we see in other parts of Brazil. This makes loss combat through inspections and normalizations an ineffective business. Due to that, our regulatory tariff regulations don't allow us to receive payments. Even with technical losses and judicial costs not being recognized in the tariff came to a total of over BRL 1 billion in 2022. In the last two years, the socioeconomic context exacerbated this. As we expanded our investments, we saw that the low voltage market was reduced. The charged market continued at lower levels than before COVID. Looking at the last 10 years, the low voltage charged consumption was 12.5% below what we had in 2013. Still, speaking about macroeconomic scenario, interest rates in Brazil are high for a longer time than we had expected, which impacts our cash flow given our high level of debt. Finally, as has been broadly disclosed starting in December 2022, we started passing on the PIS/Cofins credits, which will affect our cash flow for 2023 and 2024. This unbalance got even more serious. We started adjusting our investment expenses implemented between October 2022 and January 2023. Expenses and investments which are not essential to maintain our services, or that do not give us returns before the end of the concession contract being concluded were cut. This had a positive impact to our operational cash flow, but it is not enough to cover for the negative external effects that I just described. We also began, supported by the Laplace Consultancy company to design alternatives to re-adequate our capital structure. We started conversations with the main stakeholders to talk about these alternatives, and we're going to go deeper into these conversations now as we publish the results for 2022. At the same time, we've been working on discussions with ANEEL and the Ministry of Mines and Energy to seek a renewal of the concession in a sustainable base, and we hope that it can be advanced before May 2026, as the current contract foresees. While this conversation continues, we have to reiterate that our first commitment is to our clients, to our regulatory obligations, and to maintaining a good quality for the services provided by Light. I'll pass it over to Gotilla, who's going to continue this presentation with results for the fourth quarter. Thank you, and I'll be available at the end of his presentation for the Q&A. Thank you, Octávio. Good morning, everyone. To start explaining Light's results for 2022, we start on slide four, where we'll begin by Light's bill market. Here we can see that the total bill market was around 25 TW, an increase of 48 TW, or excuse me, 48 GW. This was a reduction of 532 GW in captive clients and 580 W in clients using in network use, which includes distributed generation, free clients, and concessionaires. When we look at the breakdown on the right, we see that the main variation was in utility companies that had an increase of 264 GW hours. Other variations basically offset each other. This variation in utility companies is due to the flow of energy in utility companies that border Light's area, especially due to shutoffs in some thermoelectric plants that operate in these locations and that were temporarily deactivated due to better rainfall. Considering our load, we had a demand of about 34 TW in the grid load. The next slide number five, shows that in 2022, our total ex-REN loss was 27.29%, a reduction of 0.22 percentage points in comparison to 2021. This reduction of 84 GW in total losses is due to our loss plan, which led to a reduction of 235 GW, partially offset by an increase in temperature of 0.5 degrees Celsius, which increased losses by 161 GW. The company finished 2022 with 5 percentage points above the regulatory threshold according to the levels defined by ANEEL in the March 2022 tariff review. Continuing with slide six, collections. Total collections in December reached 96%, 1.4 percentage points below the 97.4% recorded in December 2021. The main deviations are in the government and others in large customers, which showed drops previously. In these two areas, we reestablished the ordinary flow of payments for certain clients, which had led to a collection of over 100% in 2021. Our adjusted ADA over gross revenue was 3.6%. For the entire year, our ADA was BRL 1.1 billion, caused especially by a change in methodology, as I'll mention soon. Excluding these effects, the adjusted ADA would be approximately BRL 678 million in 2022 versus BRL 600 million in 2021. On Slide seven, we have non-recurring effects detailed on this table. For our EBITDA, this was a total of about BRL 2.9 billion split into this: A return of all PIS/Cofins credits to consumers. A review in the ADA methodology to better reflect the receivable for clients, considering their specific characteristics. A review in the liabilities methodology, which were based on the historical loss curve, and the cancellation effect for REN and TOI related to regularizing residential clients, which impacted our net operational revenue. Other provisions, the reversal of ADA, referring to this cancellation of REN and TOI, and a return on some amounts paid for condominium