Greetings, and welcome to the Ameren Corporation's Fourth Quarter 2018 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. Andrew Kirk, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. You may begin.

Thank you and good morning. 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. Warner and Marty will discuss our earnings results and guidance as well as provide a business update. Then we will open the call for questions. Before we begin, let me cover a few administrative details. This call contains time-sensitive data that's 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 a presentation on the amereninvestors.com homepage that will be referenced by our speakers. As noted on Page 2 of the presentation, 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 Statement section in the news release we issued today and the Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors sections in our filings with the SEC. Lastly, all our per share earnings amounts discussed today during today's presentation including earnings guidance are presented on a diluted basis unless otherwise noted. Now here's Warner, who will start on Page 4 of the presentation.

Thanks, Andrew. Good morning everyone, and thank you for joining us. Earlier today, we announced 2018 core earnings of $3.37 per share compared to $2.83 per share earned in 2017. Marty will discuss the drivers of our 2018 results in few minutes. I'd like to highlight some key accomplishments that are indicative of our team's strong performance in 2018 and importantly that will position Ameren for success in years ahead. As you can see from this slide, we were very busy in 2018. 2018 marked another year of solid earnings growth driven by the successful execution of our strategy across all of our businesses. Our strategy is to invest in rate-regulated energy infrastructure continuously improve operating performance and adequate responsible energy policies to deliver superior customer and shareholder value. Our customers are at the center of our strategy. Simply put, we're focused on meeting our customer's energy needs and exceeding their expectations and in so doing, delivering superior shareholder value. With these objectives in mind, we made $2.3 billion of investments in 2018 it resulted in a more reliable, resilient and secure energy grid. As well as strong rate base growth and we were pleased to be able to pass onto customers in a very timely fashion, the savings from the lower federal income tax rate. In 2018, we also achieved constructive outcomes in many regulatory proceedings that will help drive additional investments for the benefit of customers and shareholders. I was also pleased by the fact, that many of these constructive regulatory outcomes were supported by strong collaboration with key stakeholders which ultimately resulted in agreements on the key issues. In our Illinois businesses, we received approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission on our electric delivery and natural gas rate reviews consistent with our request. In addition, we were…

Thanks Warren and good morning, everyone. Turning now to Page 13 of our presentation. Today we reported 2018 GAAP earnings of $3.32 per share compared to GAAP earnings of $2.14 per share for the prior year. As outlined in the table on this page excluding the 2018 and 2017 non-core non-cash charges for the revaluation of deferred taxes of $0.05 and $0.69 per share respectively. Ameren reported core earnings of $3.37 per share for 2018 compared to core earnings of $2.83 per share for 2017. Turning to Page 14, we highlight by segment the key factors that drove the overall $0.54 per share increase in 2018 core earnings compared to 2017 results. Ameren Missouri, our largest segment and also the largest driver of the year-over-year earnings increase experienced an increase of $0.50 per share from $1.48 per share in 2017 to $1.98 per share in 2018. This earnings improvement was largely driven by higher electric retail sales which contributed approximately $0.42 per share. The higher electric sales were primarily due to warmer summer and colder winter temperatures in 2018 compared to near normal summer and milder winter temperatures in the year ago period. In addition, the earnings improvement was higher electric service rates effective April 1, 2017 as well as the absence in 2018 of a Callaway energy center nuclear refueling and maintenance outage. Each contributed approximately $0.09 per share to 2018 compared to 2017. These favorable earnings drivers were partially offset by a planned increase in other operations and maintenance expenses primarily reflecting higher than normal scheduled non-nuclear plant outages, increased routine maintenance work and additional distribution reliability projects. Turning to the other segments, earnings for Ameren Transmission and Ameren Illinois Electric Distribution were up $0.09 and $0.03 respectively reflecting increased infrastructure investments. In addition, Ameren Illinois Electric Distributions…

[Operator Instructions] our first question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

This is actually Nick Campanella on for Julien.

