Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Public Service Enterprise Group Fourth Quarter 2006 Earnings Call and web cast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 and will be available for telephone replay for 48 hours beginning at 1 pm Eastern Time today until 1 pm Eastern Time on February 2, 2007. It will also be available as audio webcast on PSEG's corporate website at www.pseg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kathleen Lally. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, and good morning to everyone. We appreciate your listening in today either by telephone or over our website. I will be turning the call over to Ralph Izzo, PSEG's President and Chief Operating Officer for comments on the company’s results and outlook. Also participating in today's call will be Tom O'Flynn, PSEG's Chief Financial Officer. Tom will provide a more detailed view of the company's operating and financial results and the forecast for 2007. Before we begin, however, I just need to make a few points. We issued our earnings release this morning. In case you have not seen it, a copy is posted on our website. We expect to file our Form 10-K with the SEC at the end of February. In today's webcast, we will discuss our future outlook and I must refer you to our forward-looking disclaimer. Although we believe our forecasts are based on reasonable assumptions, we can give you no assurance that they will be achieved. The results or events forecast in our statements today may differ materially from actual results or events. The last word on any of our businesses is contained in the various reports we file with the SEC. As a reminder, our guidance speaks as of the date it is issued. Any confirmation or update in guidance will only be done in a public manner, generally in the form of a press release or webcast such as this. PSEG may or may not confirm or update guidance with every press release. As a matter of policy, we will not comment on guidance during any one-on-one meeting or individual phone calls. In the body of our earnings release we provided a table that reconciled net income to operating earnings. We've adopted this format to improve the readability of…

Thanks Ralph. Good morning. Let me first extend our welcome to Kathleen Lally, our new Vice President of Investor Relations. We know Kathleen from her former roles and you will be happy to know she continues to have a lot of tough questions for us and keep us on our toes. PSEG reported operating earnings for the fourth quarter of $174 million or $0.69 per share, versus $233 million or $0.94 per share for the 2005 fourth quarter. The strong results for the recent quarter overcame a charge of $0.10 per share, Power, related to impairment of turbines to be sold in 2007. And I also want to remind you that last year's results include a gain of $0.18 from the sale of the Seminole lease. The year, PSEG reported operating earnings of $938 million or $3.71 per share compared to 2005 amounts of $918 million or $3.77 per share. The results for '06 are based on 252 million shares outstanding, a 3.3% increase over 2005. PSEGs results for the quarter and the year are defined in large parts by strong performance from our generation fleet and higher power prices, offset by warmer weather. For the fourth quarter, Power reported operating earnings of $102 million or $0.40 and 11% decline in the 113 million or $0.45 from a year ago. As you know, a number of our strategic activities were reviewed in a different context during the merger process. Shortly after the termination of the merger, Power took a close at two assets in its portfolio that had uncertain long-term value for us. Namely Lawrenceburg and 4EA Turbines. Lawrenceburg is a 1100 megawatt combined cycle gas unit in Indiana that did not integrate well into our PJM eastern based portfolio. During 2006, it produced an operating loss of over $0.10…

Operator?

Ladies and Gentlemen we will now begin the question-and-answer session for members of the financial community. (Operator Instructions). And the first question is coming from the line of Ashar Khan with SAC Capital. Please proceed.

Good morning. Tom, could you just go over what the hedges are? Could you update your hedge information, the last information I had was that EEI, could you update what the hedges stand currently for '07, '08 and '09?

Sure. Those are generally still reasonable numbers, still reasonable ranges for those folks who don't have the information there at the EEI presentation we said in '07, we are about 85% to 95% hedged, '08 was 65% to 80%, and '09 was 10% to 40%. Those are still reasonable ranges. When we talk about hedge ratios, we generally talk about our forward nuclear and coal as that represents about 85% of our megawatt hours, a higher percentage of our margin. We also would expect to update those in the K to the extent there is any material changes.

Okay. I guess this PJM auction will move those hedges upwards, is that a fair assumption?

The BGS auction does commence next week. As you probably know, we are not able to comment on that even to the extent that we are participating in it, just for confidentiality reason. So, yes, there is BGS auction next week. Yes, it does allow all generators an opportunity including ourselves if they participate to move those hedges up.

