Greetings, and welcome to Ameren Corporation's Fourth Quarter 2023 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, Andrew Kirk, Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Modelling for Ameren Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. You may begin.

Thank you, and good morning. On the call with me today are Marty Lyons, our Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer; and Michael Moehn, our Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; as well as other members of the Ameren management team. 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. We have posted a presentation on the amereninvestors.com homepage that will be referenced by our speakers. As noted on Page 2 of the presentation, comments made during this conference call may contain statements about future expectations, plans, projections, financial performance and similar matters, which are commonly referred to as forward-looking statements. Please refer to the forward-looking statements section in the news release we issued yesterday as well as our SEC filings for more information about the various factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. Now here's Marty, who will start on Page 4.

Thanks, Andrew. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Beginning on Page four, our strategic plan highlights our steadfast commitment to providing safe and reliable energy in a sustainable manner. We do this by investing in rate-regulated infrastructure, enhancing regulatory frameworks and advocating for responsible energy policies, while optimizing operating performance through ongoing continuous improvement in order to keep rates affordable. Our strong 2023 operating and financial results, which we will cover today, reflect execution on our key business objectives for the year, which will continue to create value for our customers, communities, shareholders and the environment in the years ahead. I'd like to express appreciation for my Ameren coworkers' unwavering commitment to our strategy. Turning to Page five, this page summarizes our strong sustainability value proposition. Our operations and investments in 2023 made the energy grid safer, smarter, cleaner, more reliable and resilient, supporting thousands of jobs in our local communities in Missouri and Illinois, and driving a positive impact on the economies of each state. In the process, we helped hundreds of local, small and diverse businesses grow, and we gave back to numerous charitable organizations to help our neighbors in need. For example, last year, almost 60% of our total sourceable spend was with suppliers in our Missouri and Illinois communities, while 26% was with local small and diverse suppliers, creating jobs and economic growth and contributing to thriving communities in the areas where we operate. The positive impact of our investments was reinforced by our top quartile reliability performance in 2023, as measured by the frequency of outages. At the same time, our Ameren supplied residential customer rates, on average, were below the Midwest average. Today, we published our updated sustainability investor presentation called, Leading the Way to a Sustainable Energy Future, available…

Thanks, Marty, and good morning, everyone. Turning now to Page 19 of our presentation; yesterday, we reported 2023 earnings of $4.38 per share, compared to earnings of $4.14 per share in 2022, an increase of approximately 6%. This page summarizes key drivers impacting earnings in each segment, which are largely consistent with what we reported throughout 2023. As Marty noted, when normalized for temperature variations over the past two years, we estimate that our earnings grew 10%. Moving to Page 20, I'll cover our few key developments from the fourth quarter. In November, Ameren Missouri filed for securitization of costs associated with the Rush Island Energy Center as we approach the plan retirement date of October 15, 2024. If approved as requested, Ameren Missouri would be able to refinance and recover approximately $519 million, reflecting the remaining value of the plant and decommissioning costs. Missouri PSC orders are expected in June, 2024. To mitigate the impact of the lost rate base associated with the Rush Island retirement, we expect our Huck Finn and Boomtown solar facilities with an estimated total investment of approximately $650 million to be placed in service near the end of this year. Turning to Page 21, as Marty mentioned, late in 2023, the ICC issued orders under Ameren Illinois Natural Gas and Electric Rate Reviews. In November, the ICC approved $112 million annual base rate increase for natural gas delivery service, which included $77 million that would have otherwise been recovered under letters. The order reflects a 2024 future test year, a 9.44% allowed return on equity, a 50% common equity layer, and a rate base of $2.85 billion. New rates were effective in late November. We filed for a rehearing of this order with the ICC and were denied. So on January 03, Ameren Illinois…

[Operator instructions] Our first question comes from a line of Shahriar Pourreza with Guggenheim. Please proceed with your question.

Marty, obviously you've throttled back Illinois electric spend here pretty significantly versus the prior plan, which I think is completely expected just coming off those ICC orders. Can you just speak a little bit more to what you've actually embedded in that 2.3% five-year CAGR as it relates to the grid plan? I guess put differently, could we see that tick higher later this year once the plan is approved? Or is the embedded base case there still subject to some upside and downside scenarios? Thanks.

