Thank you for holding ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Wisconsin Energy’s conference call to review 2008 year-end results. This conference is being recorded to rebroadcast and all participants are in a listen-only mode at this time. Before the conference call begins, I will read the forward-looking language. All statements in this presentation, other than historical facts, are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, which are subject to change at any time. Such statements are based on management’s expectations at the time they are made. In addition to the assumptions and other factors referred to in connection with the statements, factors described in the company’s latest Form 10-K and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated. During the discussions, referenced earnings per share will be based on diluted earnings per share unless otherwise noted. After the presentation, the conference will be open to analysts for questions and answers. In conjunction with this call, Wisconsin Energy has posted on its website a package of detailed financial information on its 2008 year-end results at www.wisconsinenergy.com. A replay of our remarks will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of this call. Now, I would like to introduce Mr. Gale Klappa Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Wisconsin Energy Corporation.

Carlene, thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. We appreciate you joining us on our conference call to review the company’s 2008 year-end results. Before we proceed with our normal format, let me just mention one very quick thing that some of you may have heard on the news within the last two hours. Apparently at about 11 O’clock this morning, we had an explosion in the coal handling area of the Oak Creek Power Plant. Now, this area is where the coal trains are unloaded. The facilities are new, but the facilities are operational, so not under construction. We had contract workers in making some repairs in that area and apparently this is an area where coal dust can build up and apparently we had an explosion. From what we’ve learned so far from the site, there are approximately five injuries, we believe that four maybe critical. The situation at the site is stabilized, the plants are continuing to operate the existing Oak Creek units are continuing to operate. This area is relatively far away from the power block of the new constructions for the two new units, but we wanted to make you aware of the incident that occurred at about 11 O’clock this morning. Let me begin, our call as always by introducing the members of the Wisconsin Energy management team who are here with me today. We have Rick Kuester, President and CEO of Regeneration; Allen Leverett, our Chief Financial Officer; Jim Fleming, General Counsel; Jeff West, our Treasurer and Steve Dickson, our Controller. Allen, of course will review our financial results in detail in just a moment, but as you saw from our new release this morning, we’ve reported earnings per share from continuing operations of $3.03 for 2008, this compares with $2.84 a share…

Thank you, Gale. As Gale mentioned earlier, our 2008 year-end earnings from continuing operations were $3.03 per share. I will focus on operating income by segment and then touch on other income statement items. I will also discuss cash flows for the year and discuss our earnings guidance for 2009. Now, you may want to refer to page seven of the earnings package as I make my remarks. Our consolidated operating income in 2008 was $661 million as compared to $629 million in 2007 or an increase of $32 million. Operating income in our utility energy segment totaled $582 million, a decrease of $4 million versus the last year. Before I discuss the primary drivers, I would like to remind you of a couple developments that caused significant changes in individual items in the income statement. First, in September of 2007 we sold our Point Beach Nuclear Plant and entered into a long-term power purchase agreement with the new owner. Since, we no longer own Point Beach, our results in 2008 did not include operating or maintenance costs related to this facility nor did we incur any depreciation of the commissioning costs associated with plant. Of course, our fuel and purchase power cost increased as a result of the power purchase agreement we now have. Our income statement in 2008 reflected $488 million related to the amortization of the gain on the Point Beach sale. The amortization included a one-time refund of $62.5 million to our wholesale customers, a one-time amortization of $85 million offsets certain regulatory assets and the balance related to bill credits that were provided to our Wisconsin Electric retail customers in Wisconsin and Michigan. I would like to briefly expand on this item. The January 2008, Wisconsin rate order resulted in about a 17% increase electric…

Allen, thank you very much. As you can tell from report we had a very solid year both operationally and financially. We are on track and focused on delivering value for our customers and our stockholders.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Greg Gordon - Citi Investment Research

When I try to think about the rate filling that you are going to make in the first half of this year, you use a forward test here, correct?

It would be a two-year forward-looking test year. Greg Gordon – Citi Investment Research: So we’ll be looking at sort of 2010 average rate base.

Well again, two-year forward-looking test years, so we would look at 2010 and 2011 at 2010 and 2011 rate base. Greg Gordon – Citi Investment Research: Great and rate base includes, CapEx minus depreciation obviously, but plus does that also include any dollars that you put into the pension including that $289 million you put in January?

