Greetings and welcome to the Ameren Corporation’s First Quarter 2012 Earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star, zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Doug Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. You may begin.

Thank you and good morning. I’m Doug Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. On the call with me today are our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tom Voss; our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Marty Lyons, and other members of the Ameren management team. Before we begin, let me cover a few administrative details. This call is being broadcast live on the Internet and the webcast will be available for one year on our website at Ameren.com. Further, 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. To assist with our call this morning, we have posted a presentation on our website that will be referenced during this call. To access this presentation, please look in the investor section of our website under Webcasts and Presentations and follow the appropriate link. Turning to Page 2 of the presentation, I need to inform you that comments made during 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 and described in the forward-looking statements. For additional information concerning these factors, please read the forward-looking statement section in the news release we issued today and the forward-looking statements and risk factors section in our filings with the SEC. Tom will begin this call with an overview of first quarter 2012 earnings and 2012 guidance, followed by a discussion of recent regulatory and business developments. Marty will follow with more detailed discussions of first quarter 2012 financial results as well as regulatory and other financial matters. We will then open the call for questions. Here is Tom, who will start on Page 3 of the presentation.

Thanks, Doug. Good morning and thank you for joining us. Today we announced a first quarter 2012 net loss in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, of $1.66 per share compared to first quarter 2011 GAAP net income of $0.29 per share. This first quarter 2012 GAAP net loss included a non-cash pre-tax asset impairment charge of $628 million related to the write-down of our Duck Creek merchant generation energy center which was triggered by the first quarter 2012 sharp decline in forward prices for electricity. Excluding the impacts of this charge, a related tax adjustment and mark-to-market activity, first quarter 2012 core results were positive with earnings of $0.22 per share compared to first quarter 2011 core earnings of $0.25 per share. The decrease in first quarter 2012 core earnings compared to first quarter 2011 core earnings primarily reflected the impact of warm winter weather on our regulated utility electric and natural gas sales. First quarter 2012 winter temperatures were among the warmest on record with heating degree days approximately 30% fewer than those experienced in the year-ago quarter. As a result, kilowatt hour sales of electricity to weather-sensitive residential and commercial utility customers declined 9%. Natural gas sales were also negatively impacted by the much warmer weather with first quarter 2012 volumes down 21% compared to the first quarter of 2011. In total, we estimate that warmer temperatures reduced first quarter 2012 earnings by $0.13 per share compared to the first quarter of 2011, and by $0.10 per share compared to normal. On a positive note, kilowatt hour sales to industrial customers rose 5% compared to the first quarter of 2011, a sign of economic improvement in our region. A second key driver of lower first quarter 2012 core earnings compared to the year-ago quarter was…

Thanks, Tom. Turning to Page 10 of the presentation, today we reported a first quarter 2012 GAAP loss of $1.66 per share compared to first quarter 2011 GAAP earnings of $0.29 per share. Excluding certain items in each year, Ameren recorded first quarter 2012 core earnings of $0.22 per share compared with first quarter 2011 core earnings of $0.25 per share. First quarter 2012 core earnings excluded three items that are included in GAAP earnings. The largest of these non-core items was the non-cash asset impairment charge in our merchant generation business that Tom mentioned earlier. The triggering event for this impairment was the sharp decline in power prices which occurred during the first quarter of 2012. Specifically, we recognized a $628 million pre-tax non-cash impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of our Duck Creek energy center to its estimated fair value. This reduced earnings by $1.55 per share. The second non-core item was a non-cash quarterly reduction in the income tax benefit recognized in conjunction with the Duck Creek asset impairment. This reduction in income tax benefit was the result of a combination of seasonally low first quarter earnings with the GAAP requirement to recognize income tax expense using the annual estimated effective income tax rate. This item decreased net income by $0.36 per share in the first quarter of 2012 and is projected to fully reverse over the balance of this year. I note that the effective tax rate for the quarter was approximately 24% on a GAAP basis while on a core basis we continue to expect a 2012 rate of approximately 36%. The last non-core item is a $0.03 per share gain from the net effect of unrealized mark-to-market activity. On Page 11, we highlight key factors driving the variance between core earnings per share…

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star, one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star, two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. We ask that you please limit your time to one question and one follow-up as necessary. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Thank you. Our first question is from the line of Paul Ridzon with Keybanc. Please state your question. Paul Ridzon – Keybanc: Can you just give the drivers behind the revised guidance, kind of what drove merchant up? I guess it was weather that took the regulated down.