consuming units according to ANEEL's decision in October 2022. Other revenues and expenses, we had an investment impairment considering the non-implementation of UHE Itaocara and a reassessment of Light's participation in UHE Belo Monte and some actuarial adjustments. Besides that and the financial results, we had a variation of BRL 1.7 billion due to a financial update in the PIS/Cofins return credit provisions for consumers. On the tax line, we recorded BRL 410 million due to a non-recurring effect of income tax due to the non-recoverability of fiscal assets in the distribution company until December 2022. The net effect of this provision of BRL 1.2 billion due to non-recurring lines, as we just mentioned, did not affect our results for the year. On the next slide, we understand how our result was shaped. We had an adjusted EBITDA of BRL 1.7 billion in 2052 versus BRL 1.3 billion in the previous year. In the distribution company, we had an adjusted EBITDA of BRL 956 million, 306 million higher than in 2021 due to the tariff review in March 2022. Our results were not higher due to an over contract adjustment of BRL 291 billion. In the generation and distribution companies, our EBITDA was BRL 742 million combined, up BRL 41 million versus 2021. The next slide shows our net debt, which increased by BRL 1.7 billion, the nominal cost went up by 4.5 percentage points between 2021 and 2022. There was a concentration of expiries in the next few years. Well, that was our presentation, I'll now pass it over to Rodrigo Vilela, who will organize the Q&A. Thank you, Gotilla. We will now begin the questions and answers session. If you'd like to ask a question, you can use the Raise Hand button on the lower part of the screen so your microphone can be enabled. You can also send your questions in writing through the Q&A button also on the lower part of the screen. Once your question has been received, it will then be answered live by our participants. I'll pass it over to André Sampaio, who is an analyst from Santander. Go ahead, André. You may unmute yourself. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to ask a couple of questions. First, on what your strategy has been to discuss this concession renewal with the government. If you'd like to convince the government that there should be, more regulatory losses or if you can pass it on to other consumers in Brazil or consumers from the concession area itself. I'd also like to ask about short-term debt. What do you intend to do? We have in April a debenture expiration where you'll have to pay, for them. What would be your strategy, considering how close it is? I imagine that you won't have enough time for a negotiation. If you can tell us a bit about your strategy. Thank you, André. This is Octávio. I'll answer your questions. About the concession contract, as you said, what's clear for the company is that in our case, given the high share of consumers in, especially in the total load in our area, in RSOs or operational restricted areas, it means that we need to be treated differently for theft and default in these areas. We can't just follow the current regulatory framework. I mean, this is valid for Light and some other concession companies in Brazil, some other utilities in Brazil. In Light, since the Parcela B makes a small part of the total tariff, adjustments don't have much effect on the total tariff for consumers. Probably a tariff adjustment in the short term would be a more viable solution. On the medium term, it would be a government decision, we might need to look at losses differently. That's not in this discussion. What we do know is that in order to ensure long-term sustainability for the concession, considering a 30-year concession, we need to be treated differently for these restricted access areas. To answer your second question, we have many obligations this year, and I think right now we're doing what we can do and what we should do. What we can do, as I said, is to try to find understanding from our creditors who are seeking short-term balance. We also need to readapt our capital structure to sustain our conditions on the long term. What we will not do is to have any solution that will simply push it over to the next year and only solve the short-term issue without considering a sustainable solution. That's the line we're working on with our lenders. The first priority is to maintain continuity, quality, and to expand our services by protecting our concession and our consumers. Thank you. Thank you, André. We will now continue with Giuliano Ajeje from UBS BB. Go ahead, Giuliano. You may unmute yourself. Thank you, Rodrigo. Thank you, everyone. I have a couple of questions here. The first one is about this concession renewal. I have... How do you believe the Ministry of Mines and Energy will react? Will they allow you to change the contract and maintain the same service provider? I understand that in the past, the Federal Court of Accounts has only allowed the contract to change if there's a change in the service provider as well. That's my first question. How is this process going? Is there really a