Good morning, my name is Dorothy, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Exelon Third Quarter Earnings Review Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session (Operator Instructions). Thank you, I will now turn the conference over to Stacie Frank, Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Frank, you may begin.

Thank you, Dorothy, and good morning everyone. Welcome to Exelon’s Third Quarter 2010 Earnings Conference Call. Thank you for joining us today. We issued our earnings release this morning. If you have not received it, the release is available on the Exelon website at www.exeloncorp.com. Before we begin today’s discussion, let me remind you that the earnings release and other matters we will discuss in today’s call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties, as well as adjusted non-GAAP operating earnings. Please refer to today’s 8-K and our other filings for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management’s projections, forecasts and expectations, and for a reconciliation of operating to GAAP earnings. Leading the call today are John Rowe, Exelon’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Matthew Hilzinger, Exelon’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. They are joined by other members of Exelon’s senior management team who will be available to answer your questions. We scheduled 60 minutes for the call this morning. I will now turn the call over to John Rowe, Exelon’s CEO.

Good morning everyone. We are delighted to report that we had another good quarter, another quarter that beats consensus at least until some of you change that consensus earlier this week. Before I get to the quarter in some of the areas I want to comment on specifically, I would like to spend just a minute refracting. This is the 10th anniversary of Exelon’s creation. The merger ComEd and PECO remains the largest and most successful merger in the recent history of the utility industry. Over that 10 years, our total shareholder return has been 107% compared to the S&P 500, which is only 2% and the Philadelphia Utility Index at 76%. We have increased dividend by almost 250% from $0.85 per share in 2001 to $2.10 per share this year. We have improved the operational performance of our nuclear fleet to capacity factors which has consistently averaged over 93% in recent years. Both ComEd and PECO have improved their reliability record and ComEd has significantly improved its safety record to more or less catch up with PECO’s. We have generated strong earnings and cash flows and continue to do so during a cyclical trough in the commodity market. We have exhibited financial discipline to maintain investment-grade bond rates even while the power markets are weak. The hedging approach of Power Team has created close to $3 billion in incremental value over the past two years to have commodity prices have suffered from. Now, all of this history of course, but we think we have created that history while building what is absolutely the best platform for future upside in our business, and we think most of you agree with that. Turning to the quarter, as you saw in our announcement this morning, we recorded operating earnings of $1.11 per…

Thank you, John, and good morning everyone. This morning, I will provide an overview of the results for the third quarter and highlight a few key drivers and our expectations for the remainder of the year. I will also give a brief update on the recent events in Illinois and an update on our hedging and load forecast. The key messages for today are on slide 7. Our financial results for the quarter are shown on slide 8. As John mentioned, Exelon delivered strong results again this quarter. We recorded operating earnings per share of $1.11 just above the top of our earnings guidance range. Our strong earnings performance was a result of volumes driven by weather and higher capacity pricing at ExGen, which increased on June 1st. The key earnings drivers on a year-over-year comparison basis for each operating company are listed on slides 9, 10 and 11. I won’t step through each driver during today’s call as the drivers are pretty straight forward. I will call your attention to ComEd load on slide 12, based on our normal weather results total load for ComEd in the third quarter was 1.1%, which was a bit a lower than we had expected, nevertheless our positive load was led by strong growth in the large C&I customer class primarily in the auto and steel sectors. We are pleased to see continued growth in the large C&I class, as this is positive sign that manufacturing is still growing in the region. The number of residential customers grew slightly over last year but residential was down from the prior year. We are still projecting year-over-year growth in ComEd’s load, however, we have revised our four-year load growth projection downward from 0.8% to 0.4% to reflect the actual results for the third quarter and…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Morgan Stanley.

Good morning Greg. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: Good morning, thank you very much. Two questions, the first is as you look out across the forecast horizon over which you feel that the dividend is maintainable, can you comment on your view of where your credit metrics trend, if you are in a sustained low gas environment and whether you envision having to do anything to maintain them that’s different from the current financing plan? And then the second question is, you had an extremely active M&A backdrop here this year, both consolidation of merchant generation and consolidation of regulated infrastructure, and what you see as any sort of predilection on the part of Exelon to participate or not participate in that activity?

