Greetings, and welcome to the Ameren Corporation Second Quarter 2017 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mr. Doug Fischer, Senior Director of Investor Relations for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, you may begin.

Thank you, and good morning. On the call with me today are Warner Baxter, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Marty Lyons, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of the Ameren management team. Warner and Marty will discuss our quarterly results and earnings guidance as well as provide a business update. Then we will open the call for questions. Before we begin, let me cover a few administrative details. This call contains time sensitive data that is accurate only as of the date of today’s live broadcast, and redistribution of this broadcast is prohibited. To assist with our call this morning, we have posted a presentation on the amereninvestors.com Web site homepage that will be referenced by our speakers. As noted on page two of the presentation, 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. For additional information concerning these factors, please read the forward-looking statements section in the news release we issued today and the forward-looking statements and risk factors sections in our filings with the SEC. Lastly, all per share earnings amounts discussed during today's presentation, including earnings guidance, are presented on a diluted basis, unless otherwise noted. Now here is Warner, who will start on page four of the presentation.

Thanks Doug. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us. Before I begin my business update, I first want to express my deep appreciation to our customers who experienced outages over the last several weeks due to some severe storms. I'm grateful for your patience and the support of our coworkers who are working hard to restore your service in very hot inhuman weather conditions. Of course, I also want to express my appreciation to our coworkers who have been tirelessly working through these difficult conditions for our Missouri and Illinois customers. Our coworkers have continued to work safely and our system has held up well despite these challenging conditions. Again, my thanks to all of you. Moving now to our financial results. Earlier today, we announced strong second quarter 2017 earnings of $0.79 per share compared to earnings of $0.61 per share in the second quarter of 2016. This growth of $0.18 per share was driven by the factors outlined on this page, which Marty will discuss in more detail in a moment. It was particularly satisfying to me is that our strong growth was driven by the solid execution of our strategy across our entire business. I'm also pleased to report that as a result of this execution, we expect to deliver 2017 core earnings within the range of $2.70 to $2.90 per share, a $0.05 improvement over our prior guidance. This updated guidance excludes an expected third quarter non-cash estimated charge of $0.06 per share, primarily at the parent company. This charge is the result of revaluation of deferred taxes due to an increase in the Illinois corporate income tax rate, effective July 1st of this year. Beyond this charge, we expect this tax increase to have no material impact on consolidated earnings prospectively. Marty will…

Thanks, Warner and good morning, everyone. Turning now to page 10 of our presentation. As Warner mentioned, we reported second quarter 2017 earnings of $0.79 per share compared with earnings of $0.61 per share for the year ago quarter. On this page, we highlight by segment the key factors that drove the overall $0.18 per share increase. Starting with Ameren Missouri, second quarter year-over-year earnings increased $0.11 from $0.38 to $0.49 per share. This improvement reflected new electric service rates effective April 1st, driven in part by increased infrastructure investments and removal of the negative effect of lower sales to the New Madrid smelter. The earnings improvement also resulted from the absence of a scheduled Callaway Energy Center nuclear refueling and maintenance outage. The favorable factors were partially offset by lower electric retail sales, primarily driven by milder early summer temperatures. Next, Ameren Illinois electric distribution's second quarter year-over-year earnings rose from $0.08 to $0.14 per share. This largely reflected the favorable impact of the 2017 change in the timing of interim period revenue recognition, resulting from the Future Energy Jobs Act. This act modified the existing formulated rate making by decoupling our distribution revenues from sales volumes. While this change will impact quarterly comparisons, it will not affect full year earnings. Second quarter 2017 earnings at Ameren Illinois electric distribution also benefitted from increased infrastructure investments, as well as a higher allowed return on equity under formulated rate making of 8.8% compared to 8.45% for the year ago quarter. Turning to Ameren Transmission. Second quarter year-over-year earnings rose from $0.13 to $0.14 per share. This was due to increased transmission infrastructure investments at ATXI and Ameren Illinois, which both operate under constructive FERC formulaic rate making, partially offset by lower average allowed return on equity, which was 10.82% in…

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. In the interest of time, we ask that you please limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up and re-queue for any additional [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Andy Levi with Avon Capital Advisors. Please proceed with your question.

So just on the earnings revision for '17. So we -- is the new base to gross off of is the midpoint of that number, which is like 280 that kind of how to think about it?

Andy, obviously, the guidance we gave in terms of our long term earnings guidance has been really based on 5% to 8% compound annual EPS growth from 2016 to 2020. Of course when we started that, we used to base in 2016 of 263, which was an adjusted base. Clearly, you're right. I mean as we look at this year, we've upped our guidance for our core earnings, the midpoint is 280. And as we think about going in next year any kind of long term guidance we give, yes, the foundation would be whatever the core earnings were for the prior year. So that would be -- that very well maybe the 280, going forward.

