Good morning. My name is Neithen and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the OGE Energy Corporation earnings call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) Mr. Todd Tidwell, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Neithen. Good morning everyone and welcome to OGE Energy Corp’s third quarter 2009 earnings call. I’m Todd Tidwell, Director of Investor Relations and with me today I have Pete Delaney, Chairman, President and CEO of OGE Energy Corp; Sean Trauschke, Vice President and CFO of OGE Energy Corp and several other members of the management team to address any questions that you may have. In terms of the call today, we will first hear from Pete Delaney, followed by an explanation of the third quarter results from Sean, and finally as always we will answer your questions. I would like to remind you that this conference is being webcast and you may follow along on our website at www.oge.com. In addition, the conference call and accompanying slides will be archived following the call on that same website. Before we begin the presentation, I would like to direct your attention to the Safe Harbor statement regarding forward-looking statements. This is an SEC requirement for financial statements and simply states that we cannot guarantee forward-looking financial results, but this is our best estimate to date. I will now turn the call over to Pete Delaney for his opening remarks, Pete.

Thank you Todd and good morning everyone. Welcome to our third quarter earnings call. I will discuss our recent accomplishments and forward initiatives and our outlook for our businesses, and then turn over to Sean will review our financial results in more detail. The third quarter was a good quarter on several fronts. First we were able to reports solid earnings this quarter due largely to rate increases in Arkansas and Oklahoma despite unfavorable weather. Our utility earnings benefiting from these regulatory actions were up some $17 million despite a negative weather variance of $7 million and on a consolidated basis net income for the quarter was down less than $3 million due to the growth in utility earnings, as earnings at Enogex were driven lower by a 46% drop in both commodity spreads realized and liquids prices. This commodity decline tends to match the fact that Enogex gathering processing and natural gas transportation business continued to grow and I’ll let Sean talk about that in more detail in a minute. On the regulatory front we successfully settled two rate proceedings, around the last earnings call we had received regulatory approval for our $48 million rate case settlement, which has been implemented. The key component was the increase in the monthly customer charge from $6.50 to $13 a month accounting for $44 million of that increase, a good step directionally given our escalating demand side management efforts. Secondly, we just recently settled with the Attorney General’s Office of Oklahoma Corporate Commission staff and the Oklahoma Industrial Group in regard to the rate recovery of our $270 million investment in the 101-megawatt OU Spirit Wind Farm. Administrative of law judge has recommended approval of the settlement, which is a key step toward approval by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission which we hope…

Thank you, Pete. For the third quarter, we reported net income of $136.8 million or $1.40 per average diluted share as compared to net income of $139.5 million or $1.50 per average diluted share in 2008. The contribution by business unit on a comparative basis is listed on the slide. Before I discuss our two businesses, I would like to discuss the $0.09 variance at the holding company in energy marketing business. Because commodity prices and spreads were low this quarter, we did not see the opportunity to cover our costs in the demand fees associated with various marketing contracts. This was a very different story in 2008, when prices were much higher. Year-to-date, the holding company in energy marketing group has posted a loss of $0.07 per share, and that is about what we would expect for the full year 2009. Now, moving onto the utility, at OG&E, net income for the third quarter was $123.2 million or $1.26 per share as compared to net income of $107.1 million or $1.15 per share in 2008. Gross margin on revenues increased $40.6 million or 13.5%. I’ll provide more details of gross margin on the following slide. Operation and maintenance expense increased $5.8 million primarily due to higher employee costs and increased spending on vegetation management, which is offset by an increase in revenue through the system hardening rider. Depreciation and amortization expense increased $9.6 million, primarily due to the Redbud Facility being placed into service and the amortization of regulatory assets. Other income and expense created a positive variance of $10.3 million, in part due to higher allowance for equity funds used during construction in 2009, and higher participation in the guaranteed flat build program. Interest expense increased $4.1 million due to the higher levels of long term debt that…

Thank you, Sean. We have made great progress in positioning our businesses to execute our plans. I’m very pleased with the success of our financial regulatory and operational initiatives over the last few years and very appreciative of the hard work of our members and of course one could always ask for more constructive overall economic framework. That said, as a result of our current outlook for our businesses, we are increasing our long term earnings outlook from 4% to 5% as we have publicly stated for several years to 5% to 7% on a consolidated basis. This increase is driven by a more favorable growth outlook for the utility largely due to plant transmission investment. The growth rate for Enogex remains as we have expressed and served in past years. We continue to focus on growing the dividends subject to Board approval at a rate inline with the past several years. With the continued uncertainty in the overall financial and economic system, we plan on inherent to a conservative payout strategy to ensure sufficient liquidity to fund our investment program that will continue to drive shareholder value. Now, I’ll turn the call back over to the operator, to hear your questions.