possibility for Light to continue to provide services in Rio de Janeiro? Secondly, how will the company continue, especially considering this debt in 2024 and 2025, since there's no possibility of filing for judicial recovery? Just like to understand what your strategy is for 2024 and 2025. What we see in this result was a high level of non-technical losses and defaulting. I'd just like to understand if this trend of non-technical losses being high in the last 12 months will continue in 2023. Okay, Giuliano. To answer your first question, I think the context we're facing here is very different contract changes that we had in the past. Light has a structural financial unbalance, which does not allow the capital used in the concession to be repaid appropriately. This is not a company that is in operational distress. The company is burning cash, is increasing its debt, but it has sustained its concession perfectly. The concession is working very well. We have millions of people working. We're meeting our regulatory obligations with quality. We're providing a good service to the population. We're expanding the system according to the needs that we have. That's the first point. The second point is that we're a corporation. As you mentioned, the last time this happened, there was a change of control requirement, but we've changed shareholders for many years. When you have a corporation that is diffusely controlled, this doesn't apply. The third point is that the natural concession is being renewed. Our concession contract is quite clear. The concession can be renewed under conditions to be established. Our understanding with the conceding power with ANEEL is that there's a clear understanding that the companies that have a structural unbalance, among which figures Light, should use the concession renewal process to solve and address these issues. To answer your second question, I'll refer to the same thing I said to answer the first question. Light is a company that works. It's not compensating the capital, but it does work. If you compare the restructuring processes that are very famous in our industry, they involved companies that were not delivering quality, they were not meeting their obligations, and they weren't paying their energy suppliers. Light is meeting all of its operational obligations in different industries, and all of the quality goals with the regulators are being met. In our perspective, this is a traditional case in which we have to readapt our capital structure and not involve any kind of judicial action. I think it's still early to speculate or to discuss any judicial measures right now. I'll pass it over to Gotilla now, who's going to answer your question on operational issues. Hi. Considering defaulting, we need to separate collection and ADA. In our opinion, there was no reduction in collection in the fourth quarter. We see some improvements despite relevant effects in operational actions from previous managements. For example, massive generation of AROs and REN. What happened was that we updated our methodology in ADA, which would be the other side of the collection, to capture the effects in a better way than the previous methodology. It's a review that should happen every once in a while in any company, at Light or in the industry. We reassessed our methodology now in the fourth quarter and applied it. Although the ADA is higher, we don't see any changes to our collections, especially in the last few months. What about non-technical losses? Considering non-technical losses, we had two effects that impacted us in the last quarter specifically, and they were one-offs. Non-technical losses need to be seen by looking at the entire year, especially in Rio de Janeiro, since we have a high volatility due to our temperature. When you look at the entire year, we had higher temperatures between 2021 and 2022, which had a significant negative impact, which was offset by our IN rate. I'm commenting on this ex-REN. First, you have to look at temperature. The second point is that we had previous cancellations which affected build energy and losses. The right diagnosis on the losses for 2022 is that they improved a bit from the operational perspective, and the part of it was offset by temperature. When we look at losses, including REN, as I said in the introduction, we have a different outlook in the company now on how losses should be combated in the conventional high reincidence areas. Combating losses more intensively, which is what Light has done for the last two years, showed the right path and the wrong path. What we did to protect or shield the network in common areas where Light operates, but you have 100% reincidence between losses and defaulting, was very effective. Outside RSOs with grid protection has a significant reduction of up to 10%. This is a high investment. You have to invest BRL 3,000-BRL 4,000 per client, and it doesn't have a clear payback because since they consume very low, there's no payback. It's not an investment that makes sense at the end of a concession cycle, first of all, and secondly, in a company like Light that has a short-term cash