And what's the difference between the mid-point in 290 just thinking, because I mean it's August in revenue. So obviously you’re through the 290 in there for a reason, and must be achievable. So what is the delta that gets you to 290 versus 280?

Well, when you say that, obviously, as we go through the remainder of the year, we don’t have, for example in there, any kind of July whether that’s been baked in. And then you’re really asking, I think, about the range and what justifies the range up or down.

Or what gets you to, 280 is your midpoint. But what would get you to 290, I mean, what’s in the thinking that gets you to 290…

It’s quite anything else for the remainder of the year. To the extent that there were sales volume changes, as I mentioned, we don’t include in our guidance typically include normal weather, certainly there could be some weather impact up or down. We have had some warm weather here in July, which is an exclusively factored in. As I mentioned on the call, we don’t expect that to offset the negative impacts of weather from earlier this year. And probably as we sit here today, it’s probably less than $0.05 impact from what we’re seen in July. But things like sales trends, reductions in operations and maintenance spending, positive weather, those for the kinds of things that can really move you up or down within your range.

And are you trending towards the mid-point or the high-end right now? But you don’t have to answer, I just…

Look, we give a range. We feel comfortable with that range. And look, we started the year with a little bit lower. As we move through the year, we started the year with a little bit of negative weather that was certainly influencing our thinking at the beginning of the year in terms of the guidance range we gave. As we’ve moved through the year, we’ve had a constructive outcome in the Missouri rate case, which was terrific. We’ve got disciplined financial management as we move through the year too, making sure we keep tight control of our costs. As you know, our goal in each one of our jurisdictions is to earn as close to our lab returns as we can. And we’re executing on our strategy well, deploying the capital as we expected to, which drives rate base growth, which drives earnings growth. So we’re executing well. We feel comfortable with raising the overall range. And obviously, work hard to achieve year-end results within that range.

And it is Warner. I would just simply say -- I would just say one thing as Marty said. I think it’s simply evidence of the fact that we’re executing our plan and we’re executing it well, and we’re executing across all of our businesses.

And then I know I’m going to achieve you announced one extra question. But if you kind of -- and I know you haven’t given any key guidance and I am not expecting you to. But just very simplistically, 280 is the mid-point of where we’re going to grow off of. And then you don’t have a Callaway outage next year right at $0.09 to $0.10 to $0.18. Is that correct?

The Callaway outage is around $0.08. But you’re right we don’t have one next year. Look, we’re not giving guidance for next year. But as you look ahead to next year, we certainly expect to benefit from the continued investments we’re making in rate base, which drive earnings growth. We don’t have the Callaway outage next year as you mentioned, which also then would be additive to earnings.

Well, you don’t have a Callaway outage and then you’re not filing a rate case in Missouri, right? Probably some interest expense savings from that you’ll capture in 2018 plus you get about $0.20 of growth in Illinois just from a rate base growth. So I’m just looking at consensus around $3 and this adding up the numbers, so to see some -- the people were underestimating your earnings power. I don’t know if you tend to agree with that, and I guess you saw this year too without obviously giving guidance.

Again, we’re not giving guidance for next year, and I won’t comment on consensus for next year either. And I also wouldn’t comment on necessarily the EPS impacts that you gave from the rate base growth, and then we’ll provide our guidance as we normally do as we roll into the early part of next year. I would mention that you mentioned no Missouri rate case filing. The one think I would mention is on the rate review that we just concluded where the rates went into effect April 1st, this year, we realized about 75% to 80% of the impact of that rate review. Next year, we would incrementally pick up the first quarter benefit of that rate review.

Plus any refinancings that you have, because you have some high cost debt that’s coming due at union and that obviously would have to get back in a future rate case, but not in ‘18. Is that correct?

To the extent that we’re able to, Ameren Missouri, to refinance the debt at a lower rate, we do benefit from that savings until the next rate review. And to your point on that, I mentioned on the call that in June we refinanced, we paid off $425 million of 6.4% debt, issued $400 million at 2.95%, and so 10 year offering. That for example is about $15 million of annual interest savings.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.

Quick question on Missouri, and Warner you commented a little bit about changing generation fleet. You’re one of the few utilities in the region that has not really, when you look at generation supply, benefited both by sizable in Missouri Transmission growth that leads to a sizable amount of wind generation, entering your service territory and maybe replacing some possible generation. Can you talk a little bit about whether you see that as a significant opportunity either via owning wind plants in rate base or in the need for incremental transmission in Missouri to be able to connect to the West where there is lots of great winds resource? And can you talk about what do you need from a regulatory standpoint, either rate making or approval wise, taxing make that happen if that’s one of the decisions you make going forward?

