Greetings and welcome to the Ameren Corporation first quarter 2017 earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief 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. Doug Fischer, Senior Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, you may begin.

Thank you and good morning. I am Doug Fischer, Senior Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. On the call with me today are Warner Baxter, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Marty Lyons, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as well as 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 the amereninvestors.com website. Further, this call contains time-sensitive data that is accurate only as of the date of today's live broadcast and redistribution of this broadcast is prohibited. To assist with our call this morning, we have posted on the amereninvestors.com website a presentation that will be referenced by our speakers. To access this, please look in the Investors News and Events section of this website under Events and Presentations. Acronyms used in the presentation are defined in the glossary on the last page. Turning to page two of the presentation, please note 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. For additional information concerning these factors, please read the forward-looking statements section in the news release we issued today and the forward-looking statements and risk factors sections in our filings with the SEC. Warner will begin this call with an overview of first quarter results, full year 2017 earnings guidance and a business update. Marty will follow with more detailed comments on the financial results and outlook. We will then open the call for questions. Before Warner begins, I would like to mention that all per share earnings amounts discussed during today's presentation, including earnings guidance are presented on a diluted basis, unless otherwise noted. Now here is Warner, who will start on page four of the presentation.

Thanks Doug. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us. Before I provide my business update, I want to first welcome Shawn Schukar to our executive leadership team. On May 1, Shawn took over as President of Ameren Transmission Company upon the retirement of Maureen Borkowski who had an incredible career at Ameren. Shawn is a 30-year veteran of this industry and over the last several years, he has worked side-by-side with Maureen and the entire transmission team in developing and executing Ameren's transmission strategy. I am confident that we will not skip a beat in executing our strategic plan for our transmission business under his leadership. Welcome, Shawn. Now on to my business update. I want to begin by expressing my deep appreciation to our coworkers, our community's first responders, volunteers, leaders and emergency personnel who have been tirelessly working together to help protect the citizens of Missouri and Illinois from the record floods that we have experienced this week. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those that have lost loved ones, their homes or businesses during this very trying period of time. From an operational perspective, our coworkers have continued to work safely and our system has held up well despite these challenging conditions. However, this unprecedented weather is not over. So we will continue to be focused on safety in all of our activities and we will continue to work closely with local and state authorities to deliver energy to our customers in a safe and reliable fashion. Moving now to our financial results. Earlier today, we announced first quarter 2017 earnings of $0.42 per share compared to earnings of $0.43 cents per share in the first quarter of 2016. Highlighted on this page are key drivers of these results, which Marty will discuss in…

Great. Thanks Warner and good morning everyone. Turning now to page nine of our presentation. As Warner mentioned, we reported first quarter 2017 earnings of $0.42 per share compared with earnings of $0.43 per share for the year-ago quarter. On this page we highlight by segment the key factors that drove the overall $0.01 per share decrease. Starting with Ameren Transmission, the earnings per share contribution from this segment increased from $0.11 per share in the first quarter of 2016 to $0.14 per share in the first quarter of 2017. This growth was driven by increased transmission infrastructure investments at ATXI and Ameren Illinois, which both operate under constructive FERC formulaic rate making. Next, the Ameren Illinois Electric Distribution segment saw its first quarter year-over-year contribution rise from $0.04 to $0.12 per share. This reflected the favorable impact of the 2017 change in the timing of interim period revenue recognition resulting from the recently enacted Future Energy Jobs Act. This act modified the existing formulaic rate making by decoupling our distribution revenues from sales volumes. While this change will impact quarterly comparisons, it will not affect full year earnings. First quarter 2017 earnings at Ameren Illinois Electric Distribution also benefited from increased infrastructure investments as well as a higher allowed return on equity under formulaic rate making of 9.06% compared to 8.71% for the year-ago quarter. Turning to Ameren Missouri. First quarter year-over-year earnings declined from $0.06 to $0.02 per share. Approximately $0.03 of that decline was due to lower electric sales primarily driven by very mild winter temperatures. As a matter fact, first quarter 2017 temperatures were the second warmest on record since 1970, based on heating degree data in our service territory. The Ameren Missouri comparison was also unfavorably affected by higher depreciation expense, which reduced earnings by…

[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning.

Good morning Paul.

Good morning Paul.

