Greetings ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Ameren Corporation 2009 Second Quarter Earnings Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder this conference is being recorded It is now my pleasure to introduce your host Mr. Douglas Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you Mr. Fischer, you may begin.

Thank you, Claudia and good morning. I'm Doug Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. On the call with me today is our President and Chief Executive Officer, Tom Voss; our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Marty Lyons, and other members of the Ameren team -- management team. Before we begin, let me cover a few administrative details. This call will be available by telephone for one week to anyone who wishes to hear it by dialing a playback number. The announcement you received in our news release carry instructions on replaying the call by telephone. This call is also being broadcast live on the Internet and the webcast will be available for one year on our website www.ameren.com. This call contains time sensitive data that is accurate only as of the date of today's live broadcast. Redistribution of this broadcast is prohibited. I also need to let you know that comments made on this conference call may contain statements that are commonly referred to as forward-looking statements. Such statements include those about future expectations, beliefs, plans, strategies, objectives events, conditions and financial performance. We caution you that various factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. For additional information concerning these factors, we ask you to read the forward-looking statements section in the news release we issued today and the forward-looking statements and risk factors sections in our periodic filings with the SEC. To assist in our call this morning, we have posted presentation slides on our website that we will refer to during this call. To access this presentation, you may look in the investors' section of our website under presentations and follow the appropriate link. Turning to slide three, Tom will begin this call with an overview of second quarter 2009 earnings, and 2009 earnings guidance followed by a discussion of our plans for positioning Ameren for long term success. Marty will follow with a more detailed discussion of our second quarter 2009 financial results, our 2009 earnings guidance and commentary on key financial drivers for 2010 and beyond. We will then open the call for question. Here's Tom.

Thanks, Doug. Good morning all and thank you for joining us. Moving to slide four of the presentation on our website, I'm pleased to report that this morning we released second quarter 2009 non-GAAP of core earnings per share of $0.75, an increase from the $0.67 per share of core earnings we posted in the same period a year ago. This is also inline with our expectations. The increase in core earnings per share in the second quarter of 2009 over the same period in 2008 was principally because of new utility services rates in Illinois and Missouri, as well as lower plant operations and maintenance expenses and vulnerable weather. The favorable earnings impact of these factors was reduced by higher net fuel cost, reduced sales to industrial customers including sales to Noranda Aluminum, higher storm repair cost, and higher depreciation in financing cost. In addition core and GAAP quarter-to-quarter comparisons were negatively impact, as result of income recognized in the second quarter of 2008 related to the termination of a coal contract during that period. Turning now to slide five, and I'm also pleased to announce the company's strong operating performance allows us to reaffirm our core 2009 earnings guidance of $2.70 to $3.05 per share. Break relief, cost control and actions taken reduced our exposure to price fluctuations in the wholesale energy markets are helping us weather the difficult economic and market conditions that are affecting our industry and the entire country. Marty will provide more details on second quarter earnings in our reaffirmed guidance in his remarks. As most of you likely know I assumed the post of President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren on May 1st of this year. I immediately engaged our management team in an ongoing strategic planning effort to ensure that our…

Thanks Tom. Turning to slide 10, I direct you to the Q2 column which reconciles second quarter 2008 earnings to second quarter 2009 earnings. As Tom mentioned, our Q2 results were in line with our expectation. Second quarter 2009 net income in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles was $165 million or $0.77 per share, compared to second quarter 2008 GAAP net income of 206 million or $0.98 per share. Excluding certain items in each year Ameren recorded second quarter 2009 core net income of $161 million of $0.75 per share, compared with second quarter 2008 core net income of 142 million or $0.67 per share. There are two items in the second quarter of 2009 that we have excluded from our core earnings. These items are the net costs associated with the Illinois comprehensive electric rate release and customer assistance settlement agreement reached to 2007, which reduced the second quarter 2009 GAAP earnings by $0.02 per share and the net effects of mark-to-market activities which increased second quarter 2009 GAAP earnings by $0.04 per share. These items were also excluded in the prior year. In addition in 2008, we excluded the benefit of the Missouri storm related accounting order and the out of period benefit of our coal contract settlement. You may recall that the coal contract settlement had two parts; one which reimbursed us for higher expected cost in 2009, which was excluded from our core earnings and the other part which reimbursed us for higher cost in 2008. The 2008 portion was considered core, since we did incur those higher costs throughout 2008. However the receipt the benefit in Q2 2008 does affect quarterly comparisons. Continuing with the second quarter reconciliation on slide ten, the Missouri electric rate increase which took effect March 1, 2009, raised second…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions). Our first question is coming from Greg Gordon with Morgan Stanley. Please state your question.

