Greetings and welcome to the Ameren Corporation Second Quarter 2012 Earnings Call. (Operator Instructions) It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Doug Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, you may now begin.

Thank you and good morning. I am Doug Fischer, Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. On the call with me today are Tom Voss, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Marty Lyons, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and other members of the Ameren management team. Before we begin, let me cover a few administrative details. This call is being broadcast live on the internet, and the webcast will be available for one year on our website at Ameren.com. Further, this call contains time-sensitive data that is accurate only as of the date of today’s live broadcast. Redistribution of this broadcast is prohibited. To assist with our call this morning, we have posted a presentation on our website that will be referenced during this call. To access this presentation, please look in the investor section of our website under webcasts and presentations, and follow the appropriate link. Turning to page two of the presentation, I need to inform you that comments made during this conference call may contain statements that are commonly referred to as forward-looking statements. Such statements include those about future expectations, beliefs, plans, strategies, objectives, events, conditions and financial performance. We caution you that various factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated and described in the forward-looking statement. For additional information concerning these factors, please read the forward-looking statement section in the news release we issued today, and the forward-looking statements and risk factor sections in our filings with the SEC. Tom will begin this call with an overview of second quarter 2012 earnings and 2012 guidance, followed by a discussion of recent regulatory and business developments. Marty will follow with more detailed discussions of second quarter 2012 financial results, and regulatory and other financial matters. We will then open the call for questions. Here’s Tom, who will start on page three of the presentation.

Thanks, Doug. Good morning and thank you for joining us. I’m pleased to report that today we released second quarter 2012 core earnings of $.73 per share, compared to $.59 per share of core earnings in the second quarter of 2011. This improvement reflected increased earnings from our regulated utility operations, partially offset by decreased earnings from our merchant generation operations. Key drivers of the higher regulated utility earnings were a favorable federal energy regulatory commission order related to a disputed Ameren Missouri power purchase agreement that expired in 2009, the absence in 2012 of a 2011 Ameren Missouri charge to earnings related to the fuel adjustment clause and 2011 Missouri electric and 2012 Illinois gas rate adjustments. Other factors having a favorable effect on second quarter 2012 regulated utility earnings compared to second quarter 2011 regulated utility earnings included reduced storm-related costs and increased electric sales to native load customers resulting from warmer temperatures. Merchant generation earnings were negatively impacted by lower prices for electricity. Marty will provide more details on our second quarter earnings in a few minutes. Turning to page four, based on second quarter results, today we are raising our 2012 core earnings guidance range to $2.25 to $2.55 per share, from a prior range of $2.20 to $2.50 per share. Our core earnings guidance range for our merchant generation business segment remains $.05 to $.15 per share. The favorable earnings impact of warmer-than-normal second quarter temperatures, and the previously mentioned FERC order on the disputed power purchase agreement, have led us to raise core guidance for our regulated utility businesses by $.05 per share, at both the low and high ends of the range, to a new range of $2.20 to $2.40 per share. This guidance assumes normal temperatures for the second half of the…

Thanks, Tom. Turning to page nine in the presentation. Today we reported second quarter 2012 GAAP earnings of $.87 per share, compared to second quarter 2011 GAAP earnings of $.57 per share. Excluding certain items in each year, Ameren recorded second quarter 2012 core earnings of $.73 per share, compared to second quarter 2011 core earnings of $.59 per share. Our second quarter 2012 core earnings excluded two items that are included in GAAP earnings. The largest of these non-core items was the increase in income tax benefit as a result of the first quarter 2012 non-cash asset impairment charge at our merchant generation business, and the GAAP requirement to recognize quarterly income tax expense using the annual estimated effective income tax rate. This item increased net income by $.18 per share in the second quarter of 2012, partially reversing the $.36 per share first quarter 2012 charge. We expect the remaining $.18 per share of this year-to-date expense to be fully reversed by the end of the year. The second non-core item is a $.04 per share loss from the net effect of unrealized mark-to-market activity. On page 10, we highlight key factors that drove the $.14 per share improvement in second quarter 2012 core earnings compared to second quarter 2011 core earnings. These key factors included electric and gas rate adjustments, net of certain related expenses, which increased earnings by $.09 per share. Electric rates changed in Missouri in late July of last year, and gas delivery rates changed in Illinois in January of this year. A second factor favorably impacting the comparison was the previously discussed favorable FERC order regarding a disputed power purchase agreement. This added $.07 per share to second quarter 2012 earnings. The earnings comparison also benefited from the absence of the previously discussed…

(Operator instructions). Our first question is from the line of Steven Berg – Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Steven Berg – Morgan Stanley: Good Morning. Just wanted to touch on the FERC quarter, regarding the distributed power purchase agreement. Are there any ongoing impacts to earnings that we should be thinking about, or this more of a onetime item for this quarter?