It’s meant to include the total capitalization of the company, Greg. So, to the extent that you invest in working capital, your inventories all that, a whole range of things to drive capitalization get included in the rate making formula.

The point being that is, it’s seen as funds on which you ought to be allowed to recoup your investment?

That’s right.

It seen as part of the capital base of the company, that’s right.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Looking at where interest rates and equity risk premiums have gone over the last year, would it be your expectation that you be requesting a the higher return on equity in the case, same lower and how are you thinking about positioning for the case?

Greg, candidly, I don’t think we would be asking for a higher return on equity than we’re currently allowed. In part, I think we have to be in the commission would expect us to be sensitive to the economic climate. So, my sense is that at this stage of the game, again we haven’t put all the final pieces together yet for the filing, because that wont take place for a number of bunch yet. My sense is, we would stay at a request of a 1075 return on equity and that the big driver actually and if you look at where we’re at, about 83% of all the Power the Future costs are already reflected in rate decisions of the commission has already made. So, one of the drivers for this upcoming case, as we know bring these units into services will be the remaining carrying costs on our Power the Future investment, but I think you will see based on all of the things we’re doing in the company. I think you’ll see a pretty modest rate increase request.

Great and when did the Bill credits associated with the nuclear asset sale roll off?

Periodically, they would roll off in 2011

So, there is another year of them and to the…

About a full-year of them, no question about that.

Your next question comes from Steve Fleishman - Catapult.

It’s actually Ted Hine. I just have a quick question. I think, Allen mentioned that the fuel recoveries, but also just on weather. Could you give us a feeling a sense of where you stand on at the end of ‘08 on actual benefits or hurt from weather and also on fuel recoveries?

Weather, Ted was almost a neutral, if you combine gas and electric together, cooling degree days were down in 2008 versus 2007. So, we had a cooler than normal summer, but then of course also a cooler than normal January and December of 2008. So, when you combine the two factors at a consolidated level, almost a neutral impact of weather.

Actually my wife says we had no summer, on this ride and just to break that down for Q4, we had a, a very cold December of 2008 very cold. In fact, based on the heating degree days, it was the second coldest December in about 19 years and our customers in December used 13% more natural gas than they did in December of 2007. So, Allen is actually right. Basically, our earnings were hurt by the cool summer, but it got cold in a hurry, but never warmed up, but it got cold in a hurry and really we had very, very strong consumer demand for natural gas in the fourth quarter and in particularly in December.

And in terms of fuel recovery Ted, I think you also were asking that question. For the year as a whole, at least as viewed by the shareholders were neutral on fuel recovery, and then we made a filing with the commission actually to refund approximately $8.5 million to customers associated with fuel recovery in 2008. So, shareholder fully recovered and I would say that customers will receive somewhere in the order of $8.5 million in refunds.

And that would be a one-time bill credit we would expect for the commission would act pretty quickly, probably have a one-time bill credits to customers in the range Allen talked about in February or early March.

And then just one last question on the fuel recovery. What was the actual under recovery, when we’re looking at the first quarter trying to do our earnings estimates for that? What was the actual under recovery in the first quarter of last year?

It’s about $15 million under recovered in the first quarter of ‘08.

Your next question comes from Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Hi, guys really two questions a little bit separate from each other. First of all, Allen when we think about major construction projects post Power the Future, I mean if you’ve got the South Oak Creek environmental retrofits and you have got the second winds plant construction? Can you talk a little bit about how much of the materials, the labor, the ENC contract. How much of that’s locked down versus how much is kind of open price change?

First of all on Oak Creek, what we call ourselves Oak Creek air quality control project. The commission is already approved that is under construction, engineering is almost complete and we have locked down virtually all of the costs. All the major equipment has been procured and as Rick is pointing out, the steel is also locked down in terms of the price and procurement. So, not much variability that we would expect other than we need to get appropriate labor productivity, but we are pretty well fixed in terms of the procurement and the costs related to the air quality controls at Oak Creek. Now on the other hand, Michael the Glacier Hills Wind project is in the earliest stages of review by the commission. So, we have not locked in any pricing as of yet.

Okay, so if the cost of wind turbines just kind of moving your way a little bit you’ll be able to be capture. Your customers will capture the benefit of the lower facility; it might have a slight impact on your forward rate base there.

That is absolutely correct. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Okay.