(Operator instructions) Your first question comes from Reza Hatefi - Decade Capital.

The gross target, the 5% to 7%, I guess in your 10-Q it says 5% to 7% from 2009 through 2012, which sort of implies 2012 is $2.90 or $3. Is it fair to look at it that way or am I just reading too much into that?

No. I think the way to look at that is we were trying to articulate that’s a compounding our growth rate and so earnings are going to grow through 2012 off of the midpoint of 2009, 5% to 7%. So if our guidance is $2.70 to $2.95 this year we would expect and continued growth thereafter. I mean for 2010, our guidance would be $2.70 to $2.95 and we’re expecting growth beyond that as well.

So should we assume 5% to 7% off of the ‘09 midpoint or the ‘10 midpoint?

I think you can use the ‘09 midpoint.

Your next question comes from Jay Dobson - Wunderlich Securities.

Question for you, Sean or Pete, the guidance now for ‘09 still at the midpoint leaves me just a little confused, when I look to the fourth quarter. You’ve done about $2.30 year-to-date and if I pick exactly the midpoint, that would suggest a $0.15 fourth quarter versus $0.29 a year ago and I think you said hold-co could be about flat in the fourth quarter, keeping that $0.07 loss where we are, so I’m just wondering what the rate increase and Enogex continuing to do, okay why $0.15 versus $0.29 would work mathematically?

I believe we earned $0.23 in the fourth quarter last year, it was the number, Jay, not $0.29. So we’ve kind of targeted this to midpoint. Obviously, we’ve assumed normal weather and as you noticed in the third quarter and continuing in the fourth quarter, it’s still been mild and it’s a different economic environment this year. We didn’t see the full effects the fourth quarter of last year. So we’re still targeting the midpoint there and we still have two months left to execute, so I wouldn’t anticipate that you’re going to see, there’s nothing concerning or deteriorating there, but I think we’re being very cautious and prudent. Pete, do you have anything to…

No. I agree. There’s nothing we expect that Enogex is going to continue to perform. Year-over-year, we will see a better comparison, because of course, processing spreads really came down in September of last year, but that being said, it’s still overall a fragile recovery we’ve seen, and I talked a little bit about, industrial sales were turning around. We tend not to get a lot of margin from that and so we’re just keeping with our cautious outlook for the remainder of the year.

So it’s fair to say that might be conservative, because I think the 23 you’re referring to, Sean, actually included the $0.06 charge for the termination of the potential JV, so 29 might be a clean number, but I could have my numbers wrong. Second thing, can you just talk about the longer term prospects for Enogex really on two accounts: First, is there greater ability to move the revenue stream towards fixed fee? You’ve done a great job with that clearly, getting keep hold down to 20%, but is there more ability to do that? Second, just on the back of the JV that you didn’t do last year, is there other opportunities for that as we look forward?

