Good morning. Thank you for standing by. At this time, I'd like to welcome everyone to the Exelon Corporation Quarter Two 2015 Earnings Conference Call. Your lines have been muted to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. Thank you. I'd now like to turn today's conference over to Francis Idehen. Thank you, you may begin.

Thank you, Ali. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining for our second quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Leading the call today are Chris Crane, Exelon's President and Chief Executive Officer; Joe Nigro, CEO of Constellation; and Jack Thayer, Chief Financial Officer. They are joined by other members of Exelon's senior management team, who will be available to answer your questions following our prepared remarks. We issued our earnings release this morning along with the presentation, each of which can be found in the Investor Relations section of Exelon's website. The earnings release and other matters which we discuss during today's call contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ from our forward-looking statements based on factors and assumptions discussed in today's material, comments made during this call, and in the risk factors section on the 10-K which we filed in February, as well as in the earnings release and the 10-Q, which we expect to file later today. Please refer to the 10-K, today's 8-K and 10-Q, and Exelon's other filings for a discussion of factors that may cause the results to differ from management's projections, forecasts and expectations. Today's presentation also includes references to adjusted operating earnings and other non-GAAP measures. Please refer to the information contained in the appendix of our presentation and our earnings release for a reconciliation between the non-GAAP measures to the nearest equivalent GAAP measures. We've scheduled 45 minutes for today's call. I'll now turn the call over to Chris Crane, Exelon's CEO. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Francis, and good morning, everybody. Thanks for joining. We're pleased to report another strong quarter with our earnings coming in at $0.59 per share, surpassing our guidance of $0.45…

And our first question will come from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI.

Good morning. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hi, Greg.

Couple of questions. First, when you talk about commercial opportunities, in the context of your comfort level raising your guidance for power new business/to go, are we talking about sort of the inherent counter-cyclicality of the margins in that business in the low wholesale environment, i.e., are we moving closer off the $2 floor in margins and closer to the $4 sort of peak of the cycle margins that you see in that business historically, or is it simply new customers, more volumes than you had projected in either the gas or the electric business? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Joe? Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah, Greg. In this specific instance, specifically for 2016 where we're raising our power new business/to go by $50 million and 2017 by $100 million, it's really – it's not related to those load margins. It's more specifically related to some proprietary structured commercial opportunities that we have really solid line of sight into on the wholesale side of the business, quite frankly. To your point though, I think it's important to note we have raised our targets each – $50 million each quarter for 2015, for a total of $100 million so far year-to-date. And a lot of that has been driven by really three things. One is the monetization of loads that we sold at higher prices last year. So, we have seen increased value from that load-serving business, some of our optimization activities. And then we went in, as you saw from our disclosures last quarter, we went in with a short bias with a backstop of our own generation, and given the results of market prices in 2015 to date, that's performed well. We would only look to raise those targets, the power/to go targets or non-power/to go targets, if we have good line of sight into specific opportunities. And in this case, we do.

Okay. Follow-up to that. If these are fairly chunky opportunities and you win them, will we get a sort of a discrete disclosure or would that just – would we get – would you just update it on a quarterly basis as per your usual, moving from to go to, into the hedges? Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah. Yeah. We'll disclose that when the negotiations are complete. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: And Greg, it will be in the MD&A disclosure in our interview (19:24), when it occurs.

Okay, great. Second question. In light of economic conditions in Texas, most of your investors would probably rather see you pull the plug on this gas-fired project that you're pursuing. What gives you the confidence that the through-the-cycle economics of that investment are still worth going forward in this environment? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: So as we said, we've got a very good deal on acquiring these assets on our brownfield site. Minimal infrastructure investment. They still have a double digit IRR with these market forwards. If you just projected we stay here for 10 years, and then plug the fundamentals in after, we're still at a double-digit IRR. This is a solid investment. These are going to be dispatched first. They're the highly efficient, air-cooled, and at the right price.

Concise answer. Thank you. Take care. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: All right.

And your next question will come from the line of Steve Fleishman, Wolfe Research.

Yeah. Hi, good morning. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning.

