Good morning. My name is Jacque and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Exelon Corporation Fourth Quarter 2006 Earnings Release Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer period. [Operator Instructions]. Thank you. It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host, Joyce Carson, Vice President of Investor Relations. Madam, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Jacque. Good morning and welcome to the Exelon's fourth quarter and yearend 2006 earnings review and update conference call. Thank you all for joining us today. We issued our earnings release this morning. If you haven't received it, the release is available on the Exelon website, at "www.exeloncorp.com," or you can call (inaudible) at 312-394-5222, and she will fax or e-mail the release to you. This call is being recorded and will be available through February the 6th by dialing 877-519-4471. The international call-in number is 973-341-3080. The confirmation code is 8292439. In addition, the call will be archived on the Exelon website. Before we begin today's discussions, let me remind you that the earnings release and other materials we discuss in today's call may contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings for discussions of factors that may cause results to differ from management's projections, forecasts and expectations. In our press release and during this call, we will discuss adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings that exclude the earnings impact of mark-to-market adjustments from non-trading activity; investments in synthetic fuel-producing facilities; certain costs associated with the terminated merger with PSEG; significant impairments of intangible assets, including goodwill; significant changes in decommissioning obligation estimates; severance and severance-related charges; previously incurred severance costs to be recorded by ComEd as approved in the December 28th 2006 amended ICC order; previously incurred losses on extinguishments of long-term debt to be recorded by ComEd as approved in the July 26 ICC order; and other unusual items, including any future changes to GAAP. We believe these adjusted operating earnings are representative of the underlying operational results of the Company. In today's earnings release, we provide a reconciliation between GAAP earnings and adjusted non-GAAP operating…

Good morning. I am Frank Clark, Chairman and CEO of ComEd. If you please allow me to provide you with a brief update on the status of electricity rates in Illinois, the latest legislative session in Illinois Springfield ended in a stalemate; this is ceptable result for ComEd. The 94th Illinois General Assembly ended its session on January 9 without taking action on either a three year rate freeze bill or a compromise phase-in plan. The House bill, which would have rolled back frozen electric rates at pre-2007 levels for at least three more years, was not called for a vote of the Senate. And Senate bill, which would have phased in electric rate increases for residential customers with no interest was not called in the House. This means our new rate approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission remains in effect. The first bills reflecting these new rates have been mailed to customers. Last month, the ICC issued its final order in re-hearing of ComEd delivery service rate case. ComEd received an additional modest increase. Even with this adjustment, ComEd rates will still remain lower than they were in 1995. Also in December, the ICC approved ComEd voluntary phase-in plan. The plan allows residential customers the choice to cap their electric bill increases at 10% a year through 2009. Customers will pay deferred amount from 2010 to 2012 at a below market interest rate of 3.25% per year. Customers can start enrolling in that plan now. Despite the fact that the new rates and phase-in plans have taken effect, the fight on this issue is not over. The rate freeze extension bill could be revisited by the House in the future. With the new legislature in place, all bills must begin the process anew and be reintroduced. The General Assembly will be back in Springfield on February 6th. Illinois State Senator, James Clayborne has recently sought to bring together the utilities and various parties to determine if the compromise position would be appropriate. We applaud these efforts. ComEd has always said that we are open to discussions to help customers transition to the new rates. We welcome an opportunity to meet with policymakers, consumer groups, and other parties to achieve the lasting solution. Nevertheless, we have entered into binding contracts to supply electricity for more than 3 million customers. We remain committed to the Illinois auction, which gives us the lowest available market price per customer. We will continue to provide regular updates on the status here in Illinois. And now, I will turn the call over to John Rowe.