Okay. And if I can just end up, could you just give us what is -- I know you mentioned a $10 margin improvement in '07 gross margin, could you tell us roughly what it would be in '08, which is an excess of 10% the guidance?

Yeah, we are still -- and also this is your last first question. It would not be as -- we would still see margin improvement from '07 to '08. It would not be in the magnitude of 10 bucks per megawatt hour, but it would support an overall earnings increase for PSEG of 10% and more from '07 to '08.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Paul Ridzon with Keybanc Capital Markets. Please proceed.

Ralph, is your strategic review of Holdings complete or could we see some more divestitures?

Paul, that's still a work in progress. We were looking at the whole portfolio there and we may be able to say modestly more things in the March timeframe at the analyst conference, but right now I just simply leave it at that.

And Tom, just more granularity around the $4.60 to $5, has the pullback towards the top end of that pretty much out of range at this point?

We generally, Paul, don't comment on ranges within ranges. I'd say since the EEI prices have come down a little bit 2 to 4 bucks depending upon where you are in the curve. At the same time, there have been some offsets. I think we mentioned that Lawrenceburg had been an operating drag. That won't be there in '07, so we're still very comfortable with our $4.60 to $5 range.

But the previous -- the $4.60 to $5 had about a 10% loss from Lawrenceburg?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Right there, yeah.

Your next question is coming from the line of Andrew Levy with [Frankfort Advisors]. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, guys.

Hi.

Hiring Kathleen is like letting the fox in the henhouse, but congratulations. Hey, Kathleen.

Well, I would rather hear for (inaudible).

No, it's a smart fox, a very smart fox. So, it works so well. Hey, just a quick question. Is there any political pressure that you guys are seeing just relating to electric rates?

I think that there is always political pressure to keep electric rates under control, Andrew. But the reality is, if you look at the retail rates that New Jersians are seeing and how they have moved relative to other states nearby, it's a real tribute to the intelligence of the design of the BGS auction. So it's been a -- I think it's been a regulatory success here.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed.

Good morning guys.

Good morning.

Just the Energy Holdings, it would be -- I guess you guys are not expecting mark-to-market gain and that sort of explains about a third of the decrease that you are expecting for ’07. How does the other, the new accounting standard and the spark spreads breakout after that?

I think in general, if we take Texas, first of all, Paul, this year our net income after tax contribution in Texas was about $80 million to $85 million. As you see in one of the attachments, almost $30 million of that was mark-to-market, I think the number is 28 to 29. So, you it kind of back into a mid 50s -- a mid 50s type of number excluding the mark-to-market, we are not anticipating mark-to-market this year. And we expect Texas to be down about $20 million, probably the biggest piece that is sparks coming from last year realized sparks were 19 to 20. We've got no forecast right now, but 15 to 16. And then -- so that brings you down about two-thirds of that decrement and then the other piece would be some maintenance outage as we do expense those as they come along. So that's the biggest -- that's kind of the waterfall if you will, on Texas.

With respect to FIN-48 caution ate that we are (inaudible 00:13 19 file) units, it's a very detailed and a cumbersome thing to work through. We have been talking about this for a few months. I think in general, our guidance would contemplate a FIN-48 headwind if you will, a reduction to earnings in the mid-20s.

Okay. And then just on the nuclear capacity factor for '07 and '08. I think you said it was 96% for the year in '06? What do you guys think it's going to be with refueling and everything, the schedule on just to --, your expectation for '07 and '08 going forward?

I think 96% was a good number, we certainly wouldn't count that, but it would be a number in low 90's.

Low 90's.

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

90 to 92, something that kind of range.

Your next question is from Zachary Schreiber with Duquesne Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Hi its Zach Schreiber from Duquesne. Congratulations Kathleen.

Thank you, Zach.

Just say a quick question, Tom, on the RPM, the $100 million to $150 million. Is that a year-over-year number or is that an absolute number?

No, it is a year-over-year. It is in '06 versus '07. Consistent Zach, I think we talked about November, at the EEI. The PJM-RPM as you all know has generally come through as anticipated.

Okay.

The '06 is obviously smaller, so you would expect another increase from '07 to '08, even if the dollars per kilowatt year don't change, just because the PJM-RPM, we really don't get a lot for the first five months of '07.