No worries, how are you doing this morning?

Very good, congrats on the update here.

Thank you.

I just want to start quickly on the incremental equity funding for the wind. This is with an excess of the drift. Can you just expand at all in terms of the magnitude of the funding you did there, how we should think about quantifying that whether it's from solving for an FFO to debt metric or just in terms of how you plan to finance it?

Good morning Nick. This is Marty. I think it's probably good to step back and look at the totality of what we said, what we said on prior calls. We feel very good about the capitalization levels that we have today meaning the debt to equity ratios and that's both that parent as well as the various legal entities that we have and we're going to seek to keep levels in line with those or approximating those levels over the five-year guidance period. We believe we can do that given the retained earnings associated with our ongoing operations and some equity financing as we noted on the call. So the equity financing comes in two parts, I mean one of it that we noted is through the dividend reinvestment employee benefit programs. There we think we can generate about $100 million a year of equity proceeds or about 500 over the period. And then we expect to issue some additional equity in amount which equates to a portion of our ultimate wind investment as we mentioned on the call, that amount being sized to achieve the capital structure objectives that we talked about earlier. So - look I recognize you're maybe looking for a little bit more specificity, but as we think about what we said and we think about the wind. I'd also ask you to think about how Ameren Missouri is financed overall today which is about 52% equity knowing that the wind ultimately is going to end up in that legal entity.

Appreciate that. And then just like the timing of the wind CapEx, that should all be realized in one-year roughly, is that correct?

Nick, I think it's a good way to think about it. The 557 megawatts that we've announced today we're going to acquire through build-transfer agreements so there again we look for those deals to close between the middle of 2020 and end of 2020 and so I would be thinking about the cash flows occurring during that period of time.

Great and then my last question, just on sticking with Missouri. I think you had a net $1.5 billion increase in the five-year program. I saw that you filed I think grid mod plan and can you just talk about your expectations for grid mod versus the prior - your previous expectations for the $1 billion and if that has shifted it all?

Maybe I could talk a little bit about the overall investment picture, which is on the Slide 15 and then see if, you have some follow-up questions or we can elaborate in some way. In overall, we had a previously a plan of 2018 to 2022 obviously when you're rolled forward you're not only just spending within those periods but mid also, we're looking out to 2023. And so overall its $13.3 billion plan for the five-year period looking ahead. If you compare to the prior plan I think what you'd find is, as we've said we have a strong pipeline of growth in each of our segments and so as you look at the capital spend and the update four to five-year period for Ameren Illinois Electric Distribution, Ameren Illinois Natural Gas and Transmission. Those are all pretty consistent with the levels of investment that we made - we're planning for the prior five-year plan that we've given the real updates there. And I think, long - it should meet with generally expectations as we've added $1 billion for Ameren Missouri wind generation investment. This $1 billion is really associated with 557 megawatts that we've announced to-date. And then getting to your point, the capital expenditure plan outside of that wind for Missouri's $5.8 billion which compares favorably to the plan we had before which was $4.3 billion over five-year so, again it is $1.5 billion over the five-year period as you mentioned of course for rolling forward to a future period and so in any event. I think you're absolutely right as you would have expected given Senate Bill 564 in the wind generation investment. The investment Missouri overall is up in the plan.

Thanks. Congrats again.

Our next question comes from Ali Agha with SunTrust Robison. Please proceed with your question.

First question, I just wanted to clarify one of the remarks I think you made in your opening comments in regards to the 6% to 8% EPS CAGR that you have over the next five years. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did I hear it right the 8% CAGR would normalize for the Callaway outage and exclude that. Whereas the 6% would include that, did I hear that right? Or does the 8% also contemplate including the Callaway outage?