Thank you, Frank. Thank you, John. Good morning, everyone. This morning I will add a little perspective to 2006 and offer some thoughts on our strategy going forward especially as it is affected by the national spate from competitive market and global climate change. As you all know 2006 was very a demanding year at Exelon. We faced serious regulatory challenges in both Missouri and Illinois. Arguably we lost in New Jersey but we kept our commitment to financial discipline as we have promised we would. In Illinois, the ComEd team has been successful in making Illinois Restructuring Act work. I think it’s clear to say that we have discussed the Illinois core solution to good use almost when we could. The real story for 2006 at Exelon is that we continue to be one of most successful companies in our industry. For the sixth consecutive year, we have improved our operating performance and our operating earnings. As John Young has already reported our year-over-year operating earnings per share increased 4% from 3.10 to 3.22, in spite of relatively unfavorable weather. On weather normalized basis, operating earnings would have been up about 10%. Over the past six years, operating earnings have increased by almost 9% per year. This success is the product of unrelenting focus on operating performance, disciplined financial management, and sound approaches to regulation, the continuing basics of our business. In the nuclear area, Chris Crane and his team achieved a new fleet generation record for the fourth consecutive year, producing over 131,000 gigawatt hours in 2006. Nuclear achieved 93.9% capacity factor for the full year, the second highest ever recorded by the fleet compared with 93.5% for 2005. It also set a summer capacity record at 98.1%. Our average refueling outage duration was 24 days, an improvement…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Your first question is from Greg Gordon of Citigroup.

Greg, welcome.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Looking at your numbers, this is sort of a back-to-the-future type question. You know, it's has been a while since you guys talked about the concept of the Exelon Way, which was your efficiency program. And the reason I ask is because when I look at the earnings for the year, you know, there were $0.14 of increased O&M. Some of that I know was at ComEd where hopefully you ultimately get fair and equable cost recovery. But just in the fourth quarter alone, there was $0.07 of increase going out at Exelon Generation. You're not the only company who runs merchant nuclear plants that's showing an increase in costs. So I'm wondering is this -- what are the issues that are driving that? Was it just a timing issue or are you actually seeing a fundamental increase in your cost structure? And is there a way to address that?

I'll start with a short answer, and then refer this to Jack Skolds who can do better than I. But we believe that through the Exelon Way program, we were able to stem cost increases for a number of years, but we didn't reinvent the whole world. And operating these nuclear fleets does require continued expenditure. We're starting to see this now both in the operating area and the pension area. And while we keep looking, we haven't found new ways to overcome those trends on a going-forward basis. Jack, do you want to --?

The only other thing I will add on the generation and specifically the nuclear side are the costs to conduct our outages is going up substantially. And we have been dealing with some, as the rest of the industry has, some metallurgical issues, which have been expensive to deal with in the fourth quarter. Other than that, there are I will call them unremarkable kind of onetime events that normally occur during a given year. But in the Generation area, the refueling outage costs are what is driving the increase.

Can you go into just a little bit more detail on what these -- the drivers are there and what these metallurgical issues are as well, please?

The metallurgical issues deal our steam generators on the pressurized water reactors, our reactor coolant system piping and on the boiling water reactors, the vessels. That kind of work is just becoming more expensive. There is nothing out of the ordinary from the rest of the industry. It's just these types of efforts are becoming more expensive. Other than that, in a refueling outage it is people, it is parts and it is basically the contracting costs that we are managing right now.

Thanks. I will honor the one question rule. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from John Kiani of Deutsche Bank.

Good morning.

Good morning.

You've already discussed a certain level of stock buyback that's assumed in your '07 guidance. Can you provide an update on your post '07 use or monetization of your expected excess balance sheet capacity?

The philosophy is very simple. If we have excess cash and we do not have acquisition opportunity that we think we can convince you is a very good place to put your money, we'll give the money back to you. Beyond that, let me defer to John.

Yes, we gave you some kind of insight into what might be available for 2007 in December.

Right.

We further gave you if you look back at that presentation kind of an idea of what might be available actually through the entire planning period and our objective there is to probably -- you should plan on a review of that on an annual basis from our perspective. We're not going to sit here and say we've got a multiyear commitment we're going to make. But we're going to kind of take that a year at a time is how we deal with it. But the one year looked or the five year looked like almost five times what the one year looked like. So it's pretty symmetrical throughout the planning period.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Paul Fremont of Jefferies.

Thank you. Can you provide us with an update on the AG Supreme Court challenge to the auction? And given CUB's opposition to the auction process, do you accord a lower probability of being able to reach a compromise through Senator Claiborne's efforts?