Sure, Paul, this is Marty. In terms of the overall guidance, obviously the guidance is affirmed and unchanged; but within the guidance, the regulated upper and lower ends came down about $0.05. In merchant, lower and upper ends went up by about $0.05, and they netted out, obviously. The big driver for the quarter, really, in the regulated business was weather, as you heard on the call. Weather impacted our earnings negatively versus last year by about an estimated $0.13, and versus normal about $0.10. We had very warm winter weather, and it was that $0.10 weather variance versus normal that caused us to move our guidance down for the regulated businesses by about $0.05. On the merchant side, our guidance had been zero to $0.10 of earnings. We moved it up to $0.05 to $0.15. As a result of the impairment of our Duck Creek energy center, depreciation expense will actually be lower going forward, and so the increase in our guidance for merchant reflects that reduction in depreciation expense. Paul Ridzon – Keybanc: And is there any precedent for delaying the environmental that you’ve proposed?

This is Marty again. The Illinois Pollution Control Board, who we’ve filed with, has a history of weighing a number of things – impacts of a proposed variance to the environment, as well as the cost of coming into compliance and economic impacts of the compliance plan that is either planned or the alternatives to that plan. So they have a history of balancing environmental issues with economic issues, and there has been precedent in the state for variances to be granted. In fact, there’s some precedent even here with us where variances have in the past been granted by the Pollution Control Board. So we’re optimistic that our proposed plan will be received favorably by the Board. Paul Ridzon – Keybanc: And how is the interplay with EPA regs?

Well, as you know, some of those EPA regs are a bit in flux, as we saw the appeal of the CSAPR rules and then the MATS rules come into play later down the line. You may recall as a result of our compliance with the Illinois multi-pollutant standard, we’ve made significant investments in environmental controls. We burn low-sulfur Powder River Basin coal. We control mercury through the use of activated carbon. We’ve got a lot of controls in our plants, and those controls, those investments are positioning us well in our merchant business for compliance with MATS, and then we’ll see how CSAPR evolves, although we feel like we were positioned well for compliance with the CSAPR rules that existed before as a result, again, of our use of Powder River Basin coal, the scrubbers we have on some of our plants, as well as the decision last year to shut down a couple of our older, uncontrolled plants. Paul Ridzon – Keybanc: Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question is from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Please state your question. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, Paul, we can. Good morning. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: With respect to the $0.36 of tax adjustment that gets fully reversed, is that going to be showing up in operating earnings going forward for the rest of the year?

No. Let me describe what that is. Basically what it is from a GAAP accounting standard, we’re required to book to the estimated end of year effective tax rate, which given the impairment charge that we took and projecting out to the end of the year, we’re forecasting about a 24.5% effective tax rate. So we’re required to book to that in the first quarter. Because our earnings excluding the impairment charge are seasonal and heavily weighted towards the third quarter, the earnings in the first quarter excluding the impairment charge are pretty low. So when you take that impairment charge and you tax effect it at, say, a 40% kind of effective tax rate, it has the effect of really pushing the effective tax rate down for the quarter down to a very low level. So we had to—we described the decrease to the benefit of the Duck Creek impairment tax effect basically increased the effective tax rate up to that 24.5% level in the first quarter. But between now and the end of the year, and likely between now and the end of the third quarter, that will reverse out. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: And will that show up in earnings?

Well yes, it would show up in GAAP earnings but not core.