Good morning, this is Marty. Let me answer that. I think what we meant to say that Warner was saying is that, 6% to 8% range if you will would accommodate either inclusion or exclusion of the cost of the Callaway outage in 2023. Clearly we're planning for an outage in 2023, we had none in 2018. We think the best way to look at our earnings growth profile overtime is to normalize for things like the Callaway outage timing in weather. But we wanted folks to know that, whether you were thinking about earnings in 2023 including or excluding those costs that we believe, our earnings guidance range was such that would accommodate either.

I see. Just to be clear, so including if we include those cost and keep them in there that could still get us to an 8% CAGR.

Well it would depend on other things. Again it's a range, so what I'm saying is if you could include the cost it still get you into that range. If you exclude the cost you're within the range but wasn't really commenting on whether you would get to the 8% or not. Ali, I think the way to think about is, the range accommodates a number of things meaning. It accommodates ranges of treasury rates, allowed ROEs, earned ROEs, various spending levels, regulatory decisions, sales levels, economic conditions, financing plans, all of those things so when we give out the range, the range accommodates all of those variables that may occur.

Okay and second clarification as well Marty, so I think as you mentioned for the wind investments you're looking at completing those acquisitions mid-to-late 2020. And I'm assuming that to the extent as additional wind that comes in, that's also 2020 timeframe period. So when we think about additional equity should we think all of that, if required will be a 2020 event and all the other years we should model out $100 million a year or should we think differently. And also, for modeling purposes should we assume wind will be an earnings contributor and the incremental wind will be an earnings contributor in 2020.

Sure, Ali. Let me take those, I may take those little bit in reverse order. In terms of the wind as I mentioned one of things we want to get done as to get wind [ph] in 2020 working with the developers to make sure we take maximum advantage of the production tax credit. So with respect to the projects that we've announced to-date, the 557 megawatts as well as additional wind investments that we're pursuing that are not embedded in the current plans. In both cases, we're seeking to work with the developers to acquire projects that will get completed as I mentioned earlier in the second half of 2020. So as you think about that, there would be some earnings impact in 2020 but it really would depend on when those projects went into service or when they get into rate base in 2020. And you really get to I think a more full annualized benefit of the wind when you get into 2021 and as you get through the rate cases associated with those even into 2022, but you're really going to get to a more full annualized benefit again in that 2021 timeframe. Now as it relates to the equity, we talked about today we do expect incremental equity to fund a portion of the wind investment and so again those cash flows. You're right, occur in the 2020 timeframe so that's a consideration and then I would also say that, again we have not announced the - we aspire to acquire additional wind beyond the 557 and so as we complete those negotiations we'll be certainly thinking about financing that, in addition to what we've talked about, the wind we've announced to-date and will be thinking about the sizing in the way, that's consistent with what we discussed today and on prior calls.

Okay and last question. I know in the past when you talked about the SB 564 related CapEx you had mentioned at a minimum $1 billion over five years and I guess based on your commentary today it looks like it's more than a $1 billion at least embedded in this five-year plan. Does that still leave you room for even additional upside to that CapEx as we think about this five years or do you think this is pretty much what you expect to spend now going forward?

Ali, this is Warner. Thanks for the question, I'll let Michael comment a little bit further because he filed the Smart Energy Plan. I'll just start with this saying that, the robust infrastructure plan that we talked about over five years and 10 years in Missouri as I sit here today. It still remains robust beyond just the five years and frankly it continues to grow with various needs. Michael, you can talk a little bit about what you've incorporated in the five-year plan and certainly some opportunities that you continue to see from Missouri.

Well I mean, I think Warner just adding a little bit to that I mean obviously we have the $5.3 billion that we filed today on the electric side. As we get in and develop those plan and be able to show all the customer benefits. It's obvious that we're finding just more opportunities. I think you described as a robust plan. I would say that is absolutely the case. And we look forward to continue to work through time and looking for projects that are going to provide meaningful benefit to customers.

So the bottom line, when you look back three years ago when we talked about the plan that was filed. We look at the grid modernization opportunities every bit as robust today as we looked at them back then three years ago.