I think I should defer that to Frank. Let me say that the CUB is going to oppose the auction process all it wants. The contracts are signed, and they have no magic wand to make them go away.

Let me start by addressing the effort led by Senator Claiborne and then ask Darryl, ComEd's General Counsel, to comment on the AG's continued legal action. The president of the Senate, Emil Jones, has made it very clear and stated it publicly in a number of venues that he does not support a rate increase legislation in any form. And he has instructed Senator Claiborne to get the parties together, the consumer groups, all of the parties that are willing to sit down at the table with the utilities to see if we can find a way to help transition the customer. This is my interpretation to help transition customers to the new rate. And there are consumer initiatives that we are currently willing to talk about that they help customers better understand how they can manage their -- control their energy bills. We stated earlier and I will repeat it now, ComEd is fully committed both to the auction, and of course, we have already entered into a binding contract for the supply to our 3.7 million customers. Darryl, would you comment on the AG?

The Attorney General filed an emergency motion for a stay to require ComEd to roll back and freeze its rates both in the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court. Those were denied by the Illinois Appellate Court in late December and by the Illinois Supreme Court in early January. The Attorney General has an appeal of the underlying Illinois Commerce Commission order authorizing the auction still pending in the Illinois Appellate Court Second District. That appeal has been debriefed since early November and will be decided by the court when it so chooses.

Thank you, Darryl.

And in terms of a final decision, when would you expect the court to rule?

The court -- I don't have an expectation on that. The courts generally rule within for most of their cases three to six months of a case being fully briefed. But it is totally at the discretion of the court as to when it will render its decision on that issue.

Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Hugh Wynne of Sanford Bernstein.

Hey. I had question about your cost numbers. The adjusted results for the fourth quarter of '06 when compared to adjusted non-GAAP results for the fourth quarter of '05 show a very substantial improvement, a reduction in your purchase power and your fuel costs. The net reduction is -- in fuel and purchased power expense seems to exceed $300 million. And it's equivalent to about 20% of the fuel in purchased power expense that you incurred in the fourth quarter of 2005. I was wondering if you could comment on that and explain what it's attributable to and whether it's likely to continue?

Yes, it's Ian MacLean. Would you like me to take that?

Yes. Go ahead, Ian.

Okay. It's simply the fact that if you remember we had the effects of Katrina back in '05 that sort of flew through till early '06. And literally as spot prices became cheaper and cheaper, you know, it became less expensive for us to buy the power to follow the load to serve the load. So that was -- it is as simple as that. And yes, you won't see that because we no longer have in '07 the ComEd contract to serve. So we don't have all that load to serve. The load we are serving more or less is served out of our own unit. So we won't have that differential going forward to that extent.

So that would explain the $90 million reduction in purchase power expense. Then you have in addition to that a $212 million reduction in fuel off of a base of $770 million in the fourth quarter of '05. Is that just an anomaly of some kind or does represent an ongoing rate?

No. That's mainly gas. Gas came down -- you know, came down substantially. But as you know, gas -- typically the gas that we buy is based on a spot spread. So you know, it's based on where we sell the power. So although you saw -- you will see the purchase costs go down, typically the sales costs revenues go down as well commiserate to that.

Great. Thank you, Ian. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Your next question is from Ashar Khan of SAC Capital.

Good morning. When should we expect the next ComEd rate case filing?

We are looking to file a rate case, a delivery service rate case, in the early part of 2007. I'm looking at -- I don't recall exactly when it is happening.

We said -- this is Bob McDonald. We have said we will file a delivery services rate case before the end of the second quarter.

Before the end of the second quarter?

Yes.

Okay. So that would mean that the rates might get affected somewhere around May of next year, right? Because of the 11 month period?

11 months, Ashar, is probably safe.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs.

Hi, guys Michael Lapides here. When we think about post 2007, can you talk a little bit besides buybacks about what the drivers of earnings growth would be for '08 and '09?