First, Jay, on the fixed fee question, there’s two parts of that as we talked about. One is the processing portfolio, that we have made some major movement in that direction. Optimally, our really mix as we think from an economic standpoint is a fixed fee and keep pole and to a lesser extent POL, based on our economic models. We do believe, we have opportunities, a lot of opportunities when we go from moving, I believe, our focus will be moving POL more into the fixed fee from an economic standpoint now that we have our keep poles. Keep in mind the key pole does have a trading fee, which has a lot of value in it. So we do think as contracts are coming up over the next couple of years, we do have opportunities to move the POLs over to the fixed fee, which we think will give us a higher risk adjusted return on that portfolio. So, yes, there are opportunities there. On the transportation side, again with MEP and Gulf Crossing, some major investments there and the firm 311, of course, we will always continue to try to get some firm intrastate service on our system, but that’s hard to predict with any certainty. We do have, on the other hand, a contract to supply AECI, which is a long term contract for serving a new power plant. I think it’s combined cycle natural gas plant, that would be at 2011. We do have one other power plant contract too that will be opportunity to renegotiate as well, which we would anticipate would be able to increase that margin. So we do have some opportunities and we do expect to be able to within just our overall growth move more towards fixed fee, which we think is obviously a good thing from a risk adjustment return. We like Enogex, we like where it’s positioned, we like where we’re positioned in the unconventional plays in the Mid Continent area. We continue to focus on our building shareholder value over the long term and making sure that we get full value that we think for Enogex and our stock price and we’ll continue to focus on that. I’m not going to exclude anything, but we really are not at this point in time working on anything that of that nature.

Your next question comes from Brian Russo - Ladenburg Thalmann

Just a couple of questions on the utility the 0.9% load growth expected in ‘09, given your comments earlier in the call about some of the regional growth initiatives and some, new manufacturing plants that coming online down there can we expect an acceleration of that 0.9% growth post 2010, all those equal, of course?

No. I think for planning perspective, we are not looking for an acceleration in our overall kilowatt hour sales growth outlook, particularly with our 20/20 plan, keep in mind we are going to be investing with our deployment on smart grid, we do have demand side management programs where we’re looking to, basically move load off-peak, but also for energy efficiency. So, of course we anticipate earning return on those investments, our demand side investments so right now we’re not forecasting any increase from our kilowatt hour sales. The 0.9, I think you’re referring to our customer growth rate.

I’m sorry. I must have misunderstood. I thought that was lower growth.

Is it sales, okay and so but we are staying with that number.

Then just on the Enogex side, as you guys decrease your commodity exposure, I’m just curious why such a large range in the guidance. Is it a function of volumes or whether ethane is rejected or not?

Primarily volumes

So 5% gets you to the low end assuming a $5 plus Forex Spread and 7% gets you to the high end?

We look at, a multitude of variables when we are looking at our guidance, and you do have commodity spreads, you do have volumes, you would have costs, O&M, interest costs and we put that in and look at our probably distribution and, those are the major drivers and that’s the types of range that we are getting within, of course reasonable probability, and so it’s really those combination of factors.

On the realized commodity spread of a little over $5, could you break that down as to, what dollar value you hedged at versus what market spread you’re assuming?

You’re talking about 2010?

Yes.

So our 2010 our hedges are at $5.05 and we have, the current forward curve on last week was at $5.96.

Can you breakdown what percentage hedged versus un-hedged? Is that possible?

Sure it’s right at 75% of the key pool volumes.

Great and it seems like you’re paying down.

Brian, just to be clear that excludes ethane.

Are you guys being conservative on ethane, because I think when we started 2009, you assumed ethane rejection, but as we moved through the year, you began to take ethane can you just give us kind of your outlook on that?

Keith Mitchell, our Chief Operating Officer of Enogex. Keith, you want to cover that?

Yes, I know we’re just trying to look at forward curves both looking at the gas and ethane to see what we expect. Ethane is very difficult to predict it’s kind of a wild card as recovery and so, we have been fortunate enough to have some recovery months this year. Right now we are projecting to be in rejection most of 2010.

Just also, could you give us a sense of what the sustainable debt level is at Enogex giving your current CapEx profile?

Brian, we have plans to refinance the $289 million maturity in January, so we are going to be looking at that here at the end of this year and early next year, and we have sufficient capacity in our revolver and but we don’t have any plans to issue any additional long term debt Enogex.

So it’s self funding is what you’re saying?

Yes. I think that’s an easy way to look at it, we have sufficient capital. Enogex is producing sufficient capital to fund the investments and continue to growth the business.

Your next question comes from David Frank - Catapult Capital.

I had a couple of questions for you. One was the 5% to 7% growth. Is that contingent upon you winning new transmission and/or other utility CapEx projects or is it executing on staff already in your forecast and contingent on things like the economy and such?