Okay. And then on the CapEx, on the environmental side, is there anything you can just sort of put some parameters around the digit. Since I got from your comments was, may be its a little bit higher, but not a huge amount, but can you just cooperate if it is higher, how much higher and just put some parameters around that?

Yeah I [advise], stay away from that. We are, as I said doing detail engineering estimates, and we are also in the middle of some negations, discussions with some outsiders. It will be in the K. I'd say -- Zach, we generally see it as a manageable number, but I think the purpose was to just remind people as you are probably seeing from other folks in the sector.

Yeah

That there was some pressure and you may see some movement. It's a manageable amount, but its certainly enough, that's -- we are working our best to manage it.

Okay. Can you just remind us on the number of megawatts that you would be scrubbing and rest of the things, so we would just have some benchmark whether its -- you are assuming $300 a kilowatt, or $200 a kilowatt or $600, so we shouldn't know what kind of --?

Yeah, Hudson is six, in Mercer is the same.

Hudson is six.

So you get it. Yeah.

Okay.

So the other dam -- Hudson you can -- adjust about the simple number, we talked about four to five, which is moving. You can still see that they (inaudible) 600 megawatts of coal, Hudson is located in a very attractive place, almost constrained area of load pocket, to stop the [ballasting skyway] from driving in your city. And it's steadily -- and attractive facility in a very key location.

Okay. And on this Connecticut lawsuit -- is there -- to us, it doesn’t seem like the Attorney General would have any way to do what he is proposing to do and [singling] on the FERC Regulation and EWG and [Federal Fund] Rate Adoption is that the proper way to think about this or is there any way that there is some sort of wrinkle in which that Connecticut can try and impose its regulatory jurisdiction over apparently deregulated generation?

Yes Zach, we don't think we will be giving legal views over the -- on the wire (inaudible) --currently, there has been some press up there, I'd just say that there was certainly a sale out there that was fully competitive with the plants. There is a good competitive market, that energy prices, SCM in there. I think from our own standpoint, if you just look at the total (inaudible) acts, we expect to do well in '07, but we did not do well. So in '06 and '05, if you look at the full package, just given that we signed a three year contract with UI in late 2003, if you look at the full package of our profitability in that period, it has actually been quite marginal until the last couple of weeks. But any way we think all the pieces that bill into market make sense, but there is no detailed piece available of legislation we are going to look at right now, it's really more a thing throughout the press.

Last question, on the coal cost, are you guys getting helped by lower coal costs?

May be two of them, (inaudible) we tend to hedge pretty far forward. So that if we did it, it would really be more out in the '09-'10 timeframe.

Got it.

Our coal buy tends to be equal to or may be even a shade longer than our forward hedging.

Got it. Thanks so much guys and congratulations, Kathleen.

Thank you, Zach.

(Operator Instructions). Your next question is from Danielle Seitz with Dahlman Rose & Company. Please proceed with your question. Danielle Seitz - Dahlman Rose & Company: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify the $100 to $150 million is just for RPM or is it includes also New England?

That would be all capacity. Danielle Seitz - Dahlman Rose & Company: Okay. And it includes New England as well?

It includes New England and it also includes New York to the extent that our best line energy facility gets something. Danielle Seitz - Dahlman Rose & Company: Okay, okay. And may I ask, do you feel that you have pretty much done with the assets sales you wanted to do at Holdings?

Danielle, I'll go back to Ralph's question -- I mean response that I think we've… Danielle Seitz - Dahlman Rose & Company: I mean you seems to be reaching a steady state there?

Yeah, I think we've sold the assets that are the largest in an area that we don't have a regional mass of assets. Certainly the U.S. assets have a lot of fit towards its Texas and then some smaller IPPs in California plants that are all consistent with our strategy. There are lot of assets in Latin America. I think as Ralph said, we are doing some reassessment of those, nothing at this point to report we may have some more discussion of those at our analyst session in late March. But sorry, I think we just say that consistent with what we've done in last couple of years from time to time with those opportunistic things for us to pursue, but nothing specific at this time. Danielle Seitz - Dahlman Rose & Company: Great. Thanks.