Okay. And this will go back to our December 12 data. The drivers are the regulatory recovery plan at Commonwealth Edison, the DST case that Frank and Bob just talked about. There is also a transmission case that will be filed here in the next 60 days I believe at Commonwealth Edison. So you have the normal rate based growth regulatory recovery that's going on there. Then the other drivers are whatever market prices move from repricing our hedges year-over-year. And you know, we will reprice a significant amount of the portfolio year-over-year. And then the drivers are going to be cost management beyond that. Those are the kind of 8 and 9 timeframe; the next big driver is going to be the 2011 underwater EPA repricing at PECO.

Right.

And in between there is all the market fundamentals of market prices, whether capacity prices start reflecting their reduced reserve margins, where fuel prices go, all the environmental issues that John talked about and how quickly carbon may enter the picture. Those are kind of the mid-term and long-term drivers for Exelon as we go forward.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Jonathan Arnold of Merrill Lynch.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Jon.

I had a quick question picking up on the last one around the December meeting you gave us a sense of where your overall portfolio stood versus market. You broke out the PECO piece and then your other contracts, is there any -- get any chance of an update as to how those numbers look today versus how they looked then?

No, they will look very similar to what we gave you then. I don't think we have plans on updating that until probably sometime in the mid year.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Daniele Seitz of Dahlman Rose.

Thank you. I just wondering on which do you attribute to the new capacity charges to the potential upside in '07 and '08? Have you quantified that?

Daniele, I think Ian should answer that.

Daniele, are you referring to RPM? Is that?

Yes.

Yes. Well, I think we talked at the investor conference. We have some baked into that. I don't remember the exact numbers. I know it was over the period of the four or five years, I think it was about $200 million. I don't see any big upside that's going to change our plan in '07 and '08. And you know, I think there is going to be a court challenge to that. So you have to take it for what it's worth today, which is we've put in value for it. We think the value is about right. It's not really big numbers yet.

Okay. Great. I'll go back in after. Bye.

Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates.

Good morning, guys. I wanted to touch base with you on the generating business and just to, sort of, follow up on some of the earlier questions on 2008 versus 2007 in terms of the hedges rolling off. Ian, if you could just give us a feel for what 2008 looks like now versus your hedge causes for 2007 if you were to, sort of, contract here at what the forward curve is for 2008?

Yes. I think for 2007, I think we have discussed we're sort of mid to just above mid 90s hedged for 2008 at reasonably nice prices. So we're happy with that. 2008 we are up to about financially about 90% hedged for 2008. They are also at reasonable prices. And you know, we were sort of encouraged by the fact that despite gas coming off fairly significantly in '07, the '08 market didn't really reflect that full drop in prices for '08. So a lot of it is risk there, right now the differential isn't that huge for '08.

So if directionally speaking would 2008 be, sort of, equal to 2007 or would it be lower or --?

Yes. I mean -- my guess would be right now a guess would be it might be a little lower but it depends where the prices go in that balance of 10%.

But the 90% that you've hedged and the upper 90s that you hedged in '07 --

Much similarly based, yes.

Similarly. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question is from Paul Ridzon of KeyBanc.

John Rowe, I was just wondering if you have had any updated thoughts on M&A in the sector and your commitment to potentially build a nuclear plant, whether Yucca Mountain is still the big obstacle there and whether there's any work around.

Well, we keep wire brushing our whole set of M&A options, but as you know, doing anything is a matter of when the time is right for us and when the time is right for a potential partner and those things are both inherently unpredictable. I think the operative wording here are patience and discipline. We have lots of bright ideas, but which ones are possible and when they are possible is something my lawyers would not let me talk about if I did have an answer. I really want to emphasize the patience and discipline though. We have plenty of work to do here at home at this moment. And on the nuclear plant, commitment and new nuclear plant don't really belong in the same sentence at the moment. I think the Yucca Mountain project has been in big trouble for some time. The election I think makes it virtually impossible for there to be progress on Yucca Mountain in the near future. I expect to become Chairman of a Nuclear Energy Institute at its spring annual meeting. And I think it is fair to say that NEI is searching for ways to compromise with now majority leader Reid on some combination of new forms of ways of meeting the adequate assurance, finding and perhaps something like regional surface storage facilities or something like that. Yucca Mountain is not going to go ahead against the wishes of the majority leader of the United States Senate. And so I think what you'll see now is the entire nuclear industry looking for ways to compromise with Senator Reid on some part of interim storage solutions. Just speaking for ourselves, I continue to believe that there has to be some solution other than just hopes and dreams before one proceeds on a new nuclear plant. And we've made it very clear in our exploratory processes in Texas that it would have to be either a state or a federal approach to dealing with this before we go forward.

