(Operator Instructions) Welcome to the Constellation Energy Group’s First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. I will now turn the meeting over to the Executive Director of Investor Relations for Constellation, Mr. Carim Khouzami.

On slide two, before we begin our presentation, let me remind you that our comments today will include forward looking statements which are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. For a complete discussion of these risks, we encourage you to read our documents on file with the SEC. Our presentation is being webcast and the slides are available on our website, which you can access at www.constellation.com under Investor Relations. On slide three, you will notice we will use non-GAAP financial measures in this presentation to help you understand our operating performance. We have attached an appendix to the charts on the website, reconciling non-GAAP measures to GAAP measures. With that, I would like to turn the time over to Mayo Shattuck, Chairman, President, and CEO of Constellation Energy.

This morning we reported first quarter adjusted earnings of $1.43 per share. Including one time items Constellation reported first quarter GAAP earnings of $0.95 per share. We are reaffirming our 2010 guidance range of $3.05 to $3.45 per share. We are lowering our 2011 guidance range by $0.20 to $3.25 to $3.65 per share. This reflects the impact of significantly lower forward commodity prices on our Generation fleet which contributes to a reduction in our 2011 earnings outlook of approximately $0.40. We expect this decline to be offset in part by improving earnings from our NewEnergy segment. Jack will discuss this in more detail during the financial section of the presentation. During the quarter, our NewEnergy segment continued to generate strong new business with retail margins averaging at the upper end of our targeted range of $5.00 to $7.00 per MWH. The cash flows and earnings associated with these new contracts will be recorded over their duration which average about 18 months. We recently finalized our agreement with the DOE for a $200 million Smart Grid stimulus grant. We are excited about this project which represents the best of breed in the new generation of utility operations. Our Smart Grid system will transform BGEs relationship with its customers, improving service, billing and general reliability while providing significant energy and peak demand savings. Additionally this system will provide greater insight into BGEs operations better informing capital investments in other operational decisions. We await a Maryland PSC order regarding our proposed initiative which we expect during the second quarter. This month we announced the close of Criterion a 70 MW wind project located in Western Maryland. The project is expected to cost about $140 million and will be constructed and owned by Constellation. This project includes the 20 year power purchase agreement…

Turning to slide 10 I’ll review our financials for this first quarter 2010. Backing out one time special items our first quarter adjusted earnings were $1.43 per share. Strong performances by each of our core business operations contributed to these positive results. As Mayo mentioned, our GAAP earnings for the first quarter 2010 were $0.95 per share. During the quarter we recognized special items of $0.48 per share. Details of these items can be found on slide 16 in the additional modeling section. BGE recorded adjusted earnings of $0.32 per share for the first quarter 2010 as compared to $0.41 per share for the first quarter of 2009. As you may know, BGE records approximately half of its annual earnings in the first quarter of any given year on account of the seasonal demand for natural gas and electricity. The decrease in earnings per share as compared to the first quarter 2009 is largely attributable to the effects of the winter storms endured in the Mid Atlantic region, as record snow storms blankets this area, causing outages and line damage which BGE employees worked around the clock to restore. Costs related to storms in the first quarter 2010 were approximately $0.06 higher than for the same period in 2009. Our Generation segment reported adjusted earnings of $0.44 per share down $0.04 as compared to adjusted earnings of $0.48 in the first quarter of 2009. Given that we are fully hedged in 2010 the quarter’s decline in spot prices did not have a material impact on our first quarter earnings. Rather, the decrease in earnings per share as compared to the first quarter 2009 is related to the sale of 50% of our nuclear assets to EDF, partially offset by lower interest expenses due to the retirement of the EDF preferred…

Before turning the call over to questions let me conclude with just a few thoughts. The uncertainty of the current commodity environment weighs heavily on everyone on this call. We, however, see opportunity. We have built a company and a strategy with the flexibility to deal with all phases of the commodity cycle, weather and the troughs and harvesting value at the peaks. We are using our excess cash balances and financial stability to further transform Constellation into the leading customer focused merchant generation company. Our first quarter is an important step on the road to realizing this strategic vision. With that, I’ll turn it over for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: I was wondering if you could just elaborate a little bit more on the NewEnergy expansion. From what we saw at the analyst day, am I hearing that the volumes you guys expect to sell out of NewEnergy you’re going to go higher than the stable number you talked about before?