Yeah, I'll let Michael comment on that further, but I would say, Shahriar, you're right. What we've done here is we've baked in what we believe to be a prudent level of capital expenditures, given the overall outcomes that we had in Illinois. As we said in our prepared remarks, we do believe that this is an appropriate amount to continue to provide safe and adequate service to our customers and meet the requirements of CEJA And that's what's been baked in. I just repeat what I said earlier, which is that we do believe a higher amount of investment over time is originally proposed last year is prudent and appropriate for our customers to provide the kind of service that they expect to really further the state's energy goals and policy goals. But again, what we've modelled in here is what we do believe would be a level that would be expected to be approved by the commission over time through the rehearing process, as well as through our upcoming grid plan filing and rate plan. So again, we do expect that this level of investment is something that will ultimately be reflected in those outcomes, but with that, in terms of further clarity on the CapEx, Michael, any comment?

Yeah, maybe just a couple of finer points. Good morning, Shahriar. I think Marty said it well. As we think about the capital plan that we've allocated there, again, Marty's correct. We're absolutely focused on providing safe and reliable service. I think we're being conservative in how we think about this. There's this 105% revenue requirement cap that we need to stay underneath and as you know, and I think there was some discussion about this, the commission's order pointed to '22 rate base. I think it was really more of a function of, because that was really the only year and rate base to point to. We definitely have the ability to, I think we'll recover our '23 expenditures, it's really under another formula rate. As they do that and they update and we're seeking some of those clarification, that obviously would give you more headroom under that 105% revenue cap. I think we took a conservative approach saying, let's make sure whatever we spend in '24, we stay under pointing back to the '22. So my point is you have a lot more flexibility going forward. I think to Marty's point, we'll have to step back and then decide, given the 8.72%, how do you feel about allocating more capital there? But as we continue to see improvement here, there's obviously would be those opportunities.

Got it. Perfect and Marty, just, thanks Michael. Marty, just on Tranche 1, is it versus Tranche 2, is it still your expectation Tranche 2 will exceed Tranche 1? And then just on Tranche 2 estimates, are they embedded in that $55 billion pipeline number? Could any of the awards fall within this kind of five-year cycle you've got out there? Thanks guys.

Yeah, good questions, Shahriar. So with respect to Tranche 2, we do expect it, continue to expect it, to be considerably larger than the Tranche 1 investments and, MISO, as we said in our prepared remarks, is still saying that they expect to have those approved by the middle of this year. We'll see how that comes to fruition, but we do expect that in the first half, we'll at minimum start to get some clarity on, what some of those projects might look like. But again, Shahriar, to your point, significantly larger. Now, with respect to our plans that we've laid out, within the five-year plan, nothing is baked in for Tranche 2 investments. However, in the $55 billion, we do have, some amount in there for potential Tranche 2 investments. So, within the $55 billion, yes, certainly we do have some.

Our next question comes from the line of Nicholas Campanella with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.

Appreciate the guidance update and just the comment that you're kind of below the midpoint of the 6% to 8% range. Can you just kind of expand on, what we should be watching for that kind of gets you back to that midpoint and I'm taking into account the comments around, it seems that some of this transmission spending has been reflected in the plan, correct me if I'm wrong and then you're also just kind of assuming, CapEx for the Illinois distribution segment as proposed is approved as well. Just what should we be looking for to get you back into that midpoint? Thanks.

Yeah, Nick, maybe we'll take that in two part. I'll actually turn it over to Michael first to maybe provide a little bit more clarity on our thinking around the growth and then I'll provide some color on some of the upsides in our plan.

Yeah, good morning, Nick. Just to put a little finer point on the midpoint, I think as Marty said in his comments, expect to be a little below that midpoint and if you think about historically where we have been, just sort of the highest level, you go back to, February of last year, we had 8.4% rate-based growth and over that period of time, we were issuing roughly about 2% worth of dilution, say over the five-year plan. So it got you down to call it, 6.4%, 6.5% something like that. And then we've done a nice job of continuing to close the allowed versus earned gaps, continuous improvement. There's been a number of opportunities being really thoughtful about allocating capital to the places that are giving us the highest return and you can see it, obviously, historically we were trending above that 7% midpoint and we kind of think about where we are today, we got this 8.2% rate-based growth, really kind of the same dilution math. So with all things, we need to kind of put you at that 6.2% and then there's obviously still improvement opportunities as we continue to look forward and I think as we think about a midpoint, it's someplace between that 6.5% to 7% today. So let's call it 6.7%, just to put a little finer point on. So 6.7% versus sort of 7%, where I think we kind of pointed people historically and again, we've had opportunities to do better than that and Marty will talk about where I think, the future still lies for us. You'd think about the $55 billion, the capital projects that we have there. There's opportunities to continue to be thoughtful about the transmission that we just talked about a second ago and so those are the things that will provide us those opportunities. So hopefully that gives you a little more clarity on the math and I'll let Marty talk a little larger picture.