Understood. Thank you.

Our next question is from Insoo Kim with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.

Starting on the wind side, just to clarify by 2020 the 700 megawatts that you guys are targeting or at least 700 megawatts that implies I guess versus the current plan that you have today you'll have another around 150 megawatts at least announced in build-in transfer by 2020 or are you - when you're talking about negotiating with multiple developers are there opportunities beyond that 700 that you're talking about or is that largely it?

This is Michael Moehn, as we think about it today we're obviously very focused on that 700 megawatts for the Missouri renewable standard having that 15% by 2021. Obviously we're keeping our mind and options open as we move through time in terms of other offerings that we out there, but we're really focused on filling out, that 700 megawatts at this point.

Understood. And then on the cost side, I think in the past you've targeted not making formal guidance but I was trying to [indiscernible] growth slight on a year-over-year basis, is that still part of your plan?

Go on Marty, please.

Yes, Insoo this is Marty. As we look ahead I mean that continues to be our goal. I mean we recognize that one of our objectives is to make sure that we can carry out this $13.3 billion infrastructure plan for the benefit of our customers and keep rates affordable along the way. So we will look to keep tight control on our O&M cost as we look ahead.

Understood and then maybe just one more if I could. The recent electric vehicle decision, I know it's a fairly small part of your investment opportunity. But that decision for the five-year $4 million or so does that basically cap how much you're going to be spend in that arena at least for the medium term.

Again this is Michael, I would say it's a start with respect to what we're trying to do from a transportation perspective. We're excited about having the opportunity to build out this corridor. I think we'll continue to evaluate overtime. The commission has actually opened up a workshop to have some further conversations beyond just the charging corridor they approved, so that could all planned up including other types of charging as well. So we look forward to engaging in a discussion, see if we can move this discussion forward.

Mike, I'll just add. I think this is clearly a step forward and importantly I think what Mike and his team have been able to do is just raise the level of awareness and the conversation in the State of Missouri on this. And so this is what we have today, but dialog it will be ongoing here in the relative near future and we look forward to continue to lean further forward in the electrification because we think there are real opportunities and benefits for our customers in the State of Missouri and we will be looking at similar types of things frankly in the State of Illinois too because we see similar benefits over there as well.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.

Congratulations on a constructive update.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to discuss the Smart Energy Plan filed in Missouri and just better understand the regulatory process and just how we think about where procedurally it goes from here. It's obviously great that, the customer bills [ph] are, the bill impact is capped. It seems to all makes sense but I just wanted to understand a little bit more about what we should be looking for, now that you've made that filing.

Sure, Michael why don't you talk about that? Because I know it's some of this is embedded in Senate Bill 564, so why don't you give an update there.

Perfect. Thanks for the question. Obviously it's an important filing that we did today with the commission. We're required to layout and quite a bit of detail for 2019 where our investments are going to go and then little less detail for the next four years through 2023. What else is contemplated, is public meeting that's scheduled for March 4 will again layout the customer benefits associated with this, where our investments are going etc and get some feedback from that. And then obviously Senate Bill 564 didn't change the Commissions' authority anyway, so they'll have a chance to weigh in this as we go through regular rate reviews and have an opportunity to look at where we're making investments etc. so we look forward to engaging with them around this, getting feedback along the way.

Let me just add Stephen. When you look at the details of the plan. I think these are things that we've been talking about is needed in the State of Missouri frankly for many years and so I think what we've now provided is just greater levels of detail and as we referred to little bit earlier. Michael and his team have put together a plan three years ago almost now, that highlighted some of these things. So lot of dialog and conversations around these have been discussed before now we're giving a lot more detail, which I think is certainly appropriate at this time.