With respect to margins we continue to see them coming in at the high end of the $5.00 to $7.00 range. To your volumes comment, as you recall, in a declining price environment we have to reserve less collateral against perspective market stresses. In the current environment we see the opportunity to expand the volumes perceptively of the business we’re doing without any impact to the balance sheet or our available net liquidity.

We’re very pleased with the business opportunities that we’ve seen this past quarter in particular the margin. Volumes, I believe we have in one of the modeling pages and you can see that we’re forecasting I believe 134 TWH of volume, pretty equally split between the retail and the wholesale business for 2010 and that’s pretty consistent with what we shared with you at analyst day. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: We’re then assuming that, how much volume increase do you have based on the lower collateral obligations, does that mean that 134 is 150 or 160 or is it more small increments of increased volumes?

For 2010 134 is what we think we’re going to do this year as you look out maybe you start thinking about 10 to 12 TWH increase as a range for 2011. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: What are you guys seeing with the financial reform package coming through right now how it’s going to affect the trading and positioning around the NewEnergy business broadly and then within the specifics of the business.

You probably prefaced that correctly where it might be a little too early. It’s been a very, very dynamic week on that front. I think that the industry is still very much focused on the end user exemption language and the definition of major swaps, swap dealer and I think we believe that, that’s probably the most important issue; we believe that the intent is actually to have an end user exemption. We continue to be very much involved in that debate with all constituencies and I think that the industry representatives EEI and others involved in this debate have really spent an enormous amount of productive effort making sure people understand what is an obviously complicated issue. We will not let up on that with the prospect obviously that there are amendments to come and there is a regulatory process and rule making process to come. I think that it’s going to be important that all of us continue to focus on the intent and I think that we feel that the work done today is going to end up in a place where the industry falls largely under this end user exemption issue. Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse: Any thoughts on when you expect to hear the DOE on the loan guarantee?

Our application with the DOE is complete now after months of interaction and complying with their requests for additional data and reviews. Further, our negotiations with DOE are now finished. The key step that we now await is approval by the DOE credit review board, that is the final step at DOE that’s required so that they can issue their commitment letter. We understand there’s also a White House review process underway as well. In summary, given all that we anticipate getting a DOE loan guarantee commitment letter in the next several weeks.

Your next question comes from Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Andrew Weisel – Macquarie : The first question has to do with the volumes in NewEnergy it looks like they’ve actually, the projected volumes for this year have actually come down by about 5 TWH from the last update. Given the counter cyclical nature and the lower power prices why is that directionally going down and is that conservative?

The volumes that we have in the 134 it’s just our current forecast and update and it contemplates whatever activities we’re seeing from the economic cycle and this mix of the business between our wholesale and our retail business. We feel very strong about what we’ve seen in the quarter with respect to new originated business from both a volume and more particularly from a margin standpoint and we feel pretty comfortable with what we’re presenting here today. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie : About future asset acquisitions, obviously you can’t get too specific but should we think about the regional priorities based on where you’re most short load or is it more a matter of which regions are most appealing kind of in absolute terms?

Our objectives continue to be the same that we’ve expressed obviously an interest in the Northeast and Texas as being the places where we have the largest load obligations and the least amount of Generation capacity, in the case of Nepool none. We will continue to focus on both regions, those are the highest priorities. We think that during the course of the year there are going to be some opportunities that arise in those regions. Andrew Weisel – Macquarie : 2010 you’re basically fully hedged but for some reason it looks like the average hedge prices have come down by a couple percent. How does that work there just mathematically?

The answer to that question is quite simple. This is the amount for the remainder of the year whereas the prior estimate was for a full year so it’s really just the nature of hedges rolling off and impacting the averages.

Your next question comes from Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: I jumped on a little bit late; I just heard the tail end of what you said your economic assumptions were for the acquisition of the Navasota plant. Can you review that again?

In terms of un-levered returns we’d expect to earn within our targeted range of 8% to 10% on a mid cycle EBITDA we believe we paid seven times EBITDA for the plant and that’s before you consider any of the insurance benefits or business support benefits of the plant for our ERCOT retail activities and wholesale activities. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: You’re basically assuming then that spark spreads rise from where they are now by $5.00 or $6.00 per MWH because right now it looks to me based on that math like you’re assuming a spark spread closer to $20 a MWH?