I think that is contingent on the forecast we’ve laid out, the 600 million of new transmission opportunities that’s been approved and committed. It certainly assumes normal weather and some help on the economy, but it does not anticipate or incorporate any new transmission or any new investments in other businesses.

Then I think SPP staff made some recommendations for transmission projects recently. I think there was some comment in there regarding a proposal you and Xcel had? Can you give us some update on that? I don’t believe that was in your CapEx plan or...?

Everything in our CapEx plan, it’s known and committed and there were priority projects under review and my comments are, I think this is what you’re referring to, I referred to our Woodward to Guymon. I’m sure you know where Guymon is David, but Guymon is in the Panhandle of Texas pretty far away from here, but where excellent wind potential is and we have as you know, a joint venture with MidAmerican and AEP, that’s our Tallgrass line and that’s for 765 build out of that line. Now I’m not exactly sure on the timing, but when the original priority projects came out that was not on the list. I think that their Oklahoma regulators among others have talked to the SPP and questioned given the wind potential out there, “Why that line is not a priority project.” My understanding is that the Southwest Power Pool is doing a wind, updating their wind integration study and that line will be reviewed and they may very well end up be back with us, we’re not sure of the, but we know it’s being looked at. Either way, if it’s 765, we would be building that in Tallgrass with AEP and MidAmerican. If it’s 345, it’s not in the partnership and we will be building that ourselves. We believe that given the wind potential there, it’s a timing issue. That line will be needed at some point in time. Again, it’s just a timing issue, but that’s not in the $600 million that I referred to. Anything beyond the portfolio 3E, which is what is in there, which is approved, would be incremental.

Last question, just on the, you have still a bit of your wind requirement is still outstanding. I think around 150 to 200 megawatts for the most recent RFPs. I think you’re looking to fill about 450 and you took in 300 and still waiting on a piece. I was wondering when we could hear something on that.

Again, we will be filing very shortly for the two purchase power agreements totaling 280 megawatts that we selected. There was a third project, which I think maybe you’re perhaps referring to is the build to own transfer that we had for an incremental 150 megawatts, I believe it was size wind farm and in our due diligence and negotiations, that didn’t really pass. We weren’t ultimately comfortable recommending that we move forward on that project. We have planned for sometime to have two rounds at this point of wind development or acquisition. This is one of the first ones, though. We expect to be back again, for another 300 or so megawatts as we continue to build out that portfolio. We’ll see if we get any more clarity on our PS standards. Our mandates out of Washington over the next couple of months, but at a minimum we’re going to be moving ahead with another RFP. The timing of that would probably be sometime in 2010, but that hasn’t been decided. As you know, part of the settlement on the OU wind farm is that we have to file our integrated resource plan. I think in January, and that we probably would not move to do anything on acquisition until that RFP plan is filed.

So just to clarify, we shouldn’t expect any announcements regarding any build transfer own or however, you put it related to your utility anytime in the near future?

I would anticipate that’s correct.

Your next question comes from Jeffrey Coviello - Duquesne Capital Management.

A quick question on the ethane rejection point, I guess how much money roughly have you made from not rejecting the ethane this year versus what you had baked into the original assumptions at Enogex? I guess, how much if you don’t reject the ethane, about how much upside could there be?

Ethane is clearly the least profitable component and I don’t have the number here exactly how much we have made. I mean obviously, we look to optimize and as we do have a chance to recover, it’s kind of an option that we have. We have a chance to recover and make some incremental revenue we do, but that’s why it’s always kind of on the bubble of recovery and rejection because it is the least profitable of those components.

So I guess it’s a decent impact, but it’s not a huge impact to earnings at Enogex, if you shut it off or run the ethane through? Is that the right way to think about it?

That’s correct. It’s just really incremental optimization revenue. It’s probably on avenue less than $5 million for the year.

Your final question comes from Brian Russo - Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Brian Russo - Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.: Just one quick follow-up, are you expecting or assuming any corporate drag in the 2010 earnings guidance?

Yes, we would expect that the holding company and ER would continue to have between $0.07 and $0.09 like they did on this year.

There are no further questions at this time.

Well, we certainly appreciate your participation on the call and your continued interest in OGE Energy. Have a great day and thank you.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.