Thanks Michael for your question, and a couple of comments. Number one, we are in the process we look at the transmission but we also look at generation. And we’ve been consistent in saying that we’re going to transition our generation portfolio to a more diverse claim portfolio. But we’re doing it in a responsible fashion. A little bit later this year, we’re going to update our integrated resource plan and that will highlight some of those opportunities we may have in the renewable energy space, just with regard to our own generation. And as we know, we have renewable energy standard in the State of Missouri. And as a result of that, as renewable energy cost for new generation comes down that’s something we’re going to look carefully at. Of course, to make renewable energy work you need to make sure that you have a transmission system that’s robust enough to support all of that. And at the end of the day, we have certainly made more investments in the transmission space in Illinois and in MISO, we’ve done some way of the Mark Twain project that we’re going to hopefully continue to move forward with, and get across the finish line. So as you continue to see greater levels of renewable generation in MISO in the broader footprint, we do see that there could be some opportunities for incremental transmission that could be done, whether it's done on a multi-value project basis, which would have to go through MISO or potentially of course something that we would do under the state regulatory framework in Missouri. And so I wouldn’t say that we certainly rule that out, we see that as an opportunity. So I'm looking at Shawn Schukar, and Sean in terms of how you look at the space, especially MISO and other things. We do see the incremental transmission opportunities that does support generation, but even just to deal with and to support liability projects and those types of things?

Warner, that's correct. We see significant opportunities around the opportunity to improve or to replace the existing transmission system in Illinois and Missouri, but overlaying that with as we see changing generation portfolios in the market that that will create potential new opportunities, especially given the strong wind resources to our west.

Thank you [Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Ridzon with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Can you just delve a little more deeply into the Missouri process, and how you can possibly get more traction there? I'm talking legislative.

I'll comment on that, Michael feel free to jump in. As we said before, of course, we've been disappointed that we haven't got that across the finish line. But you know that the process in legislation is always one of collaboration; it's always one of working with key stakeholders to educate them on the needs; and it's always one of ensuring they understand the real value to modernizing the energy grid. Now, if you look at what we've been able to do in Illinois that's really the formula that we worked we over there, it's making sure everyone understood the value. And then once you have them understand the value, you deliver on those projects. And it's clear what we've seen in Illinois, and what we've seen frankly across the country as that modern energy policies that support investment in a modernized grid not only brings real value to customers it keeps rates still affordable, but it creates thousands of jobs that's been formula that's worked across the country, and we can see has worked clearly in Illinois. So that same message is resonating in the State of Missouri. It's why we have such strong by partisan support that's why the collaborative effort that we've been working on continued to gather even more stakeholders to support it. So it really is one of just doing the work on the ground to work on with collaborating with key stakeholders and being mindful that the approach that we've been taking is very consistent with where Governor Greitens has said that, look, regulatory reform is an important part of his platform to become Governor, as well as creating good paying jobs. We've been talking about the State of Missouri is absolutely consistent with that. So I think that has been their approach. And Michael, you've been on the ground working with key stakeholders, anything there?

I think that's well said. The only thing I would add to that and just a couple of things. We're going to continue to build off of certainly the interim report that the Senate put out last fall along with the Missouri Public Service Commission had the working docket then on looking at issues around regulatory reform. There has also been an emerging issues task force that they’ve kicked off here. We’re going to have some more meetings here in August. All of these are indications and I think they understand that we need to take a different approach to this. There is opportunities around and we’re going to continue to leverage those, going forward.

If it comes down to one party, right. I mean how do you flip them?

So at the end of the day, Paul, this is Warner again. We do what we’ve been doing. We’d continue to work collaboratively with those key stakeholders. And we have a small group that has opposed the legislation but we won’t be deter, because look it’s important for us to continue to get their input, we share our input with them. And as we’ve said before, while we expands the filibuster, there are certainly ways to no way find compromises in advance but in the context the filibusters and like, look the key is you continue to reduce the number of people that may want to participate in the filibuster. Number one, you make sure, you’re given adequate floor time and try and make sure you can address those issues and hopefully come to a compromise. And lastly, as we’ve said before, I mean there are rules in the sense that that would enable to close down the debate. But those rules aren’t used often. We hope we never get to that point. The bottom line is we want board collaboratively with everybody to ultimately get constructive legislation that benefits our customers, the communities that we serve and our shareholders.

Yes, that’s right, Warner. I think that this may sound naïve at the end of the day. But we just -- we actually have to convince them of the value associated with us. There are too many examples them. Warner talked about what’s going to in Illinois but you can certainly look far beyond in Illinois in terms of what’s happening in terms of modernizing the grid and the value they create for customers and shareholders at the end of the day. And so we just, honestly, have to continue to double down that effort to convince them that the State of Missouri is falling behind, if we don’t makes in progress on this.