I think in looking at those plants it’s important not just to focus on actual spark spreads but also the ancillary services that these plants provide. They do offer the ability to respond quickly to the intermittency associated with wind. I think on a longer term perspective the fundamentals certainly support an increase in heat rates in ERCOT you’re seeing demand grow there that state is growing faster and participating in the economic recovery to a greater degree than many of the other states in the union. We do see reserve margins there getting below that 15% threshold that does tend to signal new build responses and in ERCOT it’s going to have to show up in power prices as opposed to capacity that you would see in a market like PJM. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: There’s some combination of increases in heat rate and/or ancillary services that adds several dollars a MWH to revenue versus where the curve currently is?

That’s correct plus the capacity factor of the plants we would expect it to increase as reserve markets tighten. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: There’s a dynamic impact, reserve margins tighten, capacity utilization goes up, at the same time that you’re realized revenue per MWH goes up but clearly you can’t justify buying the plants at the price you paid if you assumed that current forward curves were accurate? Asked another way, what EBITDA multiples did you pay on 2011 cash flow if the current curve were to continue to be in place?

Your earlier comment about our anticipation of recovery that exceeds current forwards plus the impact on the expected capacity factors that the assets is what makes the acquisition economic. These assets are uniquely leveraged to a recovery particularly given the price we paid for the assets, the transaction is modestly dilutive in ’10 and ’11 and we’d expect it to be break even and accretive in ’12 and beyond. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: My understanding was these assets were on the market for some time and lots of different potential acquirers had an opportunity to look at them. It seems that your rationale for acquiring them makes sense to me but it doesn’t seem like there’s any secret sauce to this. Where do you see something different do you think or where do you have a different edge versus let’s say the dozen or other entities which had an opportunity to look at these assets?

There was an auction process with these assets so if that’s what you mean by being on the market for some period of time. Clearly we won an auction process. I would suggest the secret sauce is the relationship that these assets of forward from a risk management perspective our NewEnergy business so insulating us from the super peak power price exposures and allowing us to hedge those exposures with gas which is far less volatile than the $1,000 per MWH prices we tend to see with some frequency in Texas during low wind, high temperature periods. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: You basically bought yourself a heat rate cap on top of the assets working based on your economic assumptions you also bought yourself a heat rate cap for your retail business?

It certainly insulates or clips the super peak exposure that is uniquely sized in the ERCOT market given their willingness to let power prices send new build signals because they don’t have the capacity market.

Your next question comes from David Frank – Catapult David Frank – Catapult: Do you have an estimate or could you provide us in percentage terms an estimate of NewEnergy’s your expected NewEnergy’s contributions to total earnings beyond 2011?

No. I think at this point given the time span between now and 2012 I don’t think that would be prudent given the open position we maintain and our expectations for a power price recovery. David Frank – Catapult: When I look to slide eight you have a bullet you talked about participating in the development of new nuclear and your partnership with EDF. You have a little segment that talks about attractive assuming among other things you minimize your exposure to cost over runs and delays. Is this where maybe the hidden value in that put could come into play?

As we talked about on analyst day, there are a number of issues that we’ve been addressing for close to four years now with respect to knocking off the risk profile of building a new nuclear plant. Certainly one of the big hurdles right in front of us is the loan guarantee process and in fact there’s a little bit of good news in the week in the sense that there seems to be growing support for expanding the volumes underneath the loan guarantee program, hopefully that’ll manifest itself. We have within the last month or so since analyst day just continued in the same path of developing processes to mitigate the other risks that we have associated with the project. Obviously cost over run is an issue that naturally we and our investors would be concerned about. We have a significant partner in all of this looking at the same economic issues and they have other broader aspirations and interests around the world with respect to the development of particularly the French nuclear industry. All of these things are in very active discussion at this point, as you might imagine this is a big year for new nuclear. As we suggested last time we take all of these variables into account in very active discussions with our partner and as those unfold during the course of the year we’ll be as disclosive about that as we can be. I definitely would represent that this is sort of the big year as most of these major risks get consummated and mitigated if we’re to proceed.

Your next question comes from Paul Fremont – Jefferies Paul Fremont – Jefferies: I’m confused on a number of fronts. You guys had an analyst meeting at the end of March in a commodity price environment that’s virtually identical to today but you chose to take down your guidance on the Generation side today rather than a month ago. Were you anticipating some improvement in the commodity prices between the analyst meeting and today or what was the logic there?