flow pressure. It's a strategy. When you consider 500,000-700,000 consuming households that have high reincidence levels, this is a path, but it requires millions in investment, and it will only make sense if the concession is renewed. This is one path, but it's not a good path. We've seen an analysis in the last few months of the traditional activity of finding energy theft, retroactively charging them for them. This generates defaults, and that generates new cuts and generates new thefts. It just creates a cycle. There's a clear perception that in these high reincidence areas, which are important in our concession area, this idea of normalizing inspections does not work. What we started doing in the fourth quarter is that we reduced our investments that generated REN, because when you accounted in REN, the cost of defaulting did not generate any cash. Due to that, we're going to change this direction of our losses. It will, of course, vary a lot depending on temperature. In Rio, temperature is essential for energy consumption, especially for losses for theft. Great. Thank you. Continuing with the next question, Henrique Peretti from JPMorgan will ask his question. We will continue with the next person on the list of questions, João Pimentel from BTG Pactual. Go ahead, João. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Thank you, everyone. I have two questions. The first one is on your renegotiation. There was an interview today from Octávio in Valor Magazine. I'd just like to understand how this negotiation strategy is going to go, restructuring your debt with your lenders without any visibility on the outcome for the concession renewal. How do you negotiate with your lenders without understanding what the concession is going to do? If you've started this debate, if anything is ready, if this is being discussed, if there is a delay on this renewal, anything in the future, how will the company be managed meanwhile, especially considering CapEx? I imagine the company will want to conserve its cash as much as it can. The part of the dashboard that the company manages the most is CapEx. What would be the recurring CapEx that we can expect? Is there a minimal level of CapEx that needs to be used in the concession? Well, of course, if you reduce CapEx too much, it will have implications on your operation. What would be the ideal level? Thank you. Thank you, João. I'm going to answer both questions together. Considering debt renegotiation, we're still in the beginning, so we don't know exactly what it will be like, but we can say two things already, and this connects to your second question, which we'll refer back to. From our perspective, of course, the company's number one priority needs to be maintaining normalcy for the concession, and we believe we can do it. Again, this refers to some other restructuring processes in the electrical industry, Light is far from being a company with a negative EBITDA, and it's even further from being a company in which EBITDA minus the minimal CapEx that the company needs to perform to keep the concession running perfectly is negative. This is a company that, despite its issues, still has purely positive operational cash flow. This maintains our basic assumption, which is not to do as least CapEx as we can do. We're going to keep the necessary CapEx to keep our quality standards, to meet all of the demands and the requirements that we have from the regulations, and to be able to expand within the necessary time. This is a challenge, but it's also a condition. We believe this needs to be our first obligation as managers of this company to protect our consumers. How do we do it when we're renewing our concession? Ideally, within months, we'd be able to have these two conversations at the same time, and they would clearly converge, but we can't base ourselves on that assumption. The concession renewal timing is three areas at first. We have to make a statement in May, and then make a request to the conceding power, which will be answered within 14 months. There's a clear rule to that allows to anticipate the concession, but it doesn't mean that it will happen. Debt renegotiations can be faster, especially when you have aligned interests between all stakeholders. We believe that this is very clear, and the first interactions we've had with our lenders show it, that the best thing is to have a short-term solution that will protect the concession, allowing the company to navigate with its cash flow and to maintain its regulatory functions and requirements met to generate value. By renewing this concession with the right conditions, we would be able to do it. These two things are happening, can't happen in parallel because they depend on the company's concession being renewed. Secondly, we need to address our short-term cash flow issues and then readapt the capital structure to support a renewed concession and an additional 30 years of the concession. We're working with all of these scenarios. About our CapEx. Along with the company's proposal, we're going to release our CapEx guidance, and it will be about BRL 1 billion for the year, of