The FERC completed and I am sorry if I missed this, so the DC Circuit decision, does that change any of this, in your opinion?

Yes. Paul, this is Marty. We commented on that right there at the end of our prepared remarks. That case, I wouldn't say has any direct impact on the MISO ROE complaint cases, but of course the methodology that the FERC used to determine the outcome of the first complaint case and also underscored the ALJ's decision in the second complaint case. We are certainly in line with that methodology that the FERC used in the New England case. So again, no direct impact, but of course the methodology did underlie the findings of the FERC and the ALJ, as I mentioned. So as we look ahead, we suspect that once the FERC has a quorum and they look to decide on the second complaint case, they will want to take into consideration the court's findings in the first case as they think about how they will rule in the second. And it's hard to predict, but we suspect that it could end up factoring into the timing in terms of the FERC's in the second case.

But with respect to the 2016, the finding whether or not the original rate was unjust and unreasonable, that element doesn't seem to be, do I understand that you don't think that portion of the DC Circuit's ruling applies? Is that right? Or is not applicable to this? That's what I am a little bit confused about.

Well, I think in our cases, like in the New England case, I mean they have to do both, right. They have to determine that the existing rate is unjust and unreasonable and then secondarily determine that the new rate is properly supported by the evidence in the record. So I think both of those things apply in both of the cases. And so I think when they look at those cases, they will be taking both of those things into consideration.

Okay. And then just on the 9% rate base growth in Illinois and should we expect a decrease in O&M or fuel and purchase power costs or just in general operational cost or productivity increase as a result of this? Or is it where the rate base goes, that doesn't really do that as kind of replacement or what happened? So I just wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on that.

Yes. I assume you are specifically talking about the electric distribution. But absolutely, what the customers in Illinois are seeing as a result of the investments we are making are both improvements in reliability and decreased costs overall as a result of the investments we are making. And I would also note that over time, the customers rates are also being positively impacted by the lower power and capacity prices that we have been seeing in the Illinois apart from the positive impact of the investments that we are making in the Illinois electric distribution system.

Do you think because of the low, I mean Dynegy is kind of crying out there about how the price is so low they can't go on this way. Is there any opportunity for you guys to, I know things would actually have to change there in Illinois, but I am just wondering if there is an opportunity there for you to provide some sort of resource or something in Illinois or just any thoughts about what Dynegy is talking about with the low price that came in?

Yes. Look, I don't have any specific comment on what Dynegy is seeking. I will say this that today it seems like with respect to capacity that we have the resources in Illinois to serve our customer's need, that I think is evidenced by the low capacity price that we saw this year. Longer term, however, we are certainly concerned about capacity adequacy, reliability and volatility of rates for our customers and as we have in the past, we stand ready to work with all parties in terms of resource adequacy for the State of the Illinois.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Joe Zhou with Avon Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. It's Andy Levi. How are you guys doing?

Good morning Andy. How are you?

I am doing well. Just on the Missouri rate order that you have got and I know you kind of went over it, but I just want to understand the earnings power of it. Can we just go over the three components and how they benefit the income statement, $92 million to $54 million and the $26 million?

Yes. So Andy, this is Marty. Absolutely. I think if you refer to slide 10, you will probably get the best picture of that overall in terms of how we expect the impacts to occur. Obviously the first element, which is the $92 million overall increase in rates, which was about 3.5%in terms of customer rate increases, the primary driver. And I would say this year just because of the timing of our rate structure, which we have higher rates in the summer months, about 80% of that will be realized this year. But if you look at slide 10 and you look down the list, one of the other elements of the case was the net base fuel costs that are embedded in the rates were lowered. That becomes the base on which any prospective changes in net fuel and purchase power costs are measured. And then lastly, we saw lower amortizations or lower base for things that are amortizations that reflected in riders and trackers also reduced by about $26 million. So those are the primary impacts. We list those in the slides. It's the $92 million rate increase. It's $54 million of reduced net base energy costs and then the $26 million of lower net amortizations. And as you see on slide 10, we list out some of those components.

I do see that. And this is just, this is not the annualized affect. This is nine months. Is that correct?

Yes. That's a good point too, Andy. That is the nine month impact. And so as we look ahead to next year, we would see the full annualized impact of that. That's why I mentioned on the $92 million, it's about 80% of that's realized this year. On the other two, it's about three quarters, about 75% realized this year.