Clearly as we spoke to you and other analysts going into that meeting we acknowledged that prices had come down markedly during the quarter. As you know, we maintain an active investor calendar and so it was no secret that there was going to be some impact on perspective 2011 and beyond earnings if we marked to current market. With respect to the focus of that analyst day it was very much on the new segment outlook and we didn’t want to distract from the focus on the segment reporting and the fundamentals of the business by marking our earnings to market. With respect to what we’ve seen in power prices, we certainly gave you the detail and transparency to make your own assumptions in your models with respect to what the impact could be if you mark those earnings to market. I think we’ve been probably somewhat progressive relative to peers in the industry in acknowledging what the impact of the current forward markets will be on our 2011 earnings relative to peers and beyond. The final point I’d make is while we knew where prices were going to be given that the forwards you see are March 23rd, since that point if you were to market the end of April here we’ve seen a modest recovery from that period of somewhere between 4% and 8% in 2011 if you look at PGM and New York pricings. I don’t know that I would characterize our analyst day and the decision to reduce guidance here today as being addressed in a way that you perhaps described. Paul Fremont – Jefferies: The second area of confusion for me is you’ve talked about multiple of EBITDA in mid cycle. What you haven’t said is what should we expect is the EBITDA of the Texas plants. I think our own calculations were coming out somewhere in the $10 million range is that a reasonable assumption to use for EBITDA contribution in ’11 or are you coming up with something materially different?

I think it’s fair to say that with respect to those assets we’ve given you the heat rate, you know the capacity factors that they’ve been running and you can make your own assumptions around what the contributions from those specific assets will be in 2010 and 2011. I did comment earlier that the acquisition is modestly dilutive to ’10 and ’11 EPS and becomes break even to accretive in ’12 and beyond. Paul Fremont – Jefferies: Are the Texas assets included in the non-nuclear generation earnings outlook statistics or are they excluded from that?

They are not in there as we have not closed on the acquisition yet. Paul Fremont – Jefferies: Back at the analysts day the numbers that you provided I think had a return on cash assumption of 1.75% pre-tax is that assumption still what we should assume is baked into your guidance numbers?

Basically we used one year Libor strip to calculate the returns on the cash. I don’t think there’s been any meaningful news in Libor in that one year strip period.

Your last question comes from Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: Could you expand, talk a little bit more about the increase in guidance at NewEnergy in 2011 I guess it was a $0.20 increase and what drove that?

The short answer is higher than anticipated margins on new originated business and renewal business as well as expectations to grow other aspects of our NewEnergy business. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: Is the new guidance envisioning more volume in there than your prior guidance?

For 2011 it’s contemplated, as Kathy Hyle mentioned approximately 10 to 12 TWH of volume growth. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: You mean 10 to 12 TWH of volume growth versus your prior guidance or just versus 2010?

Versus 2010. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: How about versus your prior 2011 guidance? Are you now seeing more volumes and that was the main driver of the $0.20 increase in guidance or is it that you signed some great deals recently that you’re now embedding in that guidance?

It’s entirely related with the decline in power prices that we’ve seen the collateral we have to reserve against stress scenarios is smaller on a per unit basis which allows us to with our current available liquidity and balance sheet to do a higher volume of business. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: I’m looking at slide 28, I noticed that for example in 2013 your non-nuclear plants are hedged 25% and then on slide 14 the total coal volumes are 14.8 TWH and gas/oil is 2.1 TWH. Seems like the total Generation volumes are lower in 2013 versus your analyst day slides but yet your hedged percentages are also lower, it’s now 25% it was 29% at the analyst day. The analyst day also had higher volumes. Could you explain what happened there, I would have thought the hedge percentage would have gone up with lower volumes?

The reality is once you get out to 2013 there’s not a liquid market. So to the extent that we’re taking actions to forward hedge our fossil generation further out the curve generally that’s done in the PGM market through gas as well as some longer term wholesale obligations. Given the time and duration between now and then we would expect obviously these numbers to change meaningfully each quarter in every year up through 2013 given the normal cadence of hedging in our business. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: It’s like mixed products of hedges and that’s why that number moves around?

If you think about how we hedge the business the bulk of it is through our NewEnergy business with 18 month customer contracts. If you think about a normal hedging profile we’re hedging our fleet roughly 2.5% each month going through the year in the forward year. That relationship decreases as you get further out the curve given there’s no liquid market really and you have to use proxies to hedge the fleet based on a macro outlook for power prices out the curve. Reza Hatefi – Decade Capital: None of the hedges were monetized or anything like that.

No. Its just normal course hedge management of the fleet on a current year plus three basis.

Thank you all very much for attending this morning and we will see you next quarter.

This does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for attending. You may disconnect at this time.