Yes that's right. I mean the other thing just to note is, we have been operating under this Senate Bill 564 really since September 1 and next thing you noted, the 6% rate reduction that occurred is part of the tax refund. We obviously had some solar rebates that we were required to do, all of that has been taken care of. We recently economic development rider approved. So I give you that, just because there are number of aspects that we have been executing underneath Senate Bill 564 for some time.

And that all makes sense, it does seem consistent what you've talked about before. And just shifting over to Illinois, I guess there is some discussion of potential movement towards greater levels of clean energy in this state. I'm curios from your system perspective or just more broadly investment opportunities, changes to grid. Anything else that you foresee, if the state did in fact move towards greater levels of clean energy.

Sorry, Stephen it is Warner. And then Richard feel free to jump in. Big picture when you think about renewable generation we're not allowed to own renewable generation in State of Illinois. So we stay very mindful of the activities there because certainly since we purchased energy on behalf of our customers we want to make sure that rates continue to be good, as well as making sure that the reliability is spot through. Having said that, Richard was at the table with key stakeholders during the Governor's transition period and they talked about transition plan around energy policy. One of things that we pointed out very clearly is that, the energy policy in the State of Illinois is working quite well and the formulate rates is working quite well and so, we see that there are investments opportunities associated with that and for our distribution business to make sure we can continue to deliver the safe reliable service for our customers, we will do so. If we become more broadly in terms of renewable generation, certainly we will be thoughtful about transmission opportunities because we've said this before and we'll say it again when you look at the MISO footprint. There are lot of wind and solar projects going on in the MISO footprint and we stand ready and are able to help implement those, with not just in a connection agreements, but perhaps sometime down the road. There'll be an opportunity for multi-value projects. Early innings, but we could see that as a potential opportunity and so Richard, I know that you've been working with your team over there, anything that you would add to what I said.

You covered it perfectly. I think that's really good observation of how it's going work.

Thank you very much.

[Operator Instructions] our next question comes from Kevin [indiscernible] with Citadel. Please proceed with your question.

Just to clarify, is the implied cost for KW on the 557 megawatts wind, do you guys right now a reasonable proxy for what would cost you to get you up to the 700?

This is Michael Moehn, I think it's difficult, you got to be a little careful with it just because so many different factors apply here in terms of there's some benefits associated with doing projects in State. There's 1.25% credit versus outstay there's capacity factor issue, so you can probably draw some conclusions, we got to be a little careful with it, just in terms of some of the specifics.

Okay, fair enough. But the actual target amount is the 700 megawatts, correct?

That is what we're focused on.

Kevin, maybe I'll add to that though and build off of what Michael said into earlier. I mean hitting 700 neatly is a difficult thing to do. These projects vary in sizes. One of things we said, if you look closely at the wording we used, we said at least 700. It could be that the ultimate project that selected and picked would actually be, get us to a number that was above 700 because again it's difficult to find a site that neatly gets you to 700. So we think it's going to be at least 700. But the target again is to fulfil the requirements under the renewable energy standard, which we believe is would approximate about 700.

Okay, that's helpful. And the other thing is, I think a securitization build has been introduced in the Missouri legislature. I know you guys have said in the past, you have very low dispatch cost on your coal fleet. But if the securitization was past, would that change the dynamic there and kind of still for fuel type of outlook?

You're right, there are couple of securitization builds fooling [ph] around. Look I would just say, at a very high level and Marty can certainly add to this. I mean we're having some conversations with the stakeholders and none of those bills have been assigned to committee yet. So they had a hearing at this point, we look forward to continue to have some conversations around the details of these bills and what benefit there may or may not be there for us.

Are these bills being? Are you guys sponsoring these bills or supporting these bills? Or is that all just to be determined?

Yes that is all to be determined.

That's great. Well thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, we reached the end of question-and-answer session. At this time, I would like to turn the call back to Andrew Kirk for closing comments.

Thank you for participating in this call. A replay of this call will be available for one year on our website. If you have questions, you may call the contact listed on our earnings 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. And we thank you for your participation.