First to Jack, clarification. So in the updated 2015 guidance, are you including some amount of POM, both the business and the financing costs? And if so, is it positive or negative within the year? Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: So Steve, we are including – we are including the equity and the debt associated with the PHI acquisition. So for share count purposes, that incorporates a weighted average share base of 892 million shares. It does assume the third quarter close of PHI. But there is a measure of dilution this year that's related to the increased share count, the debt, and as we pursue rate cases on PHI, improve their revenues and earnings, we'll see the accretion that we anticipate with that transaction in future periods.

Okay. So just to clarify, when you net for this short period into year-end, when you net POM revenue and the financing cost, it's actually – your numbers would have been higher in this guidance if you hadn't included that. Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: Modestly, Steve.

Okay. But then we'll get the... Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: It (22:02), but not materially so.

But the future accretion guidance that you gave, I think, at the last quarter, or recent commentary, that's still good for future years? Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: The impact on rate cases and the deferral of those rate cases modestly impacts the accretion, but we're still at the – as we disclosed at the last quarter, we're still at the sort of bottom end of the range in 2017 that we gave. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: And so, it's 2018 to get to that – more to that midpoint of the run rate that we talked about.

Right. But you said that – you clarified that, I think, the last call or so. That's not new. Okay. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yes. So, $0.15 in 2017, and you'll see us head to the upper end in 2018.

Okay. Second question is just with respect to the power views. I kind of feel like just, the last few calls you've been a little bit more mixed on your power views. You're a lot more bullish right now, at least, I guess, with respect to NiHub. Is that mainly just a fact that you had to pull back as of Q2 end, and so you're just more bullish because the starting price is lower, or are you more bullish even if the prices had stayed flat? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: It's, the prices have gone lower. We're more bullish, they're non-sustainable at this level. Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah. And, Steve, what I would say is, our view of the absolute value of power price hasn't changed quarter-over-quarter, and what's changed is we saw a material drop in the back end of the power curve and I'm talking to NiHub, but it's attributable to West Hub as well, but our upside is really baked at NiHub where we see material upside as you move out into that 2018, 2019 timeframe. We see upside as well in that 2016, 2017 period, and what's changed is the market has fallen so much, quarter-over-quarter; our absolute view of power price hasn't changed. So that spread has gone wider. And when we look at our fundamental models at NiHub, in particular, we see a lot of value that's still to be derived, and that's due to the changing dispatch stack and some of the other things that we've talked about previously. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Talk about the lack of liquidity. Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah, the liquidity piece of it is a big part of it, Steve. We had a $0.40 – approximately $0.40 a megawatt-hour drop in PJM, in West Hub and NiHub in calendar 2016. That's the most liquid period on the forward curve. When we've pulled data and we have access to and look at what's going on in the out-years, 2018, 2019, 2020 where we saw a material drop in prices, there is absolutely nothing trading at NiHub. There had been some few sporadic trades at West Hub, and you see the market set prices off of those trades. And our view is through time, that spread relationship between the West Hub and NiHub is going to collapse because of the retirements on the western side, the new builds on the eastern side, and that's why we think there is material upside. But our fundamental absolute view on power price hasn't changed. It's just the way the market reacted quarter-over-quarter.

Okay. Thank you very much.

And your next question will come from the line of Daniel Eggery (sic) [Daniel Eggers] (25:35) with Credit Suisse. Dan L. Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hey, good morning, guys. On Pepco, could we just talk about the process? So assuming that the D.C. decision comes soon, what is the process for closing from this point, and what bearing does the Maryland appeal have on your ability to close right now? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I'm going to get Darryl Bradford to cover that. Darryl M. Bradford - Executive Vice President & General Counsel: Hey, Steve. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: It's Dan. Darryl M. Bradford - Executive Vice President & General Counsel: I'm sorry. Dan, we expect to – assuming a acceptable order from the D.C. Commission, we expect to close promptly after that order. Our contract would indicate that that will take place within 48 hours of approval by the D.C. commission. And we don't think that the Maryland motion should be any bar to us closing. We don't believe that that motion has any merit whatsoever. As you know, the alleged conflict of interest of one of the commissioners having a preliminary interviewing discussion, which she stopped, with a non-party, isn't a basis under Maryland law to question the independence of that decision, let alone to stay the proceedings. No court in Maryland and no commission in Maryland has ever suggested there's a conflict with the commissioner of any agency having a conversation with a non-party. Particularly where, as here, Exelon is one of some 45 board members, 140 members in an agency that includes public interest groups like Public Citizen, which was a party below and was the first one to raise…

Your next question will come from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Good morning, guys. Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hey. Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: Good morning.