Yeah, I think, Michael started to touch on it a little bit. In terms of, the upsides, as I said in the prepared remarks, we certainly see good justification for keeping that 6% up to 8% growth and really what it reflects is that strong pipeline of investments that we have. We start there, $55 billion of potential investments over the next 10 years. We have baked into the five-year plan, the Tranche 1 investments that we've been assigned to us or that we've won, but we also have competitive proposal out there right now for another Tranche 1 project, which hasn't been baked in and that provides us some upside. We've talked about just a second ago, some of the Tranche 2 projects. We've got further investments to be made with respect to Missouri as it relates to the IRP. We've got some of those, certainly baked in today. As I mentioned, we had a very strong balance sheet and opportunities, as Michael just said, to continue to close the gap between our allowed and earned returns, which provides upside. And then of course, as we look ahead in Illinois, a couple of things, first, you know, the current multi-year grid plan or rate plan ends in 2027. And so as we look out even to 2028, there's opportunities to think about that differently and what our approach will be in 2028 and then I go back to maybe the most important thing, which is in the interim to really work to improve the Illinois situation and perhaps provide an opportunity for greater investment in Illinois. So, there, as we said in the call, we're gonna continue and engage in a dialogue with all stakeholders about the benefits of investment, risks of disinvestment, and our goal of really aligning our investments with the policy goals of the state around reliability, affordability, the clean energy transition and of course, we all know that our investments drive, not only improvements in critical energy infrastructure, but jobs and economics expansion. So, look, we've got to just continue to show financial discipline in the short term, but in the longer term, make sure we create this dialogue that having consistent constructive regulation, having strong investment in infrastructure in the state is going to benefit, our customers, their communities, the economy, the state and continue to work to make Illinois a place that attracts greater investment.

All right, thank you very much for that. And then I guess just on the O&M, I think in your prepared remarks, or even on slides here, 4% first last year, and then you're doing more O&M, just looking through the EPS slides, you have positives for Missouri and Illinois. So just, is 4% of the magnitude of decrease that we should expect to continue through '24? Can you maybe give us any type of way to frame that? And then how are you kind of thinking about just recapture of that, or timing of the next rate cases in Missouri, if you can maybe expand?

Good morning again, Nicholas. This is Michael, let me take this, and Marty can certainly add in, and we've talked about this, obviously, over time. Customer affordability is not something that is new to us. I think we've been really focused as a company on it for a number of years, and really up and down the P&L and we've talked about this, we, I think, do a great job of kind of going in and continuing to benchmark ourselves, all of the different areas of our business. And some are really good, some have opportunities, and we continue to close the gap in those opportunities and I think, Marty pointed to the 4%. It was, obviously people are very focused on it. We've talked about flat O&M over the five-year period is a good way to think about it, but the bottom line is there are a number of levers that we're able to pull here. I think as we think about '24 specifically, I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think we're taking just another view here. We're looking at headcount, I talked about headcount, hiring freeze at the moment, being very thoughtful about just contingent workforce, consultant dollars, any sort of discretionary spend. I think all the right things to do just in this elevated rate environment anyway for customers, and so that's really the focus there. But we're also being very thoughtful and strategic about, as you mentioned, just rate reviews, etcetera and being thoughtful about investments on the digital side too, just to make sure we make these costs sustainable. That's really what we want to do. I think we've talked about, we've had an increased investment in the digital platform over the last several years after we got PISA passed, and it's allowed us to replace our work management systems, our back office accounting systems. We continue to put a great deal of distribution automation, etcetera, on the system and all of these things are productivity improvements over time, which just give us a lot of confidence. This is a lever that we can continue to pull. So, Marty, anything to add there?

No, nothing to add there. Thanks for the question.