Let me hit the first part first. We consider maintaining our investment-grade credit rating as the most important constraint on our ability to pay the dividend. And when we did the modeling that I described and reviewed it with our board, we believe that we will be able to sustain a 30% ratio on S&P’s key funds flow from operation over debt requirement metric. We think there might be room to sustain investment grade ratings if you fell below that to say 25%, even in a stress K in a particular stress year as long as S&P felt that that wouldn’t last for more than a year or so, but one wouldn’t like to complain on that. In looking at our ability to sustain the dividend, we’ve not only looked at what’s happening with gas prices and some variations around that. We’ve looked at our ability to adjust our capital programs, and our continued ability to manage our cost. And in that context we do not foresee having to issue equity to sustain those credit ratings. Now, you can run as many different models as we do, and you can always find one model that might require something like that, but that’s not our expectation or anticipation. And the point I was trying to make very, very carefully is in this environment payout ratios doesn’t concern me much, but maintaining an investment-grade credit rating concerns me a great deal. I’m committed to doing that, but I don’t believe it will require any extraordinary new capital actions to do that. I think the place you should look for us to try to adapt is in some of our capital expenditure plans. Now, switching to M&A, I think by now you all really know me, I have been around longer than moss on oak tree. I am always looking, because I think consolidation is a good thing and an important thing. I continue to believe that good deals remain hard to get and hard to execute. God knows we’ve tried, but we will continue to look and we’ll continue to be absolutely rabid that it has to add near-term value for you, our investors, if we are going to do anything. We believe more scale will be good. We would like to have some assets that are more counter cyclical with our merchant generation. We’d like to have more merchant generation if we can get it to a low enough price. But when we look, we look first at the financial return, second at how we can do it consistent with maintaining our investment-grade rating, third whether it diversifies our own risks, and we’re just very bloody careful like we have been for a very long time. You all know I am willing to try, you all know I’m willing to fail before I’m willing to pay too much. I’m not going to change on that. Greg Gordon – Morgan Stanley: Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold from Deutsche Bank.

Good morning Jonathan.

Hi, good morning. Can you hear me?

We can hear you...

I just – I wanted to clarify one thing John, you said in describing the John Deere acquisition. You said it was – it would give you a credible voice in development of renewable policy, and also protecting Exelon’s value as the largest nuclear operator. Can you give us a little more insight into what you mean by how this helps to protect value?

Sure. If the government is going to continue to require people to buy wind beyond its apparent economic value; we want to be in a place to sell. On the other hand, we also want to be in a place where we can look at congressmen or a legislator in the eye and say, look we’re on both sides of this table. We can make money selling, but we don’t want our customers to have to pay too much money. And we think we have more credibility by being at the table. But let me say that that’s just a factor in all of this. What really motivates me here is we could have really very safe investment in what is in many ways a more speculative field. But as I look at the economics evolving down the road, and I’ve said this in many speeches, gas is just playing queen for the foreseeable future and almost all the purely economic decisions would be gas. My political friends on the left want to subsidize wind and solar. My political friends on the right want to subsidize nuclear and carbon sequestration for coal. And meanwhile the market says gas, gas, gas. But as we go down the road five, 10 years, some of those factors are going to change. I think the economics of solar continue to improve, and it seems to me there are possibilities, not so much in the next year or two, but in five or 10 where we have very economical packages of wind and gas or wind, solar and gas. And I would like Exelon to be positioned to do that when it’s an opportunity for either political or economic reasons.

Thank you. If I could just follow up on another topic, I noticed it looked like you trimmed the spending on operates a little, but, yeah is that -- can you just -- what exactly are you doing in terms of keeping those on track given some of what you said about pricing and about the CapEx in general?

Chris, would you pick that up, Chris Crane?

Yes, I think what we’re looking at right now is on timing, moving some projects around. But as we described, we continue to evaluate the projects and the basis of engineering are further defined on each specific one, the cash flows will be advanced and the timing will come into play. I think we will update a lot more detail at EEI when we go through our presentation. But this is just the project timing.

But they still make economic sense, if you’re keeping them in the plan I guess.

Yes, we’re still positive on them, they are still making sense. There will be requirements as we go along and that’s why we gave arranged on how much we want to invest on each specific asset.

I mean we have stress tested with these projects, against its fairy wide variety of assumptions that may continue to make sense. But, if we should get an even worse gas price scenario than we foresee, we have to say delaying some of these things might make more sense if the choice was delaying them or cutting the dividend. But we simply don’t want to cut that dividend, it’s pretty clear what we think we owe you on that, but we are going to do our level best to keep that. Now, where this all gets tied in with the prior question Jonathan is that, as we look at this, you could get to a point of saying well should we come to you and say its worth it issuing some equity to sustain the EPU program, well we might do that if it comes to that but that’s not what we foresee in certain time.

Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you for the clarity. Can I just ask one other slightly unrelated topic, but which has really been intriguing us in the numbers? You said that at PECO you have 29% above normal cooling days and you said that was worth about $20 million after-tax to the bottom line versus normal. And last year in Q3, weather was about 6% below normal and 19 million negative, it just seems somehow these numbers don’t quite compute, I know weather adjustment is not an obviously exact science, but it feels like there should have been either lack of an impact attributed to weather in Q3 last year or considerably more benefit from weather in Q3 this year. Could you help us understand that a bit better?

This is Mat Hilzinger. Yes, there is some fluctuations, particularly as you get, remember last year we had a particularly cool summer, this summer we had a particularly hot summer. I think there are some – there is always some anomalies in the calculation, but I think as we look at this year, I think there is a total of around $0.11 year-over-year on the core and about $0.06 on a normal basis. So, I don’t weather still heading [Inaudible] add to that, but that’s how we see it.

Pretty much covered, it does have to do with more of the extreme weather conditions, the weather normalization primarily done over a 30-year weather normal average and what we saw last year was extreme mild conditions and what we are seeing this year is extreme hot conditions.

Okay, I just thought 6% last year wasn't that extreme and 30% this year was extreme, but let's follow up off-line on that. Thank you for your time.

Thanks Jonathan. Dorothy we will take the next question.

Your next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Good morning.

Hi, Paul. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: I wanted to sort of just ask you on this coal plant retirement issue. Do you see the -- do you see this impact of the regulations actually in the forward curve? And if not why not? Is it because we're seeing new generation in terms of alternatives and regulated generation coming online or demand response or energy efficiency? Is that -- what do you see actually happening in the market with respect to the forward curve and these plant retirements? And related to that, as you know, there's a first FERC NOPR for demand response that's caused some in the generation community a lot of concern. How do you see that potentially impacting power prices? Just your thought process on that and on the positive side with respect to power pricing, the PJM scarcity pricing proposal, if you could just give us a flavor as to how you think those two things might affect you guys and just the forward curve and the $64 question is whether or not we are seeing this retirement issue showing up or not?

My own view is that we haven’t seen very much of it in the forward curve yet, but the fact that it’s real probably explains why the forward curve for electricity market isn’t following the GAAP curve down literally. But you asked three parts to the question, and I’m trying to keep you on generalities while Ken Cornew gets his wits together to actually answer that. On demand management, we have a very clear position. If demand management is real, verifiable and deliverable and cheaper than generation, great, but our principal concern is both FERC and PJM is to make certain that which is this is that which is delivered, and penalties are proportionate, if it is not. So with that, partial answer to your question. Ken, do your best and then maybe Joe Dominguez, if you think Ken and I missed anything from, because there were three very different pieces to express.

: But as John indicated the forward curve doesn’t represent a great deal of price increase flow. The environmental impact of EPA regulation likely doest represent some element of it on a risk adjusted basis, and as supporting a price increase of $10 over the five-year along with all the other fundamental elements that are going on to the market. So, again, a small piece, but it probably is in there on the risk adjusted basis. On demand response and the FERC NOPR couple of points, of course the more demand response that’s introduced into the market tends to clip volatility in the market that impacts power prices. Our position on demand response is that to the extent it’s economic and competitive with other sources of generation, we are all for it to the extent the policy drives uneconomic decision to increase demand response. I think that will be there for market and there for competition. But another thing I’d say about demand response is at PJM and other RTUs are very carefully analyzing the saturation points of demand response products to make sure that the system runs reliably. And I think when you look at the demand response that’s actually figured in the last capacity market. They are starting to push closer and closer to that saturation point and PJM looks about saturation point at something around 8.5% of the capacity markets. So demand response will have its limits associated with reliability as well as what’s going on with the FERC NOPR. Finally on scarcity pricing, scarcity pricing, we think is essential for a competitive market. When there is scarcity, we should see uplift in spot power prices to incent new generation to come online, particularly peaking and capacity resources. Scarcity pricing needs tight supply and demand and so in the near term, we haven’t seen that kind of tight supply and demand that would result in a lot of scarcity pricing even if the policies in the PJM systems move into that direction with what’s happening and what we expect to happen in the capacity market and the energy market associated with natural tightening of supply and demand and EPA regulations driving more retirements. We would expect to achieve scarcity pricing to have a bigger positive impact on power pricing in the future. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay, but I guess what I was wondering here is just a few things. I guess it sounds to me like you guys are not opposed to full LMP pricing for demand response, it’s just a question of whether it’s verifiable? Is that sort of what we are talking about? And in terms of the PJM, and some of there scarcity pricing proposal that they have forward. I mean, if that were to be implemented do you see a substantial potential price increase if that pricing proposal is in fact enacted if FERC goes along with that?