The potential size of this wind farm, you could see that the investment cost of that wind farm being easily $500 million.

Right, understood, I mean what’s the in-service date needed?

We would want to bring Glacier Hills Wind during 2012.

All 500 megawatts?

Preferably, actually at the end of 2011, so we’d have a full-year of service in 2012.

I’m sorry, I missed that. So, if it’s 500 megawatts breaking ground late this year?

200 at the upper end about 200 megawatts and projecting around the cost of the fact size wind farm roughly $0.5 billion and then we would assuming the commission gives that go ahead in the timely fashion. We would strive to bring it in right of end of 2011, for our full-year of service in 2012.

Right because that gets you though to the, what is that I think the 8% required renewable portfolio outstanding?

Michael it doesn’t. It would get us with the other things we have in mind about 65% of the way there. We are also going to propose not in the next few months, but as we move forward and as actually as the renewable portfolio standard become clear, we’re going to propose adding some modest amount of slower and perhaps a 50 megawatts biomass land and then we’ll look and see where we are, but Glacier Hills does not get us to where we need to be by 2015. I think what we have on the table we can see how they get 65% of the way there.

Got it, last item just on the pension contribution, Allen, can you state what the pension contribution was you made January and more importantly what you expect to make over the next one or two years?

Yes, the total contribution Michael was $290 million, $270 million of that, $290 million was for the pension trusts to fund the qualified pension benefits and then the remaining $20 million was for other post employment benefits, not related to pension, so things like retiree medical. Sitting here today, I can’t predict, today Michael what market returns if any will look like in 2009, but at this point, I wouldn’t expect to be making contributions in 2010 or ‘11. So, we will see what market returns are like this year.

Michael, I was looking forward to the Hard Rock in Vegas, but I think its going to be conference room in New York. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: You know third year in a row for the conference room in New York. I think I’ll tell you when I meet you for golf in Vegas one day.

Your next question comes from Reza Hatefi – [Unidentified Company].

Allen, you were mentioning some of the economic issues being offset by O&M cuts, could you quantify O&M increase or decrease year-over-year from 2008 to ‘09?

I would expect in terms of overall O&M. So, just take regulatory amortization, so the side rates you just look at what I would view as controllable O&M in the business. We see that being essentially flat. In fact, it might actually be down slightly in 2009 as compared to 2008. So, when I talked about the net $0.15 per share negative impact, I’m already netting out of that, originally what we might have expected to be some O&M increases, which now we’re not going to see those increases.

Reza two things, we have done which we haven’t discussed on the call, but we’ve talked about elsewhere. We have frozen officer salaries for 2009 and we have also put in place of limited hiring policy. We will not be replacing any non-critical positions and not hiring additional people other than what are needed for the Power the Future investments. We obviously need to train operations people and maintenance folks for the new Power the Future assets that are coming online. So, clearly we will be hiring in that area, but only operations critical positions will be replaced. So, pretty much a limited hiring freeze and the freeze in officer salaries in a lot of other of very intelligent cost reductions that we don’t believe will affect operational performance, but we’re taking a very hard look as are all companies and what we absolutely must spend in ‘09.

Okay and pension I’m sorry, I missed that number. What is it, how much higher is it in ‘09 versus 2008?

That the FAS 87 expense is actually above level, I would expect at about $22 million. So, the $22 million away and I would say about $22 million in 2009, again that the FAS 87 expense.

Okay, is the expected online time of the Oak Creek plant still the same as your previous guidance?

At the moment, Bechtel is still focusing and targeting on year-end 2009 for Unit 1 at the end of August 2010 for Unit 2. We will know, they’re making good progress, we will know a lot more is in terms of a specific in service dates. As we come out of this spring and get into early summer. There are number of milestones that they are targeting to meet and we’ll have a much better feel probably by the end of June, but real likelihood of making me undergone ‘09, but I will say this in fact Rick and I, we’re talking about this just a few minutes ago and that progress has been made nowhere, the book-ends are reasonably clear as to when we could expect the units to come online, but so far, that is Bechtel’s continuing target, they are working toward it.

Okay Allen, you’ve mentioned I think $0.39 guidance for Power the Future for 2009. How much that is associated with the $0.39?