And I'm sorry, just to follow up on that, are you planning to file a Missouri rate case in the next year, or is that more than a year out?

Yeah, that's not something we've decided yet and look, if you look back over time, it's been every 18 months to 24 months we've filed a case, but haven't stated when we're going to plan to file the next one. So we'll be thoughtful about that. Look, we always try to go as long as we can between rate cases, and we'll continue to take that approach, but be thoughtful about when major capital additions go in and the like to think about the timing of our cases.

All right, thanks for taking my questions. Have a good day.

Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks for all the detail today, and just wanted to kind of follow up on some of the points that you've talked about before and just regarding your capital reallocation, how should we be thinking about Missouri bill impact over time from the higher CapEx, just any thoughts there. And then also as we think about deploying that capital, the timing for receiving approvals and permits with additional transmission investments, broadly speaking on that side, if you could provide some more color there would be helpful.

Yeah, a lot there, Jeremy. I think number one, in terms of bill impacts, we're going to work through time as we have to keep the bill impacts as manageable as possible. I think, we had a pretty good track record in Missouri since we got a more constructive regulation, legislation back in 2018, and it really kept the growth in bills really below the level of inflation and so we're going to look to continue to, as Michael stated a minute ago, pretty comprehensively, take a lot of actions across the board to really manage our operating costs. And really, to the extent that we have rate increase requests, really make those about the capital additions that are going in that are producing greater reliability, for our customers, etcetera, where they're seeing the benefits. So, we're going to continue to work to keep our belt tight and as I said, overall, look to keep our operating costs flat over the next several years and as Michael said, create as many productivity improvements as we can. So that's our goal. Now, with respect to these projects, I would say when you look at our capital expenditure plans over the next five years for Missouri, I would say a need, they really relate on the left side of the graph on Page 23 to things that were included in our integrated resource plan. So, there the integrated resource plan had called for 2,800 megawatts of renewables by 2030. This is a piece of that as we move ahead with renewables, over half of what we've got there in that capital spend of $3.3 billion is related to two CCNs that have already been approved and then there's four CCNs that are pending right now and we expect to be able to file a stipulated settlement on those in the near term and so those are proceeding well. And then, with respect to the dispatchable generation, part of this is the simple cycle gas plant that we plan to put in service over the next five years and then part of this is continuing to invest in the dispatchable energy resources that we have in the state, but we will, as we said on our call, we've begun to do work around this 800 megawatt simple cycle gas plant and we will consider when to file a CCN for that. So, those are some timelines in terms of some of the investments we've got. Michael, any color to add?

Yeah, Marty did a great job there, Jeremy. I think the only thing that I'd probably add there is if you think about the $13 billion that we're allocating to Missouri, about 25% of its renewables and obviously an important factor is just the PTC, ITC that's being, given off with respect to those projects. So you think about the impact for customers, ultimately, there is a really big benefit there and so it's just something to keep in mind. I agree with everything else Marty said. We continue to be focused to all the comments I made before. It's not something new that we're doing here. Sometimes you can get a little lumpy impact in Missouri just because of the timing and the rate reviews, but the team really is focused on trying to keep these bills as low as possible.

And maybe just shifting towards Illinois and from where you sit, just wondering your perspective and what you see happening with regards to potential legislative or legal responses to the Illinois orders there in the state house. How have your conversations with stakeholders been trending here? Just any color you could share would be helpful.

Yeah, I think, look, the first order of business as we look at is, as I said before, to really try to work constructively with stakeholders and right now I'd say our primary focus is a couple of things. It's number one, making the rehearing filing, which is we plan to make next Thursday. So there, the opportunity to have rehearing around incorporation of 2023 rate base, as well as baseline capital investments that we plan to make over the next five years and have those included in a rehearing. And then as we've said before, we follow that up with our grid plan update and filing in mid-March. There again, we get feedback from the commission, obviously on deficiencies that they saw within the initial filing. We're looking to address those. We're looking to work constructively with stakeholders, whether it's the staff or other parties to make our filing as strong as we can to address the commission's identified deficiencies and position ourselves for success in getting, again, both a good outcome in the rehearing, as well as getting that grid plan approved and ultimately incorporated into a revised rate plan. So, I think those are where really our focuses are in the short term. Like I said, in the longer term, we'd like to see a more constructive environment for investment, and that's going to take really engagement with all stakeholders and I think, what we found is a receptivity among stakeholders to have the conversation, to listen, and we'll figure out over time what the best path forward is to achieving the result we want, which is a more constructive environment for investment, which again, we believe is ultimately in the best interest of customers, communities and in the achievement of the state's policy goals.