Yes Steven, no there aren’t any ongoing impacts associated with that. You know the $0.07 gain we had, is their reversal of some negative impacts that we had in prior years as a result of the (inaudible) charges. Those negative impacts had been included in quarter earnings in the past, which is why we reflected this gain in quarter earnings. That said, we now have a fuel adjustment clause in place in Missouri, and there’re not ongoing impacts from this settlement. Steven Berg – Morgan Stanley: Understood. And then switching gears to MISO capacity. What are the next steps that we should be thinking about, or further steps to come post the third quarter?

I think the thing we’re really focused on is this capacity portability issue. And I think the next steps are for, you know, in accordance with the FERC ruling for MISO and PJM double discussion about some of the barriers to portability, as well as other issues that they have. And then we and other parties will be filing comments with FERC regarding the portability issues. So those are the ongoing things to watch for.

Our next question is from the line of Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates. Please state your question. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Good Morning, how are you?

Good, thank you, how are you? Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: All right. The Illinois pollution deferral, you know, regulatory deferral that you’re asking for in terms of implementation, how should we think about the impact of that on your plans, where they stand now I guess due to this issue. There was a press report, I think yesterday, that there was a potential plant closures, et cetera if this wasn’t deferred, and I wanted to get some census to where things stand?

Sure Paul. I think what you’d be seeing in the press reports would be consistent with things we’ve talked about on our past couple of calls. Obviously earlier this year as a result of the drop in power prices amongst other things, we decelerated construction of the (Newton Scrubber) Project. We talked about the fact that, you know, one of the obstacles we had was the Illinois Multi Pollutant Standard and the racket down in terms of So2 emissions. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: I understand, I don’t mean to make you go over that, I apologies. What I was trying to figure out was, if you were to get this, would this make things – I mean, in other words we should be under - the guidance in your forecast and everything are under the expectation that we don’t have a change, is that correct? And if I guess you did get the change, how might that change things? Do you follow what I’m saying? Am I understanding it correctly?

I guess so, but you know there’s not, I’d say an immediate near term impact. As we look out, you know, we’re concerned about that ratchet down out in 2015. And to the extent that release isn’t granted by the pollution control board, you know, and the Newton Scrubber, is not reaccelerated, then we do face the prospect of plant closures as discussed in our prepared remarks. So, you know, this is really an impact when we look out to that 2015 timeframe. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: And then, with respect to guidance, I gather, if I understand this correctly, it’s because of the FERC order and because of normal weather in the second quarter, that you guys are raising the guidance? Is that correct?

Yes, those were some of the things that we had. You may recall Paul that after the first quarter, we actually lowered our guidance from our regulated entities by about $0.05 on either end of the range, and that’s because in the first quarter we had about $0.10 of negative impact from weather, and so we lowered the guidance $0.05. We’ve seen an improvement in the weather situation, we’re still down year-to-date by about $0.03 on a net basis versus normal. But we did see some positive impact in the second quarter from weather. And we also had the, as you noted, the positive FERC ruling. Those things allowed us to move the guidance back up $0.05 to where we started the year for the regulated entities. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Thank you.

Our next question is from the line of Julian Dumoulin – Smith – UBS. Please state your question. Julian Dumoulin – Smith – UBS: Hi, Good Morning.

Good Morning, Julian. Julian Dumoulin – Smith – UBS: First on the treasuries and the Illinois (formulate grates). I noticed that you mentioned 3% here. Is that still using the blue chip average? And then secondly, did that have sort of market-to-market impact in the second quarter, and what was that? I apologize if I missed that in your prepared remarks.