Thank you, good morning.

Good morning Greg.

As I look at the slide 16 as compare to slide 14. You're basically telling us that your hedges are sort of matched up in '09, you're a bit longer on coal than you are on what you've hedged in '10 and also but shorter on call relative to what you have hedged in '11 is that the right interpretation?

Greg this is Marty. Yeah I think that is the right interpretation. As you look at slide 14 and you look at the megawatt hours that are hedged, you see there the 23 million megawatt hours of hedged power and as you say in 2010 in terms of fuel hedges about 29. So you're right a little longer on the coal side in 10. And then 2011, about 15 million megawatt hour is hedged on the coal side. But that matches up with 2011 power hedge is about 15 million.

Just to be sure I'm reading the foot note on page 16 correctly, these are all in delivered costs per megawatt hours including rail?

That's correct.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you Greg.

Your next question is coming from Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc Capital.

How should we think about -- looks sounds as if the coal plans sales are after table but we got significant CapEx reductions. When do you envision the timing of potential equity financing?

Paul this is Marty. Yeah in terms of our overall plans obviously throughout this year we've really taken some aggressive actions as you can say to reduce our capital expenditures really twice going back to last year and when again now. We've also as you know reduced the dividend earlier this year and all of those actions are going to reduce our need to access the capital markets as well as enhance our credit profile. That said as we look out to the future as I mentioned earlier in my talking points we do seek to maintain cash structures in our regulatory businesses in the range of 50 to 55% has been a target of ours. We're also targeting and maintaining investment grade credit ratings. And so as we think about the future, obviously a lot of things are changing. A lot of things have changed I should say in terms of the economy, power prices, capital markets and our business plans are changing as well as. And so as we look out in the future, we're going to be evaluating our financing plans and the timing of both debt and equity offerings. As we said in past, as we make investments in our business over the long term, we're certainly anticipating the need for both debt and equity offerings to finance our business.

Okay, thank you.

You’re welcome.

Our next question is coming from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please state your question.

Hi guys. Can you hear me?

Yes Paul.

The O&M reductions for 2008 in the merchant side I mean for 2010 prior to 10%, can you just give us an idea about quantitatively what that number is? And also on the fuel cost in the open position, how do those look compared to what you've actually hedged at, when you look at the four group delivering power besides coal to your plant?

Yes. Paul, this is Marty. On the first question, I don't think I have the exact dollar amount in terms of overall. What we tried Paul was quantify that was about 5 to 10% below the 2008 level. So you can go back and take a look at what those levels were and Paul could your repeat your second question?

The second question was on the fuel cost. When we look at slide 16 in terms of the open position that you guys have in -- is more 11 than in 10. What are you guys looking at in terms of what the market prices out there for the coal versus what you got hedged. You got hedged at $26 a megawatt hour and 23.50 for 2010. Where do those and how are those compared to the market prices that are out there?

Yeah. You know, Paul I think as you look at those market prices obviously the stock price of the coal has been lower. But in terms of the long term contracts often times they don't match exactly with the spot prices are. I would generally expect -- well I probably wouldn't want to venture it against on that we may want to get back to you on that.

Okay. And the nature of the merchant CapEx reduction other than then stuff that you guys have previously identified? What's helping you out there with all that CapEx reduction, what is it that you guys are doing?

Yeah Paul, this is Marty again. We have with us this morning Chuck Naslund who is the President of that business and I'll let him address those capital expenditure reduction.