Are there any terminal mix to consider here?

In Missouri, there are terminal mix, yes.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Kevin Fallon with Citadel LLC. Please proceed with your question.

I just wanted to follow-up on Michael Lapides’ question, and specifically on the wind. Are you guys able to sign PPAs, or do new builds on wind generation with economics below the dispatch costs of your coal fleet?

Yes, I mean in terms of moving forward, clearly, there could be PPAs we enter into. We could own wind generation, both of those are viable options. And in terms of that question, I mean there is a couple of ways that it could happen prospectively; one, as you mentioned is to the extent that the all-in costs of those renewables was below the dispatch costs of our existing generation. Of course, one of the reasons why maybe the penetration hasn’t been as great here as maybe other places is that the dispatch costs of our existing generation is pretty low. And it’s a real benefit for our customers. However, the cost of renewables continues to come down and we watch those economics very closely. As Warner mentioned in this answer to Michael earlier, as part of the integrated resource plan, we also look at compliance with the Missouri renewable energy standard. That standard actually requires us to purchase or generate 15% of and native sales from renewables by 2021, subject though to 1% annual limit on rates. And really that’s been limiter historically in term of introducing even more renewables into the portfolio. In our 2014 IRP, we had about 130 megawatts of wind coming in by 2021. So as Warner mentioned in his talking points, we’re working on an update to that integrated resource plan. And in answer to your question, we’re both looking at the economics of renewables as compared to the dispatch cost of our existing generation, but also looking at it in terms of compliance with that renewable energy standard within the limits of that 1% impact on rates. So those are the two ways that really as we look ahead there is the opportunity to bring even further renewables into our portfolio.

And where are you relative to that 15% by 2020 right now in terms of your fleet?

In terms of the existing assets that we have with things under purchased, we’re below that, significantly below that. But there are a few ways to go about compliance; one is PPAs; one is ownership; and the other is renewable energy credit. So we’re looking at all options as we move ahead for compliance with that standard.

And just one last thing. In terms of the process, going forward, obviously, you guys have said that you’re going to seek legislation again next year in Missouri. But is there any possibility of trying to do something at the commission before with the billion dollars of grid monetization CapEx that you guys have highlighted in the past? Or is that something that you’re just going to defer and try and seek the legislation itself only?

Also on the respect to your question on that renewables and where we are, I believe we’re right at around 5% today in terms of that 15% compliance.

With respect to the legislative question regulatory, look I think we’re not obviously foreclosing any tools available to us. I think we look at a number of options that we can pursue. As Warner indicated, we certainly intend to file, as we sit here today, legislation but we’re going to continue to look at all options to continue to make progress here. And we’ve used regulatory tools in the past that are being constructive. So it is certainly an option available for us.

Is there a certain timeframe that you’re looking to make a decision on that before the legislation? Or is it just a general sense that you always make those types of calculations?

More of the latter…

Thank you. Our next question is a follow up from Andy Levi with Avon Capital Advisors. Please proceed with your question.

So, on the renewables that was just brought up. So why wouldn’t you guys do the majority of it yourself if there was the opportunity, and it was economical for rate bearers?

Andy, no disagreement with that assertion. I mean, certainly, if that makes the most sense for the customers that would be a positive. So we’ll need to look at as we are as we’re assessing it, what the best compliance option is for the renewable energy standard for our customers, and looking at the various options and thinking about the benefits, risks, cost of all of those options.

And what’s the timeframe of that, because obviously things are getting closed here. So what's the timeframe? When will we hear about the decision making process on that?

As Warner indicated, we have an IRP that needs to be filed in October. So my sense is that we'll have some communication right around that timeframe.

And obviously, you don't have anything in your current CapEx forecast for any of this?

Very little on the current CapEx forecast for that, given as I mentioned earlier, the IRP we had a few years ago, 2014 had about 130 megawatts of wind by 2021.

And how much gains from that 5% to the 20% I think you said, with the standard. How many megawatts are we talking about?

Well, it's really again limited by the 1%. And I think rather than getting into that here, something we're assessing. And as Michael said when we file the IRP in October, we'll see where we're at.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to Mr. Doug Fischer for any closing remarks.

Thank you for your questions today. As we discussed today, we believe the Ameren shares offer investors attractive total return potential based on our strong expected earnings growth outlook and solid dividend. Finally, let me remind you that a replay of this call will be available for one year on our Web site. If you've questions, please call the contacts listed on our earnings release. Thank you for your interest in Ameren, and have a great day.

Thank you. This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a wonderful day.