Okay, but it won’t be showing up in core earnings. And the $0.05, that’s for the three quarters ended—I’m sorry, the last three quarters of this year, and I guess the full-year impact will just be—you know, we just annualized that impact? Is that how we should think about it?

Are you talking about the depreciation from— Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Yes, the deprecation from Duck Creek, yeah.

Yeah, it’s about—Paul, it’s about $25 million, so I think that’s probably about $0.06 per share, so the $0.05 per share is really this current year expected impact. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: And why only Duck Creek? That was the only one that was impaired. Is that because of pollution control equipment, or how should we think of that?

Well, you’re right, Paul. That’s exactly right; it’s part of the answer, anyway. When you do an impairment test from an accounting perspective, first you look at the expected gross cash flows undiscounted over the remaining lives of the generating assets and then compare it to the carrying values. The Duck Creek facility did have a high book value or carrying value per megawatt, and that was really a function, as you mention, of the environmental equipment that is on that plant and that we invested in. But also, you might recall, Paul, that generating unit was actually acquired when Ameren acquired CILCORP years ago, and as a result at that time in purchase accounting, that plant was written up to its then fair value. So it had a higher book value as a result of that purchase accounting, and then on top of that the investments were made for environmental controls, so it had a fairly high book value compared to our other plants. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay, great. Thanks a lot, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Terran Miller with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please state your question. Terran Miller – Cantor Fitzgerald: Good morning. Two follow-up questions – first is if the Illinois regulators make a decision on the environmental issues, is that going to be precedent-setting for the state or do you think it’s just limited to your request?

Well, I think it’s specific to our request. As I said earlier, I think there is precedent for the Pollution Control Board to grant variances like the one we have requested, so I don’t think it’s precedent-setting in terms of the Pollution Control Board ruling favorably in terms of our specific request. But I don’t think that then would apply to others. It’s really an Ameren Energy Resources specific variance request. Terran Miller – Cantor Fitzgerald: Okay, and just as a follow-up from Paul Ridzon’s question, if CSAPR rules are not changed, can you get to 2020 without having to scrub?

Well, I think we’re positioned pretty well for those rules. I guess I don’t have the data here in front of me to say whether we’ll well positioned all the way out through 2020 or what some of the impacts may be, but we are positioned well for it, again as I mentioned earlier for the reasons I mentioned earlier. When we looked at the emission allowances or the credits that we had as a result of the shut down of the Meredosia and the Hutsonville facilities we did last year, as well as the pollution control equipment we have in place and the use of the Powder River basin coal, so we’re positioned well. We’ll see what happens with the CSAPR rules, where they come out; but again, I talked about this on the February call, when we looked at the deceleration of the Newton scrubber, when we looked at the rules that were most restrictive for us out in that 2015 time frame, it was the Illinois multi-pollutant standard that was the significant limitation, absent the scrubbers. Terran Miller – Cantor Fitzgerald: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ashar Khan with Visium. Please state your question. Ashar Khan – Visium Asset Management: Hi Marty, how are you doing? Marty, I just wanted to understand—I guess Genco’s doing really well in terms of free cash flow this year, but the hedging slide that you gave us updated kind of nearly shows if one puts in the remaining non-hedged portion that the price could be dropping something like $9 or $10 on a base around ’12 to ’13, which would imply that the business becomes negative cash flow next year. So can you tell me, what is the plan – is the parent going to provide, or how are we going to address this negative cash flow going forward? What is the strategy behind funding the business?