Our next question comes from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.

I wanted to, in terms of whether normal load growth, just wondering how conservative...

Hey, David, we're having a really hard time hearing you. Could you speak up a little, David?

Just in terms of whether normal load growth, was wondering how conservative the outlook is that you're presenting here. Is there any possibility for acceleration either from any manufacturing activity or data center activity that you're seeing or otherwise?

Yeah, let me start off, and then certainly Marty can add as well. I think, yeah, I tried to provide a little of this color in the opening remarks. Look, I think we do a good conservative job of kind of thinking about the load growth, but there are some really positive things happening in our service territory. Just economically, it's very strong. GDP growth is strong here and I'm really talking about kind of the greater Missouri area. Unemployments, running below the national average. We've had, if you think about even just '24 more specifically, we got the GM coming back on. They've added some additional load. There's a couple of data imaging companies that are using just a tremendous amount of energy, about 20 megawatts. These things really begin to add up and there's just a number of longer term, I think, opportunities as we think about data centers and other things from an information technology standpoint that could provide some economic growth. I think we do a good job of not really baking that in at this point. We talked about toward flat up a half percent, but I'm optimistic that, hopefully that is ends up turning out differently. So, Marty.

Yeah, I would just say that, look, we have a broad service territory and we're deeply involved in throughout Illinois and Missouri in economic development activities and our teams support economic development expansion across both service territories. I would say this though, in the greater St. Louis region, both in the Illinois side and the Missouri side, I'm more excited than I've been in years with respect to, I would say, the collaborative approach to really going after economic development efforts and really thinking about, how we drive inclusive economic growth, economic development and compete for projects. And I've never seen the community as unified and speaking with one voice and going after these things. We're seeing some wins, some wins that'll produce, I think, economic expansion two and three years out, some positive announcements, as Michael said. But, and I hope we are being conservative with respect to our growth projections. That said, as we see growth, we often see also, continued efforts on energy efficiency, both the energy efficiency we promote, but also just kind of energy efficiency in general and so try to be realistic about our growth expectations of those efforts.

And then was just curious, what level of FFO to debt you're seeing over the plan? Wondering to the extent you realize some of the CapEx upside opportunities, how that could impact the equity needs going forward?

Yeah, perfect. So, again, we haven't really given targets in the past. I think what we've talked about is, look, we like our ratings where they are, BAA1, BBB+, that downgrade threshold S&P is 13. 17 at Moody's. We've trended obviously closer to that 17%. Again, as I outlined in my opening remarks, we feel good about our balance sheet. I think we come into this from a position of strength as I look out over the five years, the equity needs that I outlined certainly support, I believe actually maintaining that BAA1 and so maintaining something over that 17%, over that five year period. And so, and again, I try to be clear on what we did from an equity standpoint, for 2024, we're assuming $300 million of equity. We've done about $230 million under our ATM program today. Really the remaining balance that we need to do is related to our DRIP 401k. And then for all the other years, it's really consistent with where we had been before. So basically $600 million and again, I think supports those credit ratings that I just spoke about.

Our next question comes from line of Durgesh Chopra with Evercore. Please receive your question.

Hey guys, thanks for giving me time. I know it's close to the hour. Just Michael, on the point about equity, maybe you could just expand on this. So the CapEx plan is up, the five year CapEx plan is up close to 10%, a little over 10%, but the equity is kind of the same. Are you kind of modelling now lesser question versus the downgrade thresholds or are there other cash flow improvements that you might be missing?

Yeah, I don't know if there's other cash flow improvements. Again, I think we're always been conservative as we think about the balance sheet and so, again, I feel good about what I just said, David, in terms of how we're thinking about the FFO to debt over time and being above that downgrade threshold at 17%. We continue to obviously work with the rating agencies. We'll be in talking to them again in the spring and so, I guess I don't have any reason to feel concerned about it at this point and again, I think it's the right thing to do. We added the capital and still feel good about the levels that we're at given the equity that we're issuing.