Well, that’s an after-tax consolidated contribution Reza, from the four factors that I’ve mentioned our full-year earnings from Port Washington one, full-year from Port two, as well as the earnings on the water handling system and the coal handling system. So, that all after tax consolidated basis after bottom line.

At the top your head, I know you have the optionality of issuing debt as per the debt ratio and agreement, but then you could also issue some back leverage so to speak that. I’m just wondering within that $0.39 calculation what the total debt is?

Well, I think the reasonable working assumption is that you look our consolidated capital structure, which at this point at least there is roughly 45% equity if you treat half of the hybrids as equity and half as debt, 45% equity, 75% debt on a consolidated basis. So, to your report Reza, the differential in the debt between the subsidiaries in holding company. In fact that back leverage brings 45, 55 capital structure and so when I quote $0.39 of share its levered on that basis 55% debt.

Do you recall what the power of future earnings were in ‘07 and ‘08.

2007 we only had one of the units at Port Washington, so each unit is on the order of $0.14 a share, so we probably have on the order of $0.14 share, Reza in 2007 and 2008 we would have half of years earnings from Port two, so add $0.07 or 14 gives you 21 and I believe we had about the 21 think about a nickel probably from the coal handling system so total with the $0.26 or 26, 27 somewhere in that range for 2008 and $0.11 to issue to 39 in the 2009

Your next question comes from Paul Ridzon - KeyBanc. Please state your question Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc: Q4 guidance $0.72. I just wondering what the big drivers are that allowed $0.13.

We mention one thing we didn’t give fourth quarter guidance per se although we certainly back into we gave guidance for the year at 290 and one way to look at it essentially they were three positives that helped overcome the impact of the economy and lower electric sales and the positives are pretty simply one weather two weather three weather, no I am kidding. But, weather was a big factor as I mentioned earlier consumer demand for natural gas in December was off the charts. We have 13% increase in natural gas send out in December compared to December of year ago so weather was a big driver obviously we have the earnings that Allen mentioned in the Q4 of ‘08 from the operation of second unit at Port Washington that was in Q4’07. We had good fuel recoveries in good control and those things together offset to decline in Energy sales particularly to our large commercial and industrial customers. Yes, Paul the guidance that we gave early December with our press release when we reaffirmed the 290 that was based on I didn’t get have November results and as actually turned out; we had a pickup also in November from weather. So, just to reiterate what Gale is saying not only December weather, but we got a help from November weather better performance on O&M and then fuel also broke our way relative to the forecast that I had when we reaffirmed the guidance for the year early in December.

What happened to fuel in the fourth quarter?

Well, in terms of fuel in the fourth quarter the figure that I have, we were essentially neutral. If we take cumulative for the three quarters Q1, Q2 and Q3 together for 2008, we were essentially in a neutral position going into the fourth quarter and we at least from the shareholders standpoint, remained in a neutral position and in fact built up that roughly $8.5 million over the recover balance, which we expect to return to customers as Gale mentioned earlier in the hopefully on February.

But, you didn’t book that?

No, we didn’t book that, but again I took your question to be ones the differential between where you finally came in on the fourth quarter versus your financial plan or your forecast that you based your guidance on at December and honestly, when I did my guidance in December, I was still thinking that there was a chance that we could end up with under recovery.

You still thinking 0-20 under recovery then?

No, I would say, going into the fourth quarter it could have been a couple million dollars under recovery. I certainly wouldn’t have expected a big one, but we didn’t see that and in fact we were neutral from a shareholders standpoint, if I understand your question.

And for Q’07 you were under recovery, correct?

Let say, let me go back herein the forecast that were my recollection and my under recovery that I can see in ‘07 is about $36 million under recovery in the fourth quarter of ‘07.

Kind of you gave an earnings walk, but you got us to 305, but you reiterating 305 to 315 where do we see the upside opportunities?

Well, the reason that I would step and I’m sticking at the 305 to 315, if you look at the differential between the 290 and the 303, while as we discussed that’s driven big factor is weather. So, at this point at least although January was cold, there are a lot of months to go in the year, so I wouldn’t want to step out there and say that weather for the year is going to be net adder versus the financial plan.

Although, a lot of moving parts and we’re working on all of them. So, we feel we can get some more in the and as Allen said, we have a pretty good feel for how to get to the 305 and we are working on the moving parts to see what we can do beyond that.