Yes good morning Paul. The CapEx reduction were all related to our planned, capacity additions to our existing units here in the next five years and such things in the turbine upgrade and then boiler upgrade to support those turbine upgrade. And those plans were put in the place back during the time period where the core market price supported those investments and obviously with the significant clients didn't make through the containment of that plan of that plan also all of those projects were better removed from the budget and that's where all of those reductions come from.

Okay would that indicate that you guys looking at a less robust with going forward. I mean clearly we have at least temporary depression here or recession. I mean it looked like you guys are more cautious about the long term outlook for power plant?

No I would not say that, I would say that just for the reality of the moment is that we have to make prudent investment. It wouldn't be prudent at this time to spend that money given the market price is where they're at today, being in the commodity business we are in. Also I would touch on your previous question you asked the level of reduction are in for Merchant business, basically approximately 355 million in '09 down to 315 and $0.20. So about 40 million reduction.

Thank you very much.

Your next question is coming from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs.

Hi guys question for you. In the CapEx reductions on the regulated site of the business. Can you give just any flavor or color in terms of where that's actually occurring and is it major projects moving around or moving out or is it just lots of smaller ones?

Yes, good morning Michael, this is Marty. Also fortuned to have with me here today Warner Baxter who, you know is the Head of Union Electric Operations. I'll let him touch on the on that question from UE perspective.

Good morning Michael, how are you?

Yes I'm fine. How are you Warner?

I'm great thanks. There are several things that they were looking at in terms of those capital expenditure reductions. One thing that we are looking at relates to some of our environmental projects. We believe obviously with some of the in the rules that we have the opportunity to move some of those around. Especially in light of the fact that we are going to be installing scrubber at our plant. And that going in 2010 and the couple of that with our strong bank of allowances, we have the opportunity to move some of those projects around. Second things that we are looking at as you know that we had some expenditures in our forecast associated with our potential second nuclear unit at Calloway, things for like the color and those types of things. Those clearly are now -- have been eliminated and it can be taken out. Things then beyond that include things like -- excuse me IT projects. But also carefully assessing some of the plans, plans that we have associated with some of our power plants, as well as some of the other projects that we have throughout our operations. We are going to continue to carefully assess those to see what flexible we have around that.

Got it and a follow up on the non-regulated side generation to megawatt hours. The 35 million is that an availability or is that an expected output for the -- future years?

Yeah Michael this is Marty. That 35 million is an availability number for the next couple of years.

Okay, thank you.

Your next question is coming from Dan Jenkins with State of Wisconsin Investment Board.

Hi good morning

Good morning.

I have a few questions related to slide 13 on your Missouri rate case. You are filing for a number of riders, the CCRM and then you mentioned also I think of storm cause tracker and pension OPEB tracker. I was curious, are any of those authorized in the legislation or have they approved those type of writers for other utilities in the Missouri or are these kind of first time proposals.

Yeah I think the answer to your question there is your question I believe is have all of those been authorized by the legislature and in fact they have been. We actually have been using for a couple of after last of couple of rate cases the pension and OPEB cost tracker. We also did get in the large rate case, the vegetation management tracker and we had legislation a couple of years ago at the time when the legislature authorized these fuel adjustment clause. They at that time also authorized the ability to put in place environmental cost recovery mechanisms such as that one that we're seeking to utilize as part of this rate case.

Has the commission completed the rule making related to that? I know they took a while to complete the rule making for the fuel cost I know?

Yes your recollection is correct but they have completed that rule making.

Okay. Have they approved that for any other of the utilities in this area or will this be kind of a first time to look at it?

No. I think this is the first time that the commission will have an opportunity to look at this.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question is coming from Raymond Lowe (ph) with Goldman Sachs. Please state your question.

Hi, guys. Can you talk a little bit about your debt financing plans. Looks like you have about a $1 billion as your short-term debt and there's been some movement in your CapEx. I think previously you indicated that you needed to do about 600 million at the Genco (ph) and IT initiatives three to 400 million can you just refresh us on that?