That’s fine. Julian the 3% it reflect the actual experience in terms of (inaudible) for the first half of the year, as well as, you know, blue chip forecasting as of July. So, it’s really the average for the year, which is what’s included in the ROE. So, that 3% is what’s baked into the guidance. In terms of a way to think about that, about every 10 basis points or so, is about a half cent per share. So about a 30 basis point move is probably a penny and a half to two cents when you’re thinking about the impact of something like that overall. I wouldn’t say there was a mark-to market the regulatory asset that we recorded at the end of the first quarter, was unchanged at the end of the second quarter as it related to that business. Julian Dumoulin – Smith – UBS: Thank you.

Our next question is from the line of John Hansen - Prestigious Advisors. Please state your question.

Morning.

Good Morning.

My questions have been answered. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Our next question is from the line of Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Hey, guys congrats on a good quarter, good first half of the year. On Illinois, Marty, just want to make sure I followed the rate base level declined from 2012 in your filing the 2013 little bit over right around $100 to $120 somewhat million dollars. Can you just walk us through the (Pumaton Takes) meaning net capital additions minus normal course depreciation and then minus bonus depreciation, just so we can kind of think through the give and take, and then think about how this impacts post 2013?

Yes, I don’t – Michael, I don’t have a full reconciliation to walk you through, maybe something you can follow up with Doug after the call. But you highlighted one of the drivers for that decrease. The biggest is really that bonus depreciation, which has been included. And of course that’s been reflected in the guidance. I think what you’ve seen in some of these cases that we have pending, is folks arguing that the accumulated depreciation should be included in the rate base. And certainly for this year in terms of the way we’ve been broadcasting out earnings and forecasting our rate base, we’ve included the deferred tax update from bonus depreciation in there, so that’s the big driver. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Thank you.

Our next question is coming from the line of Andy Bishop – Morningstar. Please proceed with your question. Andy Bishop – Morningstar: Hi, Good Morning. Actually I have a clarification question on the FAC ordered. If I understand correctly you took $18 million charge in 2011, no charge (inaudible), and then you reversed the charge in 2013 paying (inaudible)? Is that correct?

That could be, and I don’t want to speculate on the outcome in ’13, but yes, we took a charge last year of about $0.05, as noted on the call there’s still about $25 or $26 million pending before the Reserved Public Service Commission that we expect them to rule on later this year. And then we’ll see how these court appeals play out. Obviously we took a charge because of the – last year, because of the commissions decision, and of course we flowed those monies back through the FAC. If at some point that commission decision is reversed one way or another, and ultimately we’re able to collect those monies, at that point, it would become a gain. Andy Bishop – Morningstar: Thanks so much.

Our next question is coming from the line of Kevin Fallon – SIR Capital. Please state your question. Kevin Fallon – SIR Capital: Good Morning. A question for you, within your 2012 earnings guidance of $225 to $255, what is the amount of parent company drag when you’re not allocating, non-recourse debt, interest expense related to that?

You know, I don’t know what the parent company drag is. Typically what we’ve done with our debt for the most part is allocated those costs out. So, you know the parent company debt that exist, you know, the $425 million of debt, you know, for the most part those interest charges actually get allocated out to the merchant segment, and (inaudible) supporting that merchant segment. So, while the $425 is an obligation of Ameren Corporation, the debt is being seen as supporting capital expenditures made at the merchant segment over time. Primarily, I shouldn’t say primarily, really a AERG, which is a non-registrant, so we allocate those interests costs out to that segment. Kevin Fallon – SIR Capital: But there’s a much larger component of non-recourse that you also book within the Merchant Generation section, that would go away if you walked away from those businesses. I’m just trying to understand, if you separated from the Merchant Generation Businesses, one of the ongoing expense that you would have at the holding company level to offset against the regulated utilities?

In terms of the debt, there’s $825 million dollars or so of debt, at Ameren Energy Generating that is non-recourse debt. That interest expense is allocated to Ameren energy Generating and AER, and then there’s the other $425 up at Ameren Corp. and again that’s an Ameren Corp. obligation and the interest expense is allocated down to that segment, Ameren Energy Resources. Kevin Fallon – SIR Capital: Thank you.

Our next question is from David Paz with Bank of America, please state your question. David Paz – Bank of America: Good morning.

: Good morning, David. David Paz – Bank of America: I was just wondering, following the agreement on MEEIA, what are the prospects of settlement in your ending Missouri rate case?

Yes, David, I think I will maybe Warner Bax to take that one.

David, how are you doing? David Paz – Bank of America: Good morning, how are you doing?