Sure, Ashar. I think, Ashar, we’re still focused on the merchant business and Genco maintaining an ability to meet its own cash needs and to stay cash flow positive, so we haven’t given any guidance yet so I’m—I know you’ve got your own model, I’m not going to comment on the figures you threw out. But that is our goal, that is our focus, and as you saw earlier this quarter, we did put in place a put option that to the extent Genco found itself needing financial resources, could put its gas-fired assets over to its affiliate for an immediate $100 million of cash, and then that would be trued up to fair value so that it would actually receive fair value for the assets. That’s consistent with one of the things that we’ve been talking about for a number of quarters, that Genco does have certain assets that it could sell. We have, as you’ve seen over the past couple of years, we’ve sold some of our smaller gas-fired units and that’s an option for Genco to the extent that it did need to raise cash as a fall-back. But it’s certainly focused on trying to reduce its capital expenditures, reduce operating costs, continuing to work to market its power to higher margin customers and meet its own cash needs. Ashar Khan – Visium Asset Management: Okay, but does the parent in terms of the write-down—or I guess what you’re saying is you’re going to sell the assets to fund it, or does the parent need equity to fund it as well going forward? Is it going to be a combination of both, or it’s just the Genco selling assets and plugging the hole?

Well Ashar, I guess the answer I’m trying to convey is first and foremost, they’re going to try to manage operating costs and capital expenditures to work towards a cash flow positive situation. With respect to Genco, it could then pursue sales of assets, if needed, to generate cash, and those are the primary focus areas. In terms of the impairment, the impairment was not a Genco asset; it was an energy resources asset but over in the AERG subsidiary, so the impairment really didn’t affect Genco, the legal entity. It basically rolls up and impacts only Ameren’s financial statements, and as you see today, nearly 52% equity in our total capital structure after the write-off and we have plenty of liquidity – over $2 billion of liquidity. So really, no impact on cash. Our equity content and our cap structure remain strong, and so overall don’t see a need for additional equity at this point. Ashar Khan – Visium Asset Management: Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next question is from the line of David Paz from Bank of America. Please state your question. David Paz – Bank of America: Good morning. I have a question, just a follow-up on Ashar’s question. If the Genco put option is exercised, would AERG issue its own debt or would it borrow from the parent?

Yeah, David – no, AERG would borrow from the parent. AERG doesn’t have any borrowing capacity of its own, so it could borrow from the parent but then the idea, David, is that AERG would be buying those assets from Genco at fair value and could turn around and sell those assets at that price, generate the cash, and pay down that borrowing. So that’s the idea of it – that if some amount of money goes into Genco for those assets, an equivalent amount of value comes out in the form of power plants which could then be resold to pay down the debt. David Paz – Bank of America: Got it, okay. My original question was on dividend policy – I’m curious if you have an update how should we think about dividend policy going forward. I know you have 6%, or roughly 6%, rate base growth. Should we expect continued dividend growth?

This is Tom Voss. You know, we really haven’t articulated a dividend growth policy, but it’s management’s objective to continue to grow our utility earnings by making disciplined investments in the utility infrastructure, and as we grow the earnings and cash flows of the regulated business, we’ll continue then hopefully to grow the dividend. But any future increase will be a Board decision and it will be based on our recent financial performance and current financial position, as well as our outlook for earnings, cash flows, and financial position. David Paz – Bank of America: Now is that outlook to earnings exclusive to regulated, or is it overall?

Regulated earnings. David Paz – Bank of America: Great. Okay, thank you.

Our next question is from the line of Reza Hatefi with Decade Capital Management. Please state your question. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital Management: Hi, thank you. I guess you have a great utility rate base kegger, but I assume that’s probably running a little negative cash flow and then we’ll see what happens with the merchant segment. How should we think about financing over the next two, three years to achieve this rate base kegger? Do you need to reinstitute the DRIP-dribble or will there be equity in 2013, ’14? How is that going to get financed, I guess?