Yeah, as I said before, I think in terms of our overall financing plans, we're going to take a fresh look at those. Obviously we've been through a significant business planning process and obviously reduced CapEx materially in our merchant generation business and we're also we've identified opportunities and we're looking carefully after some of those opportunities in regulatory business. And as we look at those and -- we'll also be thinking about what the appropriate financing plans are going forward.

Okay and just a follow up on Michaels question about availability number ratio? Is that based up on what percentage in of availability?

I'm not sure in terms of percentage what you mean but what that is; is the 35 million that you see there is our projected availability of all of our coal fired power plans in our merchant business.

Assuming like a 100% availability.

Its about no, no it's about 86% overall availability.

Okay great thank you.

Our next question is coming from Scott Angshun with Glendale Capital Management (ph). Please state your question.

Good morning. Paul Patterson must have been looking at my notes here. Same question. I'm going to come out on them a little bit differently. First on the Merchant O&M reduction, in 2008 and Ameren energy generating O&M was a 175 million, I think there will be some O&M embedded in Steel Corp. as well as at pair in (ph) for EEEI but if I added all that up would it be a little bit south of 200 million that the ball park 2008 O&M merchant level?

Yeah it seems that I think that information is in the 10-K and 10-Q but I don't think matches up with some of the information Chuck gave a second ago. Chuck would you want to repeat that?

Yeah, I -- the number I provided was all of our EEI, O&M and all Genco O&M all together, and that number you were quoting, it was just one of those entities.

Okay I'm sorry and I must not have been paying attention. What did you say the total number was then?

For 2009 for all entities, it’s approximately 355 million.

Okay.

And in 2010, 315.

Okay, alright thank you. I apologize.

Follow up, see if you look back at our segment disclosures that are in our 10-K, you can actually go on a column that's labeled non rate regulated generation and you can actually see the total O&M for that entire segment in there and it was about $356 million in 2008.

Okay, thanks very much. And then just the second question getting back to the open vision on the fuel hedging in '11. Without, I know you don't have a number there but you were to sort of give the assignment to your traders today to go out and hedge the fuel cost for '11, do you have a sense of whether it would be higher or lower than that $26 number you have in there right now?

Yeah. Again I decline to answer to that question, not because I didn't want to. I just don't have that information readily available.

Okay thanks guys. Appreciate it.

Our next question is coming from David Frank with Catapult Capital. Please state your questions.

Hey good morning guys.

Good morning David.

Congratulations on a good quarter here.

Oh, thank you.

So this outlook looks much improved and I guess I mean given the tremendous reduction in CapEx, why are we even talking about issuing equity here. It would appear that if you cut it 2 billion of CapEx and you're looking at funding 50-50 debt equity, I mean I would think you just took at least 1 billion of equity off the table potentially?

Well Dave, based on the questions I got earlier it was refining to, I think that again we're looking overall at our financial plan over the next couple of years. We have obviously meaningfully reduced our capital expenditures we've also identified some further opportunities as I mentioned. Inconsistent with our past practice David, as we look at our financing we're going to try to maintain solid investment grade credit ratings. We are going to want to maintain financial strength and flexibility and make sure we have cushion for any unanticipated needs. So as we think about our business going forward we will be thinking all of those things and considering what our best alternatives are in terms of capital market issuances.

I guess then it will be fair assumption that there is no need for equity this year next year?

David Again I guess I didn't rule anything out specifically it's more as we look ahead. We'll take a look at what our needs are and how to appropriately finance the business

All right and Marty I know you talked about -- I think you said consolidated equity to cap of 50-50, 50-55 equity is that what you're looking at? Is that your target?

Yeah David. Over time we've talked about maintaining equity in the cap structure of the utility to 50-55% then that's been sort of the stated goal for a while now.

And where if you would just I don't know what other internal adjustments you might make to your cap structure that I may not my end but where is your current structure at?

I think if you look at the attachment to our press release David on the last page there is some specifics and you can see that where the common equity ratios are there. And you can also take a look at the slides that we have provided on the pending Illinois and Missouri rate cases. And you can see where the equity was in the cap structure of those entities as we follow those rate cases.