John, would you stand by as potential competitors who didn't share your kind of view -- if you just went ahead and built plants?

I would stand by with great cheer if there are those who are braver than I. This nation needs new nuclear plants. It needs it for climate and a whole lot of other reasons. If other people are braver with their investor's money than I am, I will cheer for them and bask in your confidence at the same time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Your next question is from Nathan Judge of Atlantic Equities.

Hi. On the Illinois issue, when do you think there will be a resolution to this issue and what needs to happen for a full and durable resolution?

When is an impossible question to answer? I am not at the present time certain there will be one. This stalemate may be the resolution and if so, the Illinois Commerce Commission is adequately and effectively implementing the existing law. As Frank made also so clear, the various Exelon companies would like to come out with a harmonious and more durable resolution that affects our interests and your rights as investors in our unregulated generation properties, and we have tried to be adaptable, flexible, creative, and we will continue to try to do that. But, frankly, you've can't have a resolution beyond stalemate without something that makes Senate President Jones happy, the Governor happy, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Madigan happy. And I can't foresee what that would be, but because except for the rate freeze, which we can't bear and your rights won't bear, I do not know what might make Speaker Madigan happy. Frank, want to add to that?

I'd only comment that the politics in Illinois are complicated, but I would ask you to remember that all of the regulatory and legal processes that we have been engaged in over the last year have actually worked out in a manner that is very acceptable. There was a question about the most recent legal challenge by the Attorney General, but as I recall there's been quite a few other challenges including the Illinois Supreme Court none of which are available. The (technical difficulty) exercises responsibility and issued an order first approving the auction and retail the auction. We (technical difficulty) 16 or so suppliers. Those contracts are binding. I would love to have an opportunity to resolve what I consider some of the social issues around raising rates that have been frozen for a decade, but not in the manner that we jeopardize the financial integrity of ComEd. So Senator Claiborne to the extent that it is been asked by President Jones to get the parties together, we welcome that and we will participate in that. But the contracts we entered into are binding. The auction model I believe works very well and will offer or continue to offer the lowest available prices to consumers in Illinois.

Thank you.

I'd just like to pick up one other thing just to sort of wrap up because we're running out of time. Joyce says we have time maybe for one more question, but I want to get one more answer in even if there is not that question. One of you in a prior call was kind enough to say that Exelon is appropriately priced at today's market values for energy and that implies an almost free option on whatever the benefits of carbon regulation maybe for a nuclear fleet. I will leave words like free for other people to use, but I simply want to reemphasize that as you look at these pressures of carbon, I don’t see where you have an investment play better than our nuclear fleet. And as you think about some of the other things that affect what has historically been a cyclical industry issues like whatever the future of the dividend taxation maybe, again I think you'll look and you'll find your investment in us pretty well-positioned for dealing with those uncertainties. What I would say is we'll try to continue to do going forward as we have in the past, which is to tell you in as far advance as we can where our problems and issues are and then to deal with them as effectively as we can. But I think if you look at us on a relative basis in this industry, we're positioned even better going forward than we have been over the past few years. Joyce, do you still have time for one more question?

One more question, more.

Okay.

Thank you. Your final question is from Mr. Zach Schreiber of Duquesne Capital.

Hey, John. It’s Zach Schreiber from Duquesne. Can you hear me?

I seem to remember you Zach, yes.

Yes, Sir. I seem to remember a lot of this discussion on carbon and I definitely like it as well. Just a question on the market fundamentals and this is a question for you from your vantage point and John Young and Ian from theirs, just what they're seeing in the markets. Heat rates, sort of the shape of the NI Hub curve relative to gas prices and just some of those power market supply/demand fundamentals, what are you seeing? And related to that on the capacity price, clearly a lot of that’s dedicated in '07 but that $200 million, what did that relate to? And what is that worth economically and over what period of time? I'm just trying to -- I think investors have all gotten very comfortable understanding sort of the gas price sensitivity in your company and comps, but we're probably a little less educated on some of the heat rate and capacity values in those markets. Thank you.