Good morning, Reza, this is Marty. I think when you look out and you do your modeling, I think you should assume that over time we’re going to look to keep the equity content in our cap structure in alignment with generally where it is. I’ve talked about this before – generally in that 50 to 53% kind of equity content in the total capital structure. So as we move through time, we’ll want to keep a strong balance sheet and a strong equity content in our cap structure. As you know, we don’t have the DRIP-dribble program currently issuing any new shares, but as we said I think on our first quarter call, that that’s something that we’ll evaluate on a year-to-year basis; and to the extent that equity is needed to keep the balance sheets of our utilities in that strong and that kind of category that I mentioned, we’ll certainly act to do that. But it’s important when you look out over time to remember that these businesses do generate significant earnings each year over and above that which is paid out in dividends, so there’s the ability to reinvest retained earnings over time. And I’d also point out that you see the 6% kegger in the overall rate base but you’ve also got an allocation going to those jurisdictions that have formulaic ratemaking, which over time should allow us to continue to bring up our blended earned ROE on that rate base. So in addition to the 6% rate base, you’ll hopefully also see a little bit of growth in the blended average earned returns, which helps as well. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital Management: And then just finally kind of thinking about your regulated earnings power, should I just basically take this new rate base slide and use that, or is there anything else that I’m missing in terms of getting your regulated earnings power?

No, I think you’re on the right track. I think we just talked about a few things that you would have to consider, and that’s the rate base growth, the allocation of the capital to the various jurisdictions and how that affects the blended earned ROE, and then over time as you model it out, how we would go about financing that, which again I said largely would be through reinvestment of retained earnings, some debt financing, and then depending on your model some consideration of additional equity, but the objective getting to that 50 to 53% equity ratio. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital Management: Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you please limit your time to one question and one follow-up as necessary. Our next question is from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Please state your question. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Hey guys. Congrats on a good quarter and obviously in terms of some of the regulatory improvements you’ve made in your jurisdictions over the last couple of years. O&M – can you talk—I just want to make sure I understand – year-over-year from 2011 to 2012, both at the regulated side and at the merchant side, what’s embedded in guidance for year-over-year changes in O&M.

Thanks, Michael. I think we would refer you back to the first quarter call transcript, but I think when you look at overall, it’s in Missouri you’re seeing actually a trend down in O&M. You’ll recall that late last year, we actually had a voluntary retirement or severance plan that ended up having about a 340 headcount reduction overall between Ameren Missouri as well as our business in corporate services area. So that’s rolling through in terms of cost savings this year. For the merchant business, we actually kind of gave out a specific number that was down a little bit from the prior year, which was about—an expectation of O&M expense of about $290 million. Again, like I said, it’s a little bit down from last year. And then in Illinois, I think the important thing to remember there is whatever the O&M costs are, those will actually be included in the formula ratemaking adjustment that we book this year. So whether they were to go up or down, it would result in more or less revenue being recognized under the formulaic rate adjustment. We do expect those O&M expenses, however, to go up as we are ramping up to meet the requirements of the law in terms of investments and job creation. So those O&M expenses are going up in Illinois this year. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Okay. And thinking about Illinois, in your guidance, what rate base is assumed in guidance for 2012, and what earned ROE level is assumed in your guidance level for this year?

I’ll see whether somebody has the rate base number – I don’t have that off the top. But we did—you know, Michael, overall in terms of the ROE, the midpoint of our ROE reflects about a 9.2% earned ROE, or assumed earned ROE in Illinois. That assumes average treasury yields of about 3.3% for the year, so that’s the ROE that we had embedded as a midpoint. You’ll recall that there is a—you know, where the ROE actually ends at the end of the year will be a function of where the 30-year treasury yields actually go over the course of the year, and then there’s a plus or minus 50 basis point collar on that ROE. One thing I might mention is that that plus or minus 50 basis point collar equates to about a plus or minus $0.025 per share, so there’s a band or a collar on the ROE based again on the formula. One of the things I’d point you to just in terms of rate base was that in our January 3 filing – and this was on Slide 14 – the rate base in that January 3 filing was about 2.16 billion, actually shown on that slide. What that represented was the rate base from the 2010 FERC Form 1 plus 2011 and 2012 net plant additions. And then what that wouldn’t reflect is simply adjustments to the deferred tax balances. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Got it, because I noticed that in the Com Madison (ph) filing process, there was about a $500 million difference in the rate base between the ALHA order and a lot of the company and even the intervenors, which has a significant impact. Are you guys facing a similar issue?

