阿莫林 (AEE) 2007 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for standing by and welcome to the Ameren Corporation's 2007 first quarter earnings conference call. During today's presentation all parties will be in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation the conference will be opened for questions. (OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today on Friday the 11 of May, 2007. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bruce Steinke, Manager of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Michael, and good morning, everyone. I am Bruce Steinke, Manager of Investor Relations here at Ameren Corporation. On the call with me today is our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Gary Rainwater; our Chief Financial Officer, Warner Baxter; our Vice President and Treasurer, Jerre Birdsong; our Vice President and Controller, Marty Lyons and other members of the Ameren management team.

Before we begin let me cover a few administrative details. This hour long call is available by telephone for one week to anyone who wishes to hear it by dialing a playback number. The announcement you received and our news release carry instructions on replaying the call by telephone. This call is also being broadcast live on the Internet and the Webcast will be available for one year on our Website www.ameren.com. This call contains time sensitive data that is accurate only as of the date of today's live broadcast. Redistribution of this broadcast is prohibited.

I also need to let you know that comments made on 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 and financial performance. We caution you that various factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. For additional information concerning these factors, we ask you to read the forward-looking statements in the news release we issued yesterday and the Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors sections in our periodic filings with the SEC.

To assist in our call this morning, we have made a slide presentation available on our Website that reconciles our earnings per share for the first quarter 2007 to our earnings per share for the first quarter 2006 on a comparable share basis. In addition, this presentation includes a slide that compares our re-affirmed full year 2007 non-GAAP earnings per share guidance to full year 2006 earnings per share on a comparable share basis. To access this presentation, you may look in the Investor Section of our Website under presentations or follow the link for the Webcast.

Gary will begin this call with an overview of important regulatory and legislative activities taking place in Illinois and Missouri, as well as discuss some key operational matters. Warner will then follow with a discussion of our first quarter 2007 results and 2007 earnings guidance. We will then open it up for questions. Here is Gary.

Thanks, Bruce. Good morning and thank you for joining us. As Bruce said, this morning, I want to start with an overview of important regulatory and legislative activities taking place in Illinois and Missouri. Throughout the quarter and even today, we continue to focus on developing a constructive solution for our customers in Illinois to help them adjust to higher electric rates. These rates resulted from the end of a decade-long rate freeze and the expiration of power supply contracts. That solution would be a much better solution than legislation proposed in the Illinois General Assembly this year, which would roll back rates to 2006 levels, freeze rates, and provide refunds and prevent utilities from recovering their power supply costs.

That legislation, if enacted, would render our Ameren Illinois utilities financially insolvent and bankrupt, unless the courts promptly intervened. Among other things, a rate rollback would mean that reliability would suffer, and our customers would face even higher electric rates in the long run as was the case in California a few years ago. Notably, if a rate rollback legislation had been in place in January of 2007, the Ameren Illinois utilities would have collected approximately $100 million less in revenues in the first quarter of 2007.

Since these utilities produced $29 million of net income in the first quarter of 2007, this would result in a serious earnings shortfall. The shortfall would likely increase over time as commercial and industrial customers that chose alternative suppliers returned to the utility to take advantage of below market electric rates. As we've said in the past, we believe that rate rollback and rate freeze legislation is not only short-sighted but unlawful. Throughout the decade-long market transition in Illinois, customers received in excess of $1 billion in benefits due to the rate reductions implemented back in 1997.

In addition, during this period, we have simply followed the law and regulations set out by the Illinois Legislature and the Illinois Commerce Commission. Should rate rollback and freeze legislation ultimately be signed into law, we will vigorously protect our legal and financial interests. We will pursue all actions necessary to invalidate this legislation including seeking immediate injunctive relief to prevent its implementation.

We believe that such actions will be successful in both preventing the implementation of and ultimately invalidating this legislation. We are hopeful we do not have to get to this point but we stand ready to protect your interests. We understand that many of our customers are experiencing financial hardships. We are convinced that the solution of this issue is not rate rollback legislation but a compromised solution that will provide immediate relief to those customers most in need.

Through discussions with Senate leaders, the Ameren Illinois Utilities Commonwealth Edison and others have agreed to offer more than $150 million in relief to the hardest-hit Illinois customers. This offer included over $85 million of anticipated customer bill credits and other forms of assistance that were specifically targeted to help Ameren Illinois utilities customers. The energy assistance proposal would be primarily aimed at residential, small business, and not-for-profit users, particularly those Ameren Illinois utilities customers who depend on electricity for heating their homes. Those customers who since January 1 have absorbed the largest increases had been in line for the most benefit from the proposal. Unfortunately, relief for electric customers has been delayed by pending legislation that would roll back rates.

Ameren is prepared to reinstate its customer elect electric rate phase-in plan, capping annual increases at 14% with no carrying costs on deferred balances. This plan was withdrawn during the quarter as a result of credit rating downgrades related to Illinois legislative actions on the rate rollback and freeze. We stand ready to move forward with this plan or potentially some other plan that may come out of current discussions with key stakeholders. We also are willing to continue the dialog around the long-term solution to meet the needs of our customers in the future. We still believe a constructive solution remains in the best interests of all stakeholders, including our customers and the state of Illinois.