One – just – given your comments about liquidity in the forward curve, is it fair to assume that you've probably not done much in the way of 2018 hedging yet? Because ordinarily you would have been a couple of quarters into it. Just curious if you could give us any insight? Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah, Jonathan. We are behind our ratable sales plan in 2018. As you know, we have a very big load-serving book of business, so we've captured opportunities, both in our retail and wholesale load-serving businesses to the extent possible, in 2018. And in addition, at times, as we've spoken about in other years, we used the gas market as well. But to sell straight OTC power in 2018, we've not done much, if any, of that at all.

Okay. And then just to revisit the commercial opportunities comment. Can you give us any insight as to what kind of opportunities you're talking about? And is it, are they the result of others pulling back from the market, or just successful discussions with potential clients I guess? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: It's early on that one, Jonathan. We'll do the full disclosure when we complete the negotiations.

Okay. Sorry to re-ask that. And then, Chris, at the outset, you made the comment that you saw the inclusion of DR in the transition auctions as being, I think you said, nonmaterial to the outcome? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yes.

Could you share a bit more of your kind of logic and thought process behind that statement? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. Joe? Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Jonathan, it's Joe. First of all, we lost over $1 billion of market cap post the announcement of that, of the inclusion of DR in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. And we really thought it was a little bit of an overreaction. As Chris mentioned, we're disappointed in the delay, but we don't believe there's going to be a material impact to either of those transition auctions. As you're aware, DR was already included in 2018-2019 and beyond. The reason why we don't think it's a material impact in the transition auctions is really related to how the auctions themselves cleared on the base residual, and the separation in price in 2016-2017 on one side, and then the amount of DR that clears in the 2017-2018 auction, and when we put that all into our models, it's very similar to what we've read, quite frankly, from a lot of what's been written by the equity community, that it's going to be a limited impact.

Okay. Thank you for that.

And your next question will come from the line of Julien Smith with UBS.

Hi. Good morning. Jonathan W. Thayer - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP: Hey, Julien.

Hey. So, first quick question and it does kind of rehash a little bit here, but on the fundamental upside you're talking about, just to be clear, what does that assume in terms of retirements, just to be clear? Your own retirements, particularly as you're thinking about the life of your portfolio here in the back half of the year? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. We have not evaluated the potential retirement of any our assets on market-forward prices. And, so this is just based off of fundamentals of what has been announced, and what we see for retirements, what we see for the economic viability of the existing fleet in what they would have to clear to stay viable going forward. So it's not a sustainable market forward with the asset mix that's currently in. It has nothing to do with any forward decision we would make.

Right. So just to be clear, nuclear retirements would be incremental to your fundamental upside? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: We don't know that. We have not analyzed it and I wouldn't want to project one way or the other. It's, there are two different things. The nuclear asset retirement is based off of the economic viability of the asset on the stand-alone. And we have had losses and free cash flow losses in the trailing five years of some significance. And we project going forward with these market forwards, them to be even worse than they were a year ago, which is driving us to make that decision. It is not based off of any potential impact on the market forwards or the rest of the fleet's viability.

Got it. And then two subsequent questions here. First, in terms of the FCF losses, what would you estimate those as being, both for the eastern portfolio and for the ComEd portfolio as it stands today? And then secondly, tied into that, as you evaluate the remaining life of some of these assets, would you imagine layering one announcement after another? So I suppose specifically, there's a timing issue related to ordering new cores. I imagine certain units have to get those orders in before others. Could we see one nuclear retirement and then subsequently, depending on what happens in the legislative arena, et cetera, see further announcements later this year, in trying to reconcile the bigger issues around FCF deficit? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. We've discussed fairly openly the units, the affected units. PJM's rules require us an earlier notification than MISO's rules. And so, we would be moving forward, if we have to, on PJM units before MISO units. We don't project a MISO decision until beginning of next year, looking at the opportunities we have with that unit either through legislation or other mechanisms, to secure the required revenues that we need there. We've talked about New York units. We're still working with our partners in our stakeholders in New York to look at, is there a viable way beyond – a reliability must-run situation to maintain economic viability there? And the final asset that's been in discussion is Oyster Creek, which we've already had an agreed-upon early retirement date at the end of 2019. So, short of the – short of a, some type of failure that was a costly failure on the unit, we would run into that period to allow adequate transition, utilization of the fuel, and adequate transition of our employee base to other facilities.