Right. So really I mean it's not $170 million rate increase, but it's $170 million of earnings benefit pretax.

Yes. The rate increase was $92 million, like I said, which is about 3.5%. But then on slide 10, we show you the overall impact.

Right. And any of those other two components. What have you built into your forecast for 2017 relative to these three items?

In our forecast for 2017, that's what we have got on slide 10, as I am understanding.

I understand that. But originally when you came out with a forecast?

You are talking about the guidance?

Yes. I think the settlement had been already out there, is that correct, before you gave guidance?

It is. I understand your question now. When we came out with our guidance for this year, certainly that we had reached the settlement amongst the parties and we believe that the guidance range that we provided accommodated that outcome. Andy I think as you think about the guidance that we gave at the beginning of the year and what we are seeing here today, we have had about $0.08 of negative weather in the first quarter. And as you think about when we provided you that guidance, which was midway through February, certainly we had a sense that weather hit was very mild and that there were some negative impacts. We also had a sense of this constructive settlement that have been reached. However, the Commission had certainly not yet ruled on it and we really didn't know definitively when the rate increase would go into place. So when we gave that guidance, we certainly felt like the range that we gave was appropriate given the multiple things we had in front of us there. As we look ahead for the remainder of the year, when you think about the first quarter and if you look ahead, in the first quarter we had about a negative $0.08 of weather and that was offset when you think about the first quarter by this change in the timing of the revenue recognition in Illinois. But the Illinois item is simply a timing item whereas the weather is more permanent, if you will, unless we see some weather variation in the next nine months. So as we look ahead at the guidance, we obviously left our guidance unchanged and as we think about it, we expect that negative impact of the weather to be overcome in part by constructive outcome in the rate case and the timing of the rate increase, but also by continued financial management and disciplined cost control.

Okay. Thank you very much on that. And the other question is just kind of a big picture basis and the reason I am asking it, maybe I shouldn't, I mean hopefully I will like the answer. But obviously this Great Plains, Westar merger is having issues and may or may not happen as they filed for reconsideration today. But I don't know if that's a half-hearted effort or not, but whatever. But then the media talk was like, oh, well then Ameren is going to come and when everything is said and done and take a look at WR and I know you don't like to speak about specific names and all that. So I am not asking you to do that, but just in general, can you kind of address that because over the last two weeks there has been a lot of talk within the investment community concerning that and the concern around that?

Andy, this is Warner. I can be happy to address that. Number one, as you rightly said, we never comment on any rumors or M&A activities or speculative transactions, right. But as I said before and I will say it again, I want to be clear, we remain very focused, very focused on executing our strategic plan and that strategic plan is all about organic growth in our regulated business. It's all about executing that rate base growth that we talked about. And that plan has delivered strong total shareholder returns over the last three years. So that's where our focus is.

Thanks.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from Leslie Rich with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. You cited $0.07 per share in corporate from lower tax benefits from share-based compensation and as I go back and look at the first quarter of last year, your tax rate was particularly low. So I am just wondering if you could talk about sort of the timing there? Was that a benefit that you took in 2016 that didn't recur in 2017? Or is there something changing in terms of the new FASB rules on accounting for stock-based compensation?

Yes. Thanks Leslie. This is Marty. Yes, we actually adopted that accounting for stock-based compensation last year in the first quarter. And last year, if you look back, which we were pretty clear about, we had a $0.09 benefit from adoption of that standard in the first quarter of last year. And that really gets to a difference between the value of what employees received at that time versus what had been recognized previously in earnings. So there is a $0.09 benefit last year. This year the benefit was $0.02. And therefore the delta is a negative $0.07 year-over-year.

Okay. And then our tax rate for the full year, are you still thinking it will around 38%?

Absolutely, Leslie. Yes. That's right. So when you look at, it is lower here in the first quarter. I think it was around 35% and changed in terms of the effective tax rate, but we expect 38% for the full year.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow up from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. How's it going?

Hi Paul.

So just, you guys covered SB 190, but as you know, this has been going on for some time. Each legislative session, it seems like dejà vu, we had a filibuster before. I listened to some of debate as you mentioned this session. But how should we think about the fact that, first of all I don't know whether or not constitutionally or rule wise, what have you, if the filibuster could be broken? But I mean, I don't know what the rules actually are associated with that. So maybe you can elaborate a little bit on that? But I guess in the absence of that, how should we think about your legislative strategy, I guess, next year or what have you regarding this?