I would say, Michael, that it’s probably in the $200 million range for us, I would believe. The other thing to remember about Illinois, and that’s just we’re talking about the electric delivery rate base. You’ve also, of course, got the gas rate base that we’re earning on as well as the transmission rate base in Illinois, so that’s not total Illinois rate base. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Understood. Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.

Thank you. As a reminder, we ask that you limit your time to one question and one follow-up as necessary. Our next question is from Tom Rebinoff of Fore Research & Management. Please state your question. Tom Rebinoff – Fore Research & Management: Hey guys, good morning. Just a quick question – I wanted to go back to CSAPR one more time. I just wanted to make sure that I understand what you were trying to convey. So basically you guys said you are well positioned for CSAPR. So what does that mean exactly, then? I guess if Illinois does not approve—sorry, if Illinois does approve your request, would you have to spend any more money on CAPEX beyond what you’ve told us already, or is that going to be it? And then I guess how do we think about what you mentioned on the last call in terms of having to start thinking about the scrubbers for Newton by the end of this year, maybe early next year?

Yeah, sure. You know, I think in terms of CSAPR, again, when we looked out to 2015 absent the Newton scrubber and if the multi-pollutant standard wasn’t in place, we believe we were positioned well for compliance with CSAPR and don’t believe the Newton scrubber would be needed to meet the CSAPR requirements. That’s why we’re very focused on the multi-pollutant standard variance and relief. Your question about the considerations around the Newton scrubber – obviously we’re pursuing this relief from the Pollution Control Board relative to the MPS. Absent that relief, we would be sort of back to where we were, I would say, when we last talked on our year-end earnings call, which would be that we believe that if we reaccelerate the scrubber project, it would take about 20 to 24 months to complete that; and again, the way the multi-pollutant standard currently works, there’s a ratchet down in terms of SO2 emissions out in the 2015 time frame. So sometime in the first half of next year is sort of the point that is critical, and if we decided to reaccelerate sometime in the first half of next year, we’d be in a position to have the scrubbers in place the first half of 2015. But again, there are a lot of factors we’ll consider in making that evaluation and making that decision. Today, as we’ve said, market prices and capacity prices just don’t seem to justify completion of that scrubber, and we’ll continue to evaluate things as we move through time. Tom Rebinoff – Fore Research & Management: Okay, got it. And so then a quick follow-up question – I guess it’s the Illinois Pollution Control Board that will have to opine on your request. Now, is the MISO—or I guess, does the MISO have a say in this at all, or no?

No, I don’t believe so. Tom Rebinoff – Fore Research & Management: Okay, got it. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Alex Tai of Standard General. Please state your question. Alex Tai – Standard General: Hi guys, good morning. I actually just wanted to follow up on Tom’s question there. Specifically, you said that you probably will not need a scrubber if you comply, you believe, with the EPA regs. So what about other forms of capital expenditure? Would you need anything else, or do you think you’re all set, period?

You were breaking up a little bit, but I think your question was would the capital expenditures that we’ve got, or the pollution control equipment that’s in place, we’d be sort of all set. I think the answer is yes. We’ve made significant investments in pollution control equipment. We’re incurring significant O&M costs today for compliance with the multi-pollutant standard, and those things position us well in terms of the federal air emissions rules that we’re aware of today. Alex Tai – Standard General: Got it, okay. So it really is only the state pollution rules that are imposing the need for new environmental capital expenditures?

Well, yes, for this Newton scrubber project, that’s right; and again, I’d refer you to our five-year CAPEX plans that we put out in our 10-K, and you’ll see them updated in the 10-Q, but really no change. Based on the equipment we’ve got in place, the capital expenditure plans we’ve laid out, we believe we’ll be positioned well. Alex Tai – Standard General: Okay. And this is a slightly different but same line of questioning, I guess – you’ve disclosed that you’ve increased the hedges on the merchant generating segment. Is there any breakdown of where those new hedges are? Are they within the Genco or within AERG?