On the first point, we are opposed to full LMP competition for demand response. Demand responds should be compensated based on LMP minus the cost of the original generation, so that’s the LMP minus [e-com] and that’s would make sense and that’s what’s economic … Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Alright, but if it isn’t, I guess if they go with a full LMP, which is what the FERC NOPR says, do you see a potential negative impact on power prices as a result of this and can you give us a flavor for that I guess.

To the extent it introduces on economic and more demand response, yes. We have seen a lot of impact downward on power price. The saturation point on the reliability side will keep that limited.

We’ll follow up with you. Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates: Okay, I don’t mean to take up too much time, thank you.

Thank you. Dorothy, we’ll take another question.

Your next question comes from the line of Hugh Wynne with Sanford Bernstein. Hugh Wynne – Sanford Bernstein: Hi, I just wanted to follow up on the discussion of the balance sheet and the dividend. When I look at your margin, I’m sorry, your hedging disclosures from yearend and compare them to those at September 30, I see that the estimate of Exelon generation’s open gross margin was about $5.8 billion for ‘11 and ‘12 at yearend and now it’s about $4.8 billion for those same years, so down about a billion bucks. It would, one consequence of that might be an effort by the company to reduce its debt commensurately so you can maintain that investment-grade rating through those years when the hedges are rolled off. But it seems from reviewing your balance sheet and cash flow statement that although you’ve generated about $1 billion bucks this year-after-year, CapEx and after-year dividend, there’s no commensurate reduction in the total debt, at least not when I take into account what you’re going to spend for Deere. So what am I to read from that? Do you feel that your total debt is at the right level already in an environment where earnings are no longer sustained by the hedges or would you plan to bring it down significantly over the next several years?

Hugh, this is Matt Hilzinger. So when we look at kind of our debt level and capitalization, we look at it over our plan in horizon and there are, as you know, in ‘12 and ’13, those are challenge years. I think the numbers, the 5.8, the 4.8 are on an open basis, so we have been hedging and so there’s not quite that same reduction in cash flows that you would normally impute through just a pure open basis. And we have, what I consider to be, adequate balance sheet capacity right now. We’re projecting our FFO to debt metric at the end of the year to be about 35%. As John said, we target a range between 30 and 35. And so there’s some room to take on even a little bit more debt or take on a few or lower cash flows as we kind of go through that planning period and we spend a lot time working at that in evaluating it. And it does go into a lot of the conversation that John had raised. But no, we don’t expect to see our debt come down at all, but we do expect it to have and stay within the FFO to debt metric in 30% and 35%.

Matt, I think what the numbers Hugh laid out might overlook the amount of money we put into pension this year.

That’s true.

I think that might be the reconciling factor. I’m getting a couple of nods around the table. [Multiple Speaker] Hugh Wynne – Sanford Bernstein: I included pension and OPEB in that calculation. If you just look at net debt at yearend to September 30, including pension and OPEB, I think it's down by the better part of $1 billion. But if you subtract out the cash you raised for John Deere, then there’s not that much change. So, I think the takeaway, if I understood you correctly, is that you believe the current level of debt is sustainable in the long term even after the current hedges roll off and that you have no intention to bring it down from these levels therefore. Is that put in a nutshell or..?

Yes, that’s right Hugh, and I would also say that, but we are also putting on hedges going forward, right? So it’s not just having the current hedges roll off and being exposed to compete open market. As we go through a planning period and we do evaluate kind of our hedging and putting on ratable hedging positions to protect those cash flows.

The ‘11 and ’12 open gross margins have been heavily impacted upwardly by our hedging program. When you are out years and you see neither [ph] of the prices increasing up here $40 by 15 and PGM was up prices getting over $50 those open gross margin calculations are going to be going up also. Hugh Wynne – Sanford Bernstein: Great, okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Dorothy, I think we’ll let John make some closing remarks and then conclude the call.

Well, thank you everybody. We are very pleased with the quarters that just finished, we think this year will finish much better than it looked when we begin it. And as I said earlier that’s due to a awful lot of hard work by all of my colleagues here and a little bit of good fortune on the weather. So, we are planning as you would expect for continued soft economy and continued soft gas prices. We think, we can give you a another good year, next year and what we are really focusing on is how to make ’12 and ’13 a little better than either your models or our models to forecast them, I am confident that we will find ways to do that. And also that we’re very focused on managing our cash and resources, so we can stay in the dividend, we think 1.9% dividend plus some 20, 15 outside is a very unique value proposition and we’re going to do our best to deliver it for you. So thank you very much.