Yes, and on sales, as Gale mentioned in the script. Sitting here today, we don’t see a need to change the sales forecast outlook that we put out there in December, but being very candid results were kind of mixed in January. So, we are not changing our sales forecast, but the results were somewhat mixed in January. So, I think that’s still might potentially be a downside force we will see. Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc: Was there pending fuel legislation in Wisconsin, has that been resolved?

No, that has not yet been resolved. The Wisconsin Commission basically came to a conclusion that it changed in how the fuel recovery mechanism works in Wisconsin that any change in that mechanism would require legislative approval, and our latest understanding is that the commission and the governor will propose a legislative change sometime during 2009. Given the time it takes to get a bill through the legislature my guess is we will not see any change in the fuel rules for 2009. If there were to be change passed from the legislature probably would take effect to 2010. Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc: Whatever they do I’m sure they are going to make it harder for us to figure out what’s going on into fuel because investors.

Well, wait the whole idea if there is a change would be make it more transparent and easier to administer. So, let’s hope you are on in that one.

Your next question comes from Steve Gambuza - Longbow Capital.

Sorry if you went over this already, but would you mind just repeating what the kind of annual expiration of the Point Beach credits are in over the next three years to 2010, ‘11 or ‘12 just of I’m trying to sense for what kind of built-in rate increase is there?

Allen is looking for the specifics, we will not have. So, there is no plan for the Point Beach credits to go into 2012.

Okay, so, it’s a roll-off in 2000, is there a roll-off in 2009 at all?

There is a step down

Step down meaning great rates actually the customers see the smaller rate increase in 2009?

That’s correct and has seen a smaller rate increase. I think our, typical industrial customer probably saw in January about 1.3% to 1.5% rate increase, but to make a long story short and we will get you the numbers, the bill credits would step down in ‘09, step down again its 2010 there maybe some modest amount left in 2011 we will have to see.

Yes, if you look at retail. So, we are talking about Wisconsin and Michigan retail, It provided approximately $316 million in credits in 2008 and then in 2009, my expectation would be to provide roughly $240 million worth of credits. Again, to Wisconsin and Michigan retail. I do want to clarify one thing, Gale is exactly right. We would expect Wisconsin credits unless the commission decides to do it differently, we would expect Wisconsin credits to run through 2010 and 2011. Now the Michigan commission decided to give credits over 18 months so, I believe those started in November of ‘07.

So they’ll roll off before 2011.

Right, they will roll off in early 2010.

Do you have for the Wisconsin, what that kind of the 2009? I just want to trying to get sense for what the impact in 2010 will be relative to 2009 and Wisconsin from the roll off of credits?

I’m sorry, Steve, the impact on rates?

The impact on Wisconsin retail customers in 2000, like how much credits roll off in 2010 versus 2009?

That’s easy, essentially for the retail customers as a whole would be about a 3% increase from the step down to the Bill credits in 2009.

Steve, on wholesale, those guys got their one-time credit in 2008. So there are no credits to come from wholesale.

Okay, Gale, you commented on 2009, could you comment on 2010?

Regarding the price increase?

Yes.

No, it would be roughly again based on data I have seen roughly another 3% rate increase.

Okay, is it possible that giving the decline in power prices and coal prices and gas prices that essentially rate increase could be offset by just the decline in the curve?

Well, if we see 450 gas in weak coal markets, it is entirely possible, but there could be another fuel price decrease coming our way in ‘09 and yes, it could a major offset to that 3% increase that took effect in January of this year. So, I have very good question and the answer is yes.

When will you file your fuel clause, are you making a filing for 2009 on your fuel and purchase power rates or?

No, Steve, the way it works is a fuel recovery rate is set and unless we trip the bandwidth if you will plus or minus 2% recovery on an annual basis. So, unless you are going to over recover your projected fuel cost by more than 2% of under recover by more than 2%. Basically, the rate stays in affect with one exception and that is we had a special agreement with our commission last year that if we over recovered last year we would refund and that’s what Allen has mentioned about an $8.5 million refund that we filed to be able to provide the customers and hope to do so, with very shortly here.

Okay and then moving on to the sales work forecast. I take it you guys are in conversation with some of your large industrial customers, and given the trend you saw in the fourth quarter versus what you’ve guided to in terms of I think like 6% or so, decline in 2009. I guess it certainly implies some improvement or stabilization in the outlook during the year in 2009. Is that the case that’s what your customers are telling that you were kind of in the worst part of the decline right now and they expect to be using more power in the third or fourth quarter?