I’m terrific, thanks. With regards to the settlement – I mean, as you know, we’ve in the last several rate cases, we have not really come together in a comprehensive basis to settle the entire rate case, and that’s due to several reasons – largely due to the fact that we have several parts of those cases, and certainly several issues to resolve. But historically, we have been able to take several issues and resolve those in a partial settlement, and then take ultimately fewer issues to the commission. Having said all of those things, certainly, if the prospects or settlements are always there so that the discussions be fruitful, and if they are fruitful, we would be happy to engage in those discussions there, if you can find something that makes sense. So, I can’t predict the outcome, but certainly if the opportunity is right, if it make sense for us, then we will move forward with that. David Paz – Bank of America: Great, and just one question regarding your merger statement, what price level, Marty, are you looking for that you would need to avoid mob falling, the two of the three un-scrubbed core plant?

You know, David, there’s not, I would say, a specific price level of the words that I point to that, you know, would cause us to avoid them – and I think what you’re really asking is there a certain price level in which the, you know, Newton Scrubber would be, you know, we accelerated, and you know, consistent, and then what we said on prior calls, you know, I think that we – you know, we’ve estimated that if we reaccelerated that we would probably need something like 20 or 24 months of construction time to have that scrubber in service. So, we continue to have some time to watch how things develop, but it’s not just power prices – certainly watch power prices – I think of power, I guess you could say I think of energy, and I think of capacity because we are watching energy prices, capacity prices, development in terms of, you know, federal and environmental regulations, in the likes of – you know, there will be host of factors, but I can’t point to a specific price that would be toward the threshold. David Paz – Bank of America: Thank you.

Our next question is from the line of Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates, please proceed with your question. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: I just wanted to follow up so I understood the guidance. It look like there’s about seven cents of extra weather in the second quarter, and seven cents associated with the – seven cents of the weather, and seven tenths of [inaudible] fourteen then, and you mentioned on how you readjusted your number previously. Is there anything that we should be thinking about that would lower the number so that we only have the five cents increasing guidance, or is there something – or are you guys just being conservative?

So, yes, you are right and the numbers that you gave out are right, the Q2 weather versus normal was about a plus seven cents, and then the FERC agreement was another, you know, seven cents, but you are absolutely right. I think in terms of, again, why five cents, I think that again, we are still bond weather wise because we had about a ten cent drag in the first quarter. We only reduce the regulated guidance by about five cents – you know, we picked up seven cents of that, yes, in the second quarter, but we are still down net three cents a-year-to-date due to weather. If that’s on a prior call, we – we’ve had about three basis point drop in the ROEs in Illinois, which again, as I said earlier, there’s probably a penny-and-a-half to what two cents of earnings, and then I think one other thing, Paul, that we mentioned on the call is that, you know, we strip out weather – you know, we’re seeing pretty flat, low growth in terms of residential, commercial year-to-date. We did, at the beginning of the year, and frankly, continue to expect as we look to the second half of the year to see, to see some growth in those categories, year-to-date we haven’t seen any. Now, weather normalization is obviously, say not an exact science, with that pretty good extremes in both in terms of the winter months and the spring summer months year-to-date, and so, sometimes those can cause variations, but we are seeing things pretty flat year-to-date. So, those are some of the factors – the other thing that I would say though, Paul, what we mentioned is that, you know, the July weather has been extremely warm, and continues to be extremely warm, even this week, and none of the impacts of that favorable weather in July have been reflected in the guidance that we have provided. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: That’s great, just one other – that leads me to my second question, which is, are you guys having any new peaks? Have you found any change in peak demand? You mentioned the [inaudible] kind of flattish, and I think that is – well, a lot of people’s, actually, are even down where they are normalized. But just in terms of – you had measly hot weather I think in the mid-west, at least it looked like it was, for me [inaudible] – what do you guys think of in terms of peak demand?

Yes, you know, I should have brought some exact datas, but I don’t. I can tell you that while we have, you know – you know, had some very strong demands, I think we’re still down for some of the peaks that we saw a couple of years ago, but I won’t – and maybe then I will ask somebody else to do it, to comment on that quickly.

This is Maurine Barkoski. Transmission system basis, we did set a new all-time peak on July the 25th, of a – I forget the exact number, but I think it was 18,588 megawatts, and based on the two individual companies, Ameren Illinois, did set a new all-time peak on that same day, Ameren Missouri has not yet exceeded it’s all-time peak which was in 2007. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Thank you.