Yeah, no breakdown there. You know, they’re AER overall hedges. Alex Tai – Standard General: Got it. Okay, great. Thank you, guys.

This is Doug Fischer. Operator, we’ve exceeded our scheduled hour but I think we’ll take just two more questions. So Operator, if you’d please put those through.

Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Our next question is from Julian Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Hey, good morning. So first, you’ve talked a lot about the peaker asset sales. Just kind of curious – any outlook in terms of getting that done and the follow-up there? The Grand Towers unit, I imagine that one has got a better heat rate. How much did it run in the quarter?

Julian, I don’t have any specific data on Grand Tower or the other couple of peakers to share with you. We do expect the Grand Tower will be running more this year than it has in the past, given the low power prices. Overall on your other question, really no update on the overall process. Again, the put option was put in place really as more of a—if an emergency situation need arose, Genco could put those assets. You know, one of the things we pointed out on our year-end call was that Genco had money pool loans that were made to affiliates at year-end. Those balances have actually grown a little bit here in the first quarter. I think when you see their balance sheet, I think they’ve got about $95 million loan to affiliates, so really no immediate need for cash. There is—you know, the loans that have been made to affiliates, so there’s really no process underway right now to sell those assets. Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Great. And just to make sure I heard you loud and clear here, in terms of actually achieving that 0.38 standard under the new 2020 extension, there really is nothing incrementally for you to do – it’s probably just running a little bit more of the, call it running perhaps your scrubber just a little bit harder, or something like that. Is it something akin to that?

Julian, that’s right. We have the ability, given the controls we’ve put in place, to meet that more stringent standard, and with no additional cost. So we, again, believe that’s something that, as you say, if we push the scrubber equipment that we’ve got in place, we’ll be able to achieve that. Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: All right, great. Thanks for being explicit there.

Thank you. Our final question today is coming from Raymond Leung of Goldman Sachs. Please state your question. Raymond Leung – Goldman Sachs: Hey, guys. Thanks for the call. A couple of my big questions were answered with respect to where you were getting the cash on the put and the intercompany loan; but can you talk about how you guys are thinking about—I think in your K, you indicated that you may trip to your covenant. Should we just assume that bank line, you can’t access that going forward? And just to clarify, you indicated if you were to comply with the Illinois rule here that you probably wouldn’t see much of an incremental increase in the operating costs if you got the variance?

Right. So that is what I just said – is that we wouldn’t expect to see incremental operating costs as a result of the variance being granted. And I think your other question was—I’m sorry, could you repeat the other question? Raymond Leung – Goldman Sachs: Well, you guys indicated in your K that you may sort of trip an interest covenant test. Can you talk about how you’re thinking about that and how you may try to deal with that, or if you think you can deal with it at all?

Yeah, yeah. I’m sorry – I was focused on the second question and had forgotten the first. But yeah, when you end up seeing our disclosures for the first quarter, they’ll mirror those from year-end, that essentially based on the covenant that borrowings at Genco we forecast to be restricted by the end of the first quarter of next year. So there won’t be any change in the disclosures in the Q relative to the K, which is why we put the put option in place. We wanted to make sure there was clarity in terms of if Genco needed access to cash, access to liquidity, how would it arrange that, because as you say, looking ahead one might assume really no borrowing access under the revolver, based on that disclosure that we’ve made. Raymond Leung – Goldman Sachs: Okay, thanks.

Okay, this is Doug Fischer. I want to thank everybody for participating in today’s call. Let me remind you again that this call is available for one year on our website. You may also call the contacts listed on the release. Financial analyst inquiries should be directed to me, Doug Fischer, or to Matt Thayer. Media should call Brian Bretsch. Our contact numbers are on the news release. Again, thank you for your interest in Ameren Corporation and have a good day.

This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.