Your next question is from Viswanath Khaitan with Deutsche Investment Management. Please proceed with your question. Viswanath Khaitan - Deutsche Investment Management: Hello and thank you. Nobody has said Vishwanath before, so I am glad to here somebody say that. Bigger question for Ralph or Tom, strategic question that '07, '08 may be catch-up years for you as you show some improvement in earnings, so when do you see the normalization of earnings? Is it at the end of '08 or do you think there are more drivers in '09 and beyond to grow beyond the normal growth rate?

We'll achieve that after '08.

You are asking -- Viswanath Khaitan - Deutsche Investment Management: What I am asking is that, when do you reach the normalized earnings level, is it in '08 or there are other drivers in '09 or '10 to continue to grow beyond normal growth rate?

Yeah, -- [breaking] channel, I would say we've talked about some growth from '07 to '08. As you look out after '08, very much of it gets into the markets driven by Power and PSE&G and Holdings are relatively stable. PSE&G is, if you think about in '07 has got to a normalized earnings level. Holdings businesses are reasonably stable. So, the growth to come from Power, as we said, it takes a couple of years for us -- couple of few years for us to lag into the forward curve that's happening over '07, '08. We do have one meaningful contract that drops off at the end of '08. That’s a primary megawatt around a clock sale. That's a number of years old, but for last of our older contracts. So, that will be a nice embedded pop form '08 to '09. But after that, it's in -- it's looking at the forward capacity and energy curves, and also with some growth initiatives that we are thinking to at this time.

And Vish, clearly just to follow-up on what Tom said, I mean the whole reason for positioning the balance would be to take advantage of opportunities that will exist 18 to 24 months from now, and just being able to play in that market, fulfill it forcefully, and with growth in mind. Viswanath Khaitan - Deutsche Investment Management: Right. And what about the carbon legislation, will that also give you some kickers?

Yeah, we are part of the Clean Energy Group. We have supported several of the proposals discussed in Washington, clearly carbon constraint future is a positive future for our shareholders. So, no doubt which position we will be speaking out in that arena. Viswanath Khaitan - Deutsche Investment Management: Right. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks Vish.

Your next question is from Clark Orsky with KDP Investment Advisors. Please proceed.

Yeah, I had a couple more on Holdings. Can you tell me what cash at Holdings was at the end of the year and what cash flow from operations was there in the fourth quarter?

You're saying cash flow from operations or cash on hand?

Both.

Cash on hand I think was reasonably modest, because I think I said that we paid $95 to $90 dividend in December and [our complete] cash is in $30 million range at the end of the year.

Okay

And cash from operations for the year was in the 150 million range.

Okay. And was debt pretty much the same, as it was at 930, at that level of Holdings?

Yes, George, there was no material. Holdings we have a bank line that we use very-very frequently. It's a $150 million $200 million line. But there was 1.15 billion of Holdings bonds outstanding and those were still outstanding.

Okay

Yeah we made purchases on those obviously over the last couple of years, but 930 to 1230, [we had] no change.

Okay. And then, just a couple on the guidance for Holdings, is there a tax rate we can use for Holdings for next year?

We have to get back to you with more details, it does move around a little bit, especially some of the tax rate is a function of consolidation, especially with some of the resource leases.

Right.

In general the US business is -- our tax before rate 40% or so international businesses, we book at lower rates. So may be number is in the 20s.

Okay and I guess -- I was just wondering about equity and earnings next year and sort of what's baked into the -- your forecast?

For Holdings?

Yeah. Sort of similar to this year, I think it was about 120 for the year or something?

Well, we said 125 to 140 is that line of release. I think the way to think about it is that the business is down and Chile and Peru are quite stable. The Texas, I think I went through that with an earlier caller. Okay. That we see coming down both the mark-to-market and at about $20 million after-tax and net income for sparks and some maintenance. And then the other businesses are smaller contributors. And on the other piece, it's a non-cash piece, but its book [accrual] is under FIN-48 and its related FAS-132, for leases, its in the mid-20s. There is a drain.

Okay. Okay I appreciate it.

Mr. Izzo, Mr. O'Flynn, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue with your presentation or closing remarks.

Okay, thank you very much. I would again like to thank you all for participating in the call and if you have any further questions, please feel free to call us. I can be reached on 973-430-6565 and I would myself or any member of the IR team will be happy to help. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference call for today. You may disconnect and thank you for participating.