Got it. And then maybe just a couple of clarifying questions and this will be quick, hopefully, but in the current five year CapEx plan, the four solar projects that you have settlement for in Missouri, those are included in the plan. Confirm that for us and then the upside would be the Missouri IRP results and then any transmission project awards from the MISO planning. Am I thinking about it correctly?

Well, I think, first of all, yes. The projects that we've already had CCNs for, as well as the subject to the stipulation are included in the five-year CapEx that's shown on Slide 23 and in fact, some additional CapEx as well for renewable projects that we anticipate to come into service by the end of 2028. And then the second part of your question was?

It was just the traffic upside.

No, I would think there, what we're saying is with respect to transmission, we've got the Tranche 1 projects that have been assigned to us or awarded or included in there, but what we have not included in there is any upside for a potential additional win of a transmission project that we've proposed on.

Got it. Thank you so much. I appreciate the time.

Thank you. Our final question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin Smith with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning team. Thank you guys very much for the time. I appreciate it, or squeezing me in here. Look, maybe just to kick off quickly here, just on the balance sheet, obviously you're bringing down equity slightly over the comparable period from last plan. I'm taking CapEx fairly meaningfully here. I just wanted to clarify, just where are you relative to the required metrics? Can you elaborate a little bit through the cadence of the plan, how you're thinking about the FFO to debt? Or just where are you starting and ending, if you will and then I got to follow up real quickly.

Yeah, good morning, Julian. It's Michael. As I said, we have -- the downgrade threshold of Moody's is 17% and we historically haven't talked about exactly what we're targeting. But again, over this five-year plan, there is cushion over that 17%. Again, I feel good about it. We have been, I think, done a great job of sort of telegraphing what our equity needs, being very disciplined about going out and issuing that equity. I think we come into this kind of super CapEx environment with a very, very healthy balance sheet. As you know, we're not trying to get up to some level, right, where we've been at these levels and I see us staying at that level over the five-year plan.

Got it, so every year kind of over that 17% threshold, give or take. And the rating is…

Over the five-year plan, yeah. Over 17%.

And again, look, as we have frequent conversations, then we'll go in again and have another conversation with them, so.

Wonderful. And just to clarify this on the Missouri CapEx, obviously that's a nice uptick there and obviously you haven't necessarily decided when you're finally cased, but how do you think about just the clarity that you have on that spend, right? When you think about having visibility tied to specific projects that are likely to be approved or what have you, I just want to understand the level of confidence that there is in this CapEx in Missouri. Obviously you're putting a lot more in there. Just wanna understand what are the key parameters, what are the key inputs that you're thinking about in saying, look, we've got confidence in the totality of this, right? What pieces aren't necessarily approved perhaps?

Well, look, I think one of the things you could look at, Julien, is every year at this time, we make a filing in Missouri where we're very transparent and lay out what our planned capital expenditures are, how we're justifying those, thinking about those, where they plan to go and so you'll see that actually today coming from Ameren, Missouri. It happens every year at the same time and then it's subject to public discussion about the plans and where they're going. I would say this, as you look at Missouri, it's really, as I said earlier, it's really to align our investment with the things that were in our IRP last fall. So, we do plan to invest in an 800 megawatt simple cycle plant. We do plan to continue to invest in our dispatchable resources, which is both our coal-fired energy centers to get them through to their retirement, making sure that they're reliable and efficient, making sure that we continue to invest in our nuclear facilities. So we've got a lot of dispatchable resources there. And then as it related to the IRP, also we had planned investments in renewables in some over this five-year period and in battery storage as well and so those are included in the plan. As I mentioned earlier, with respect to renewables, we got a positive order out of the commission on a couple of CCNs last year. We've got four that are pending right now that we believe will be filing a stipulated settlement here in the short term. And we would look to commission approval, but those would be subject to commission approval. And then we've got other planned investments in renewables, again, in accordance with that IRP. And then with respect to the remainder of the spend,…

Thank you. Mr. Lyons, I would now like to turn the floor back over to you for closing comments.

Yeah, well, thank you. And I wanna thank everybody for their participation today, their questions. We thank you for your investment, your confidence in our Ameren team. We're going to work to build on the best we have of delivering reliable, safe and affordable energy for our customers and communities across both Missouri and Illinois. So look, everybody, be safe and we look forward to seeing many of you at conferences over the next few weeks.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day.