There are two things that John and Ian and Jack don't let me deal with. One is buttons and the other is numbers. So I will leave those for my colleagues. But just let me say that we have obviously seen the sort of heady gas peak tail and probably they've tailed a lot more because we have a winter without a winter right now. But I think as we look forward you can see that Ian has dealt with that problem pretty effectively with his hedging strategy and we are seeing a tightening in capacity need all across this country. New Jersey is basically base load capacity short. The rest of PJM East is slowly getting tight on base load capacity. And while the Midwest, like Illinois, still has enough, it will need more new peaking capacity within a reasonable amount of time. And what this tells me is that the potential feature for power prices both have to reflect the price of gas under more normal weather conditions and an increasingly tight capacity market. So that’s my lead in. John, Jack, Ian, which one of you wants to pick up and answer his real question?

Well, I’ll address it and I think Ian can add some color to this, but generically or generally we see still the phenomenon where total electric prices at the wholesale level are in a energy or fuel kind of driven era where we are not seeing the capacity values whether it comes from heat rate or capacity prices or whatever that are needed to address the reserve margin issues that are coming -- that are either here or in New Jersey or coming as they cascade across the system. We do from time-to-time and I think we reviewed this with you see the heat rate anomalies where heat rate becomes very low or becomes more appropriately valued in the market and that’s what has occurred as this gas price drop that we saw over the last few months, market prices remain fairly stable in all that through a heat rate expansion. But we do see that there will be capacity values in the planning horizon and I will just quote some of the numbers we gave you. This year because of our hedge situation, a $1 movement in gas is about $25 million for us. 500 BTUs per kilowatt-hour or our heat rate move is about $35 million for us. Then capacity values if they increase by $10 that’s worth another $10 million to us. But in 2011, a more kind of open position for us, those numbers are dramatically different, where $1 of gas is almost $400 million. You can go get the exact numbers out of the December 12th presentation. The carbon that John referred to is a significant contributor or even larger than that. And heat rate is quantified as almost $300 or $400 million less for that same 500 BTUs per kilowatt hour. So none of that in our value right now but those are kind of the broad sensitivities and Ian might give you some of the specifics on where the market is right now.

Yes. I think Zach, you are probably well aware, you know, the heat rates in the Midwest tend to be low. It’s nuclear, coal driven energy economy. In the East, which we consider PJM East is they are very high and they are very volatile and you've got low capacity there, excess capacity. You'd expect that. I think the interesting market for me is ERCOT. ERCOT currently shows a backwardated heat rate and then it climbs as you head out towards 2010 and 2011. That’s a market that I think people have to watch carefully, because I think that heat rate is really just following the energy price -- sorry, the gas price and the backwardated gas curve, and I think that could be a volatile market. Overall, I think Mr. Rowe is right that heat rates are going to go up. Its unless somebody starts building or we don’t stop using electricity, they are just going to continue to climb.

On the ERCOT heat rate, you said it’s going to be interesting. Is it with more upside or more downside?

I just think it’s going to be interesting on the upside, because it just sort of begs the question why would you have a market with large load growth and no capacity being built currently with a backwardated heat rate? I just find that intriguing.

Yeah. Interesting, thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you, everybody. And again, let me say that we would have liked a little more December in December. But we are very pleased with last year. And on the carbon front, I was looking at the newspapers late last week, watching the announcements from the US Cap Group, which consists of GE and my friend Jim Rogers at Duke and Lew Hay at FPL and [Peter Darby] at -- I growl to Betsy Moler, who heads our Washington office -- "how come I've been working on this for four years and they get all the credit?" And Betsy looks at me and said, "Well, John, there are show horses and work horses and you are just stuck. You're always going to be a workhorse." So my message is admire the Arabians, invest in the Clydesdales.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. This concludes today's Exelon Corporation fourth quarter 2006 earnings release conference. You may now disconnect.