Paul, this is Warner. I will take a shot at it. Now, I will address both on them in terms of the bigger picture and sort of the dejà vu comment as well as sort of filibuster. Number one, it may feel like dejà vu, but I will tell you from my perspective, we have consistently made progress in advancing the discussion on important energy infrastructure legislation that will support investment. And I think what we have seen over the last two sessions has been that just meaningful progress in terms of stakeholder support, but also legislative support. And so of course, if it doesn't advances session, we are going to be disappointed. But from my perspective, what we have done in the Missouri legislature working with our other utilities across the state is make sure they understand the clear opportunities in terms of what's important to modernize the energy grid, but also those opportunities that those investments will create jobs. I think this is why you see such strong bipartisan support. This is why you saw we come out of Senate Commerce Committee with such a strong vote. Unfortunately as you rightly point out, we have had some challenges in avoiding the filibuster. And so in terms of the filibuster, there are two ways to address a filibuster or probably maybe three. Number one, you try and minimize the number of folks that are willing to filibuster and from our perspective, that number has meaningfully decreased from where it was in the past. Secondly, what you hope to do is try and find a compromise with those folks, but if not, then you need to be given adequate pour time to try and drive either negotiations or get something across the finish line. It's not unusual in the Missouri…

Okay. That's very helpful and very comprehensive. Just to make sure I understand personally because I don't want to monitor the thing forever. When you say that you would be disappointed, it sounds like you are not hopeful that it will pass, but do you think that there is a significant chance that it may pass still?

No. Well, Paul, what I said, we said it's unlikely. We have till May 12. So time is short. And so because of that I think it creates, it's very challenging for that Senate Bill 190 to get passed this legislative session.

Okay. But never say never, maybe.

You never say never. And we still, as I said also, that we are still trying to work on the constructive path forward with key stakeholders but the time is ticking.

And then just one final follow-up on the rate base growth question that I had about Illinois. Is there any quantitative number in terms of O&M or just cost savings in general that are associated with them that you have? I know you may not have off the top here, but I am just wondering if there is a rule of thumb that we should maybe be thinking about in terms of what might happen there in terms of, I don't know, smart meter lowering costs or what have you?

No. I don't know that there's really rule of thumb. If you look back at some of our prepared remarks today, you will notice some of the mention we gave to the improvement in reliability as well as some of the annual value that customers are realizing as a result of the broad infrastructure investments that we are making and we will continue to update those over time, Paul. I guess and I don't think I have a good metric for you and we will look at whether one of those exist, but clearly over time as we invest more in our smart infrastructure as we roll out more of our smart meters to our customers in Illinois, both the electric meters as well as the gas meter modules, we will provide continuing updates on the improvements that we are seeing in overall reliability and cost savings that we are bringing to the customers. And in the meantime, we will work with some of our folks in operations to see whether we can come up with some meaningful metrics that we might provide going forward in terms of the savings.

Great. I really appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

Thanks Paul.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Neil Kalton with Wells Fargo Securities. Please proceed with your question.

Yes. Hi guys. Thanks for taking my call.

Hi Neil.

So really you answered most of my questions on SB 190and the last question or the last answer, but just a follow-up, I think your points are well taken that in the state, the legislative support, other support, something is this really strong. So what point in time, tactically, do you say maybe going down the legislative route we don't need to do that as much anymore and really look for solutions just going straight to the regulators themselves? Would that be something that you would rethink as we think about 2017 and 2018 and beyond?

Hi Neil. This is Warner. Look, the bottom line is that in moving policies forward, we consider both the legislative route and consider the regulatory route. You have seen us in regulatory, the rate cases advance policies that are within the tools that the Commission currently has. So that's always an option. But we also pursue the legislative option. And we think too clearly that that is a big good sustainable path as well. So there is no point of inflexion. There's no black or white line that let's you go through, to say here's the time. The point is, we factor a number of things into our thinking around that. But the most important thing is that we get it done for the State of Missouri and for our customers. And Michael, you have some additional comments around this?