Our next question is coming from the line of Ryan Tabio of Futcher and Company, please proceed with your question. Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: Good morning,

: Good morning. Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: First question is with regards to your – the request of environmental variance in Illinois. With the sharing that had taken place yesterday, can you – what’s the next step here? Is there another hearing date, or is the next thing we will hear is the ruling coming out of court?

Yes, no, there – you know, there won’t be another hearing set, and we, basically, will expect to see a decision by the pollution control board deadline September the 20th. Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: Have they given you any – or have you gotten any guidance, or input on what their major focus is? You’ve mentioned all the major parties and their different views, but have they given you any idea what they are focused on in terms of making their decision?

No, the – you know, yesterday, I think the public hearing was well attended, all five of the members of the pollution control board were in attendance. I think they were – they were very attentive, and I think they heard, you know, from folks that spoke, I would say, on behalf of our competition, you know, folks that are located in our service territories that, you know, would – that spoke of the potential economic and personal impact of the variance, and of course there were a citizen’s group there who spoke in opposition. So, you know, what they – with the police and the control board there to do again is to balance both environmental concerns with economic concerns, and you know, they heard testimonies on both sides. You know, ultimately, really the only parties to this to proceeding are ourselves and the IEPA that noted on our call, the IEPA has taken a neutral stance on this, and sees our petition as being environmentally beneficial, and that is our view as well, and so, we look to pollution control board again to balance the, you know, the economics with the environmental mandate. Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: Thank you.

Our next question is a follow up from Julian Dumoulin-Smith of UBS, please state your question. Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: Hi, just a few follow ups on the [inaudible] side of the equation. First, as you just eluded to for the net positive benefits – I know it’s IEPA here, but kind of just wanted to get a sense of how is it actually a net positive, is it just because you’re accelerating some of the reductions from 2015 forward, and that sort of off net would have happened in the back half of the [inaudible] – [inaudible] what you think about it? Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: Yes, that is a good way of think about it, Julian. Julian Dumoulin-Smith – UBS: All right, and then secondly, on capacity affordability, what could this eventually mean, just trying to think about an ideal scenario, is this all of your capacity, partial – you know, is this just about getting some transfer right that is recognized – there are a number of different iterations that could be coming out of this, but I just wanted to get your state. Ryan Tabio – Futcher and Company: I think that is probably true, there probably are a number of different iterations that could come out of it, but certainly, I think that to the extent that, you know, we have capacity, and we’ve got, you know, there’s available transmission to get, you know, out of MISO, and into PJM – you know, we think we should be able to sell that capacity into PJM, whether that’s the percentage of our fleet, ultimately it would be available to do that – you know, I don’t know off hand. I think it could be a number of, as you said, a number of outcomes there.

Operator, this Doug Fischer, we have time for one more question.

That question is coming from the line of Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs, please proceed with your question. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Hey, Marty, an easy one here, can you just walk us through in the first half of 2012, what are items that are still included in ongoing [inaudible], but may not actually happen until next year, meaning, kind of like the FERC item, the seven cent benefit from the FERC item that is ongoing EPS? I’m just trying to think about whether it’s storm related, or anything else that is left for accounting lease and ongoing EPS, but may not actually be reoccurring 12 months from now.

Yes, sure, Michael. I think that we tried to list the major ones on, you know, slide three, and I guess those are mostly related to Q2, and maybe I should focus you back on our Q1 slide as well – we had a similar slide for Q1, but you do see, you know, the third quarter there, we had the absence of the fact charge from last year, and the storm costs from last year. As I recall from the first quarter too though, we picked up a couple of cents of impact in Ameren Illinois because of contributions that we made at the start of the Illinois rate file. So, again, I just want to point you back to those first quarter slides, I think we have negative in the first quarter that would not be repeating again next year. And then, I think as you, as you look to next year, you know, I think some of the things to think about as just the – you’ll have the resolution in the Missouri rate case later this year, next year we will have a calloway outage, where there was not calloway outage this year. Those will be some of the drivers as well as what happens with 30 year treasuries, and it affects Illinois, and in our continuing to deploy capitals that we’ve laid out. So, those are some of the impacts to be thinking about. Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs: Got it, okay. Thank you, Marty, thank you, much appreciate it.

Thanks, Mike.