Well, based upon the interviews and just to be more specific, we have done interviews. I would say fairly structured interviews with roughly our top 100 customers and listening to what they’re saying, obviously they all have their own view and they’re in different sectors, but we would indicate that we would start to see a turnaround in electric sales into the third quarter of 2009, but of course, who knows if they are right or not, but if you look at what they’re telling us that certainly would imply. And Steve, what were doing right now, I’m getting weekly reports, since we have pretty much automated meters on all large customers. We can poll that the meters on a weekly basis at least and it’s a blunt instrument, but try to at lest to get a snapshot of what’s going on with key customers. So, that’s not to say that won’t get surprise, I mean we still may get surprised, but we are trying to get as much real time data we can to ascertain what’s going on and that’s certainly something that we will keep you all apprised of on our earnings calls, and one other Steve just to clarify what Gale was saying on the fuel, obviously we are filing a general rate case as he said and within the context of that general rate case, you will also file fuel information and you are filing all those work papers in the first half of this year, included with those work papers will be a forecast o fuel.

Great, so I guess on that point Allen from if we continue to have kind of a week gas and power price outlook that it seems like your O&M is relatively stable, you are not really increasing the CapEx, that much versus the current run rate. So, the real moving pieces are fuel and these bill credits and so, it seems like if we get a nice tail and from fuel it could actually result in a headline amount that shouldn’t be that bad for customers? Is that a fair way to think about it?

Yes, I think that’s a very fair way to think about it and one other point that Allen was alluding to, I really think the visibility that our customers have about there future markets and future orders is very limited right now. It’s interesting to see and we’ve practiced Allen said a lot of our large customers, I have looked at four or five virtually every other day and in one instance, one of our largest customers who gave us their input and what they’ve thought their usage and production would be in late November ramped 12% above what they thought they were going to do in January. In another instance, another large Wisconsin customer was dead on, but is now saying they’re not sure about February. So, I think that the visibility Steve is, just not great given where the economy is in the uncertainty, but I think the good news is, that the mixed results some better, some worse, but it came out in terms of what we were seeing for January for our largest customers on a composite basis about exactly where we thought it would.

Finally, when will you file for the rate case?

Sometime in the first half of this year.

Your next question comes from Nathan Judge - Atlantic Equities.

I wanted to just ask a question on the recovery of fuel. You’ve mentioned that in 2008, you agreed to give all over recovery back to customers. Is that the case in 2009 and if we have $4.50 gas will there potentially to be sent to shareholders? Or how does that work?

We had a special stipulation as you mentioned with the consumer groups and with the consumer groups and with the commission for 2008. The normal fuel rules will apply for 2009 and as I mentioned earlier, the normal fuel rules work off a bandwidth plus or minus your projected fuel recovery amount. So, depending upon how the fuel markets work and what our actual fuel costs are and actually it also what our actual MISO costs are in terms of purchase power. We will operate within that 2% bandwidth for 2009.

Just as far as going back to your EPC contract to Bechtel and the negotiations going on there. Could you just give us an update on timing as you see at currently, I think you’ve mentioned some comments on the call, but could you be a bit more specific and give us more color on that, that will be appreciated, thank you.

We’ve covered in the early remarks, obviously the fact that Bechtel filed basically two major claims in late December and there is a very specific process laid out in the contract to resolve any disputes and essentially, if mediation and management discussions don’t work, then the contract calls to move to binding arbitration. We’re in the discussion mediation stage right now; I expect that will take a fair amount of time, just because of the modest data involved in the amount of data interchanged that’s needed and if that doesn’t work and we go to binding arbitration. I think we have estimated that the whole process to take 12 to 18 months. I’m looking at our correct legal council on each degree. That’s his best shot 12 to 18 months if we go to binding arbitration.

Your next question comes from Dan Jenkins – State of Wisconsin. Dan Jenkins – State of Wisconsin: First, I just wanted to verify, I think you said there is you have no plans to issue any debt in ‘09 is that right?