Well, I think the important thing associated with the legislative side is creating that consistency, right. I mean I think the uncertainty associated with the regulatory processes that you are looking for is some long-term investments to make and that's really what we see through the legislative process is giving us the window to do that. That's why we have been so focused on.

Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from Joe Zhou with Avon Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. It's Andy again.

Hi Andy.

So I guess the points are kind of well taken on the legislation. So it just seems like that strategy is going to kind of work in Missouri and maybe it does but God only knows when. So on the regulatory front, what are you thinking there? I mean you have kind of backed off spending more money and allocating more money to Illinois, which obviously is the right strategy and not as much to Missouri. At the same time, you have got a pretty fair rate order. And we are also compensated for Noranda in the latest filings. And I guess there's been some workshops but over my career, workshops tend not always to be too much. What's the thinking now in Missouri CapEx wise, investment wise? Is it still kind of to not invest as much as you had planned? Or as much as maybe the legislation would have allowed? Or at some point do you decide to kind of go the more traditional route and start ramping up the investment there? And obviously there is regulatory lag, but also working with the Commission to try to, the words are eliminate that, but to kind of be able to work recover cost on a timely basis Missouri wise? I am not saying timely in general but just Missouri wise. So what's the thinking in that?

Andy, this is Warner. I will hit the highlights and certainly Marty and/or Michael can join in. My view is that we are pretty clear about what our five-year plan is. I mean it's laid out there and clearly the compound annual growth rate from Missouri is what it is, it's laid out there in the slides, about 2%. And we feel very comfortable with that. And the strong robust plan, the 6% rate growth plan that we talk about is not contingent on regulatory reform in Missouri. But we have also said, if we have regulatory reform in Missouri, whether it comes through legislative means, whether it comes to regulatory means or a combination thereof, it will give us the ability to put more money to work in the State of Missouri and therefore enhance that investment profile. So I think that's really how I see it going forward. Michael, any other comments?

Yes. That's right. Just want to be clear that we are investing to maintain safe and adequate service here in the State of Missouri. There's no question about that. We are missing an opportunity I think to modernize this grid. And what we are doing in Illinois today, I think, is a great example. But we are going to continue to stay after this. But just want to be clear about the investments that we are making today in the State of Missouri.

Absolutely right.

I understand that. I mean obviously you are going to run the system the best you can. It's just a matter of modernizing the system to where other states are at right now. But you don't get to a point where, not because the system is not running well, don't misunderstand me, but where you decide, okay, the legislative route is not working. Obviously you are trying not only to run a really good system in this area, but also trying to make a point too without proper regulatory reform or treatment, it's very hard as a business to make those investments, especially when you have opportunities across the border in Illinois. So at what point do you decide to make those investments and I want to regardless or are you saying that you won't unless there is reform?

Again, this is Michael Moehn. I think it's looking for that certainly. I think you said it well. I mean, as we said before, we are maintaining safe and adequate service. We are allocating where we can in other jurisdictions today. We will continue to look at all tools that we have in front of us, legislative or regulatorily and if we see an opportunity, we will certainly take it, but it is that certainty that we are missing today and we have better opportunities. But again we are going to continue to invest where we have to maintain the system that customers are expecting from us.

So the bottom line, Andy, is, we feel comfortable with our plan.

I know you do.

And we have been pretty clear.

So we are going to continue to stay at it because we think it's simply the right thing to do for our customers, for the State of Missouri and our shareholders.

I mean, obviously, we like your story quite a bit. And you guys have done a very, very good job. But I guess at the same time, I could see some higher growth from Missouri, obviously that would enhance the growth rate of the corporation as well beyond the 6% through 2021. But I completely hear what you are saying. I mean, Missouri regulation is, again this is me talking, not the company, somewhat arcane in the way that they do things and makes it difficult, both on an investment basis as a investor and also for you guys as well. But okay. Thank you very much.

Thanks for your question, Andy.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to Mr. Fischer for closing remarks.

Thank you for participating in this call. Let me remind you again that a replay of the call will be available for one year on our website. If you have questions, you may call the contacts listed on our earnings release. Financial analyst inquiries should be directed to meet, Doug Fischer or my associate Andrew Kirk. Media should call Joe Muehlenkamp. Our contact numbers are on the release. Again, thank you for your interest in Ameren and have a great day.

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day.