Okay so 46% so this fits...

Our next question is coming from Andrew Levy with Incremental Capital. Please state your question.

And I don't think David got to finish. I think he was probably kind of getting up a 50-55% versus your 46% so, I'd like you to answer that question. And then I'll ask my own.

I think he was probably filling in (ph) David you're out there looking -- getting cut off but not exactly sure how that transpired. But overtime I think your question about the 50 to 55% equity in cash structures. I mean that has been our goal, it remains our goal. We are not there today and as we look at our future financial projections given some of these changing business plans. We'll evaluate how we get to that 50-55%. As I mentioned earlier the reductions in the CapEx do reduce our need to access the capital markets and the dividend reductions we made over to this year does add about $220 million per year to our equity. So, we will be evaluating all those things as we look out our perspective.

Okay. Now it's my turn. I mean all of my questions are asked, but this kind of based on some of our comments, and based on some of things even David just asked; I guess it seems to me that sounds like you want to issue equity and if we kind of go in the premise cut CapEx, you've cut the dividend. Looking at some of the numbers that you have outlined and as far as you go hedged numbers and things like that. I just wonder things that I'm coming up with I was curious, where you guys have is that. It can be very challenging to maintain the current level of earnings and because of that it kind of offsets some of the CapEx savings and things like that related to equity and your equity levels plus your desire obviously the get to a higher level. Is that a fair statement that it's going to be challenging the kind of maintain current earnings level based on the current commodity environment?

I'll say, we think we have some meaningful growth drivers that we look ahead to be honest with you. Even the -- assuming that the potential reduction that we've identified in the regulated businesses or we're actually achieved, we did see meaningful growth still in our rate base and our regulated utilities. As Tom mentioned in his talking point, we also today have a gap between our earned ROEs and have allowed ROEs in both Illinois and Missouri that we're seeking to close in the rate cases that we filed, as well as through future rate cases. And through the use of some of these mechanisms that we've requested use of that allowed us to earn closer to our allowed ROE. And couple of that with the fact that we do expect to see economic recovery beginning in the later half of 2009 and into 2010 and with that we would expect to see increases in power prices which we believe will enhance the generation opportunities for our merchant business and the earnings opportunities for that merchant business. So, as we look ahead we do see a meaningful growth drivers on horizon.

And then just to understand those growth drivers are based on higher commodity prices and that are rate treatments I guess?

I think I say its fair treatment in the rate cases and again active management of our cost as we pursue our closing the gap between the earned and allowed ROEs. That's certainly a big part of it and we do believe we have generation assets in our merchant business, that are well positioned, that our competitive assets. And we do believe that with power price recovery we're positioned well to capitalize on that.

But absent on that just a kind of go back to my question was. It sounds like its gone be challenging based on the number that you have out there income grow at this point.

Again I just stated what I believe are meaningful growth drivers for our business.

Okay thank you.

Your next question is coming from Ben Sung with Luminus Management. Please state your question.

Hey guys. Based on the chart you are detailing the cap -- the merchant CapEx. It looks as if the maintenance CapEx numbers somewhat in the neighborhood of $10 million or something fairly minimal. We recently heard different companies talk about how there's -- there is difference in the way the people look at CapEx or spending on finance whether you capitalize your spend. Is that something that's affecting that number I mean or do tend to expense more than you capitalize, just so its look like a fairly small number?

You know I -- this is Marty. I couldn't tell you in terms of our benchmarking how our capitalization policies might compare, or contrast with somebody else's capitalization policies. They are what they are and we stick to them and don't vary from them and I guess that about all I can say.

This is Doug Fischer. I think we have time for two more questions if we're going to stick to our scheduled hour time frame.

Okay our next question is coming from Greg Gordon with Morgan Stanley. Please state your question.