which BRL 800 million will be in the distribution company. This is the CapEx we believe will be necessary to maintain normalcy and to continue meeting the terms of the concession. It's still relatively high in comparison to the distribution companies' EBITDA in the last 12 months, but it's EBITDA minus CapEx, and it's positive, contrary to what we had in the last 12 months. Light says, for the last one and a half to two years, has worked with an EBITDA below the company's CapEx. The main change is our loss strategy. Again, it doesn't make sense to protect our network. Although this is an investment that makes sense for the concession, it doesn't make sense to do it now in the last few years of the concession. We really are significantly reducing our investments in to normalizations in this area where we had high re-incidence, because this is investment that has proven not to be positive for the company or for the concession. Great. Thank you, Octávio. That was very clear. We'll now pass it over to Henrique Peretti, an analyst from JPMorgan. Go ahead, Henrique. You may unmute yourself. Okay, thank you. I don't think it worked before. Thank you, Octávio. Or excuse me. Thank you, Rodrigo. I have three questions, if I may. Octávio, I'd like to understand from your perspective, what you imagine would be a sustainable structure for Light. In the beginning of the call, you said that trying to have a loss in index that would make sense would be good. Over 15 years, Light has tried, and it was very successful at reducing regulatory losses, but this has not proven to be enough. Whenever ANEEL increases the regulatory loss level, actual losses grow even more. We're always lagging behind in this effect. We also know that the more regulatory losses go up, the more expensive tariffs are, and thus this creates a cycle. Maybe this is not the solution for the company. What alternative would we see? We know that Light's problem is a matter of costs, and the company lost a lot of its build market for many years. This might not be a more the most sustainable solution. My second question is about returning the concession. In your interview with Valor Econômico, you said that it was unlikely that the concession would be returned. I'd like to understand why the company gave up on this alternative to return the concession. If there was any more, any indication from ANEEL and why is returning no longer a clear alternative for you. Finally, if you can share with us what cash expectation you have for the PIS/Cofins payments. We've had this provision. We know that it was controversial. How much do you expect to have to return to approximate this working capital for the next months? Thank you. Hi, Henrique. Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in the same order. Concerning a sustainable structure for Light, I have a different perspective from yours. I don't think a sustainable solution will have a, will come from an impact to your tariffs. This is caused by external factors. Even including losses, this is the, what we can influence is relatively small in comparison to other factors. There's no cause and effect. The reason why Light's losses have been increasing, the percentage, by percentage, is that the build market for Light has been reducing. When we measure in GW-hours, it's basically the same losses that we had in 2015 or 2014. It didn't change. This is what we're seeking. We're seeking to address this as a solution. It's too early to speculate. We haven't advanced as much in our discussions, what we clearly have is a sensitivity from the conceding power from ANEEL, understanding that this problem needs to be addressed. This takes me to my second answer. Why do I think that returning the concession is unlikely? I think in any return is unlikely. This has never happened in Brazil, returning a energy distribution concession. It's a very complex process, although it's in the contract, and we have a very clear view considering all the stakeholders. We always think that the first stakeholder that we need to look at is the consumer in Rio de Janeiro. It's the people of Rio de Janeiro. There's no better solution than renewing a concession contract sustainably. That's why we always consider it to be a very unlikely scenario in any circumstance. Excuse me. To answer your question on the PIS/Cofins decision. This decision means that we are paying all credits in full for consumers, including the ones that we have already used. Since Light has already used BRL 1.8 billion since December, it's used BRL 300,000. In the next months, we will return BRL 1.8 billion in the absence of any other judicial decision. Even if it is possible to roll over the debt, it would basically zero the cash that you have today. I think it's a more complex calculation than that, but yes, in my perspective, we should protect the company's cash flow for the next 24 months, BRL 1.8 billion related to PIS/ Cofins. Thank you. Thank you for taking part, and we'd like to reiterate that our investor relations team is always available to answer your questions. Have a good day, and we'll see you during the next call. Thank you.