Got it. But just to be clear about the MISO unit there, depending on the success this year in the legislative arena, would that drive that decision? Christopher M. Crane - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: It would have a – it would heavily weight our decision.

Great. Thank you.

And we have time for one final question. Your final question will come from the line of Chris Turnure with JPMorgan.

Good morning, guys. I wanted to get a little bit more color on the Pepco approval process here, and the court challenge, than what you've already talked about. Do you have any sense of the precedent, or a precedent, for actually staying a commission order? Obviously you disagree with the merit of this case. But you do you have any precedent there, and what would be the path forward if it was not stayed, and you got the decision out of D.C.? Darryl M. Bradford - Executive Vice President & General Counsel: Thanks. It's Darryl again. Yeah, the precedent on a stay is very clear in Maryland. It's an extraordinary remedy. It is rarely granted. You have to show a likelihood of success on the merits. And the motion does not, on the merits of the underlying merger, raise any issues whatsoever. The only issue that raises is this specious purported conflict claim, which we think is very, very weak. So, we don't think they've attempted to meet that. They would also have to show irreparable harm, which – they spend a paragraph trying to satisfy that. It's really not very persuasive, in our view. They would have to show that a stay is in the public interest. And, of course, not only has the Maryland Commission, but the New Jersey Commission, the FERC, the Delaware Commission have all found that this merger is in the public interest. And they'd also have to show that the hardships favor them, and in our pleading we lay out why disrupting – the hardship of potentially disrupting a $7 billion merger outweighs any hardships that would occur from the grant of the stay. So we think it's an extraordinary remedy. We don't think that they've come close to meeting those standards in any respect. And the law is also very clear that in Maryland, it's not a balancing. They have to satisfy each and every one of those elements, and in this case, in our view, they haven't satisfied any of them. So, that leaves us in a position where, upon D.C. approval, and assuming that the court agrees with the pleading we filed yesterday and doesn't grant a stay, that promptly upon the D.C. Commission joining the other commissions in finding that this is in the public interest, and assuming that any conditions it imposes are not unduly burdensome, that we would close promptly.

Okay. Great. That's very helpful. And then, is there – or my understanding is that D.C. has to rule by the end of August. Is there any flexibility around that timing? Can they extend that again? Darryl M. Bradford - Executive Vice President & General Counsel: Yeah. There is no clock in D.C., so they are not under any time constraint. Generally, the D.C. Commission has ruled within 90 days of something being fully briefed and submitted to them. This was fully briefed at the end of May. So that 90 days would end at the end of August. I think that's where that date comes from. Obviously, we're hopeful that sooner is better than later, but that will be up to the D.C. Commission, and they'll rule when they have finished their work. They are, I think, acutely aware that a lot of people are looking for a decision from them, and they understand that. But they will take the time that they deem necessary in order to do their job right.

Okay. And then if I could, real quick, Joe, I just wanted to follow up, you've mentioned lack of liquidity in the forward markets a couple of times on the call here. Is this a lack of liquidity that exceeds just the general nature of these markets and what you've seen historically? Has that increased, and if that is the case, do you have an opinion as to why there might be so few trades going on out there? Joseph Nigro - Executive Vice President, Exelon; Chief Executive Officer, Constellation, Exelon Corp.: Yeah, I think it's probably worse than it has been historically. And I think some of it is, there is just no natural buyers out on, that far out on the forward curve, as I said. The back end of the forward curve was dropped much more than in like 2016, where there were more natural buyers, whether we talk about retail or speculators or other participants. So I think with some of the folks that used to participate in the markets not doing that, some on the banking side and others, I think it's had a material impact.

Great. Thanks a lot.