Thanks. Just a follow-up guys. Just to ask you a question that relates some of this debate in the Q&A here. It would seem too clearly that you need better rate treatment, more constructive rate treatment in both states. And at the same time you'd like that the equity ratios and utilities in both those states to grow to a level that's more comparable to where you want your overall credit profile to be. But -- and that all wraps into the question of whether you need equity and how quickly you may or may not want to tap the equity markets. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? The regulators don't come around understanding they need you to earn a reasonable return. You should be disinvesting in these businesses, not investing in these businesses. So can you comment on how you plan for your capital, how you plan your capital deployment around and understanding that you need better rate treatment in order to support issuing equity because you're not earning reasonable returns there?

Well I appreciate the follow up question. I think as we look at the capital investments in a regulated business, I think first and foremost, we're mindful of wanting to make sure we maintain safe and reliable service. I mean fundamental to our strategy is making sure that we do the right things, make the right investments to make sure that our customer service is solid and that our customers are satisfied. We do believe that that will translate into fair outcomes in our rate cases. So as we plan our business and we look forward, certainly we look for opportunities to tighten our belts in these difficult times for our customers and all of our stakeholders, but we are going to make the investments that are necessary to make sure we maintain safe and reliable service.

But if you were to continue to already to -- despite the fact that your investing the what you need to supply reliable service you would continue to be put in a position where you were earning sub par returns. Why would you even remotely consider patenting the equity investment in those businesses and under-earn on that incremental capital?

Well I think that fundamental to having good regulatory outcome is maintaining financial strength and flexibility. We believe that that's important to all the stakeholders of our regulated business. And we really believe if you look back at the last rate cases those were constructive rate cases and we believe that if we look ahead to our future rate cases that we will be treated fairly in those rate cases that we've got pending.

Thank you I hope you're right

Thanks Greg.

Your next question is coming from Stephen Huang with Carlson Capital. Please state your question.

Hi and thanks for the call here. Just a quick question on slide 14. Can you help us understand the -- on the hedges and the pricing that you guys gave is this around the clock that hedging or you guys did a lot more peak load hedging? Can you just help us understand what's in 10-11?

I don't really have the break down I'd say on the on peak and off peak what these represent obviously is the price per mega watt hour of the those overall mega watt hours that are hedged.

Right I'm just trying to figure out because for example in 2009 going to 10, it drops like 3.5 and going into '11 drops by 8 million but you have a step up in price. I'm just trying to figure out is this, you guys are just hedging more the peak load or you guys are just doing round the clock hedging. I'm just trying to get an understanding of the balance of where this hedging is coming from?

Yeah and I'm sorry. I think may be I misunderstood your question. These are around on the clock prices, I apologize.

Okay and secondly just going to back to kind of what Dave or Frank was talking about, on talking about the rating industry I know you are on the watch with a couple of them I think. On a consolidated basis, what type of equity capital structure you're looking at versus just on a subsidiary level?

I think over time we've been targeting around that 50-50 cap structure, debt-to-equity cap structure.

Okay and the agency that are comfortable with that you know the merchant and the utility and 50-50 split on the earnings level that they're comfortable with kind of their 50 because I thought they were raising the kind of the profile -- business risk profile and the all the companies have nowadays with the merchant company as kind of the indication you got from Exxon (ph) and everybody else?

I'm not sure. I guess I understood question. Would you mind may be...rephrase?

The business risk profile I guess on merchant companies, the companies that generate large chunks of their earnings from merchant arms, but they're taking a better look in terms how they want to capitalize?

Yes that probably is the case.

Okay. And the last question I have is on your O&M cut numbers. Does that take in to account all the pension expense you going forward?

Yes. We've tried to factor in to our expectations, current estimates on prospective pension and push accounted medical expense.

Great, thank you very much.

This does bring us to the end of Q&A session. I'd like to turn the call back over to management for any closing remarks.

Thank you for participating in this call. Let me remind you again that this call was available through August 13th on playback and for one year on our website. The announcement carries instructions on listening to the playback. You can also call the contact listed on our news release. Financial analyst should be directed to me, Doug Fischer. Media should contact Susan Gallagher. My number and Susan's contact numbers are on the news release. Again thanks for dialing in.

Ladies and gentlemen this does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your line at this time and we thank you for your participation.