Dan I have no plans to issue any long-term debt. Obviously, we’ll continue to be an issuer of commercial paper and we’ll look at market conditions, if market conditions are good for utility long-term debt, say in the latter part of the year, say in late third, end of the fourth quarter, we may consider doing something with Wisconsin electric power company, but that the point that I was trying to make with my comments, we don’t have to do that. We’ve got some flexibility with the right conditions during this year. If we don’t like the conditions, we can wait until 2010. Dan Jenkins – State of Wisconsin: Okay, on the Bechtel claims, I think you said it was $413 million, is that right?

Well, they’re essentially two large claims. The first one is 413 and second one is for 72 if my memory serves me right. Dan Jenkins – State of Wisconsin: Okay, so the combined it’s like 485 then.

Yes, now that is on a total project basis and of course we have two co-owners that own roughly 15% of the facility. So, to judge any impact on Wisconsin Energy you basically take 485 and subtract 15%.

Which works out to be about $412 million.

How much is related to the labor market charges that you’ve mentioned I think you said you’re currently disputing that part?

Bechtel has not really broken out. Frankly, we have asked repeatedly for a detailed explanation of their belief of the cost they’ve incurred because of weather they could not have reasonably expected, but they have not in their claim broken out weather versus labor. So, I cannot give you a straight answer or a definitive answer on how much is labor and how is weather. We would like to have that information and we’re pressing for that as well.

Okay, so they have an itemized kind of different areas of dispute?

We think that’s something we definitely want to see.

Okay and then if I could just get a little more color on some of your large customers in the economy? Have you had any that have actually shutdown, I know in Janesville they had a big auto plant, I know that’s not in your service territory, but if you had any big customers that have actually shutdown that, probably wouldn’t comeback when the economy comes back?

The only one that really comes to mind and this was announced actually about 18 months ago. There is a major Delphi auto parts operation near Oak Creek that announced when Delphi, went into bankruptcy sometime in the past 18 months that they would be as part of the reorganization closing the Delphi plant, but that has really been closed to ideal now for six months to eight months. Beyond that, we’ve seen production cutbacks virtually across the board and as I mentioned most dramatically with primary metal companies like foundries and specialty steal operations, automotive and automotive products and paper, but beyond that and of course the loss of two large paper mills for the second half of last year that permanently closed. The Niagara and the Kimberly mills that were formally owned by Stora Enso in Eastern and Northern Wisconsin, those two mills have closed, but Delphi and those two mills is about yet, everything else is just kind of reduced production levels.

I was wondering on your O&M, it was up quite a bit both in the fourth quarter and year-to-date the other O&M. Is that related to maybe some reclassification due to Point Beach or is there other things going on there or what?

Allen will explain because there is a lot of moving parts because of the commission order and the recovery of regulatory assets and the amortization of the game. So, you really have to work your way through the pieces to get a clear picture.

Yes. In the right case Dan and when I say the rate case this would have been the case we filed in ‘07, new rates that we are in effect of beginning of ‘08 and we had increases in the [ATC Terra], PTF leads costs and then amortization and recovery of other deferred costs. If you take all those three together and that was about $263 million, which you would see in the O&M account. The other impact if you are looking at ‘08 versus ‘07 we had in effect a one-time recovery if you will of bad debt cost, which were $44 million in the first quarter of ‘08, that also runs through the O&M account. So, if you look at transmission PTF recovery of deferred costs essentially that was $307 million. Then we had increase in O&M it’s a power plants and delivery area that was $62 million so all that’s together $369 million. Then we have the nuclear units that come out. So, that’s $120 million in the other way and that gets you roughly $250 million increase in O&M. Steve, you had one other factor.

Yeah Dan your question I thought also focused on the fourth quarter and if you remember last year, we sold the Point Beach plant in the fourth quarter. So, on an annual basis if you’re comparing O&M, as Allen said, we have these large increases for the regulatory items, but offsetting that was reduction in an O&M to the Point Beach. That lasted through the third quarter, but in the fourth quarter it’s comparable on Point Beach wouldn’t have that positive benefit as compared to the first three quarters. So, that’s one of the key factors on why the fourth quarter O&M looks even higher.

Your next question comes from Maurice May - Power Insights.

Yes, actually Paul Ridzon asked both of my questions exactly and so thank you Paul

That’s concludes our conference call for today. Ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate you talking part. If you have any other questions Colleen Henderson is available in the Investor Relations office, her direct line 414-221-2592. Thank you again, good afternoon.