Finally in Illinois, we expect a decision in the next two weeks on our rehearing request. That request is related to the disallowance of $50 million of costs by the Illinois Commerce Commission in last fall's delivery service cases. As you may know, even without any costs associated with the potential electric rate increase settlement, our Illinois electric distribution businesses are expected to earn less than half their ICC allowed return on equity due to rising costs and related regulatory lag. The outcome of this rehearing will certainly impact the timing of future rate increase requests to cover increased costs and allow the companies to earn a reasonable return.

With regard to Missouri, we filed electric and gas rate cases back in July 2006. Our original filings were for a $360 million electric rate increase and an $11 million gas rate increase. Subsequently, we settled the gas rate case for a $6 million rate increase that was effective in April. We also committed to not file another gas rate case for three years. The settlement agreement does not prevent AmerenUE from filing to recover gas infrastructure costs through a statutory infrastructure surcharge.

The return on equity to be used in the infrastructure surcharge is 10%. In the electric case, the Missouri Public Service Commission staff recommended an electric rate reduction of $136 million to $169 million. During the course of the case we've settled many issues. Where our filings stand today is that AmerenUE is seeking a $245 million electric rate increase, with a 12% return on equity. The Missouri Public Service Commission staff is recommending a $39 million to $79 million electric rate decrease with a 9% to 9.75% return on equity.

So, while the gap has been narrowed, there are still some significant issues to be resolved. Including determining the appropriate return on equity. The treatment of an expired electric energy incorporated power supply contract. The appropriate asset lives to be used for depreciation of power plants. The level of normalized off-system sales margins. Emission allowance sales levels. And the ability to use a fuel and purchase power cost adjustment. This return on equity issue alone accounts for about half of the current $300 million gap between AmerenUE's and staff's positions. Hearings have been completed.

We filed our post-hearing briefs with the Missouri Public Service Commission, and we expect a decision by the end of May. During the quarter, we also have attempted to work with Missouri authorities to settle liability matters related to the Taum Sauk incident. We remain committed to working with Missouri authorities involved with this incident to resolve all associated liabilities as soon as possible.

From an operational standpoint, we began a planned refueling and maintenance outage at AmerenUE's Callaway nuclear plant on April 1. This outage was successfully completed yesterday, and the plant is now back online. First quarter 2007 full-fired power plant capacity factors were equivalent year-over-year at about 77%. However, plant availability factors were down about 4% from the prior year to about 84% due to scheduled plant maintenance as we prepare our plants for critical summer months.

To sum up, before I turn this over to Warner, we are hopeful we can come to a constructive outcome on our Illinois and Missouri regulatory and legislative issues. And if the need arises, we will vigorously defend our legal and financial interests. However, we will not lose focus on our core business of safely and efficiently generating and delivering electricity and natural gas to our customers. And with that, I will turn this discussion over to Warner.

Great. Thanks, Gary. I would now like to refer you to our Website, as I provide a more detailed discussion of our earnings for the first quarter of 2007. As Bruce mentioned earlier, to assist in our call this morning, we have made a slide presentation available on our Website. This presentation reconciles our earnings per share for the first quarter of 2007 to our earnings per share for the first quarter of 2006 on a comparable share basis. In addition, this presentation includes a slide that compares our 2007 non-GAAP earnings per share guidance to full year 2006 earnings per share on a comparable share basis.

For the first quarter of 2007, we reported net income of $123 million or $0.59 per share, compared to net income for the first quarter of 2006 of $70 million or $0.34 per share. Ameren's earnings in the first quarter of 2007 were reduced by $19 million after taxes or $0.09 per share, as a result of the cost of restoration efforts associated with the severe January ice storms. Storm related costs in the first quarter of 2006 reduced net income by an estimated $6 million after taxes or $0.03 per share. Ameren's net income in the first quarter of 2007 also benefited from the reversal of a $10 million after-tax charge, or $0.05 per share, originally recorded in 2006 related to funding commitments from low-income energy assistance and energy efficiency programs. These commitments were terminated in the first quarter of 2007 because of credit rating downgrades, resulting from Illinois legislative actions in the first quarter.

Ameren's electric and gas margins in the first quarter of 2007 improved by $0.46 per share, primarily due to higher electric margins and the nonrate-regulated electric generation business segment due to the replacement of below market power sales contracts that expired in 2006. Those contracts were replaced with higher priced contracts in 2007. In addition, Ameren's first quarter 2007 electric and gas margins benefited from new Illinois electric rate tariffs.

Electric and gas margins in the Ameren's rate regulated business segments further benefited by $0.05 per share because of greater heating demand caused by colder winter weather. In fact, heating degree days were up 13% in the first quarter of 2007 over the same period in 2006. Higher costs for fuel and related transportation, primarily in our Missouri regulated operations reduced electric margins by approximately $0.03 per share in the first quarter of 2007 compared to the year ago period.

In addition, costs related to participation in the MISO market were higher in the first quarter of 2007 over the year ago period because of a March 2007 FERC order that reallocated costs among market participants. That order was retroactive to 2005 and reduced earnings by $0.05 per share. Labor and benefit costs increased $0.06 per share in the first quarter of 2007 from the first quarter of 2006, primarily in our rate regulated operations. Bad debt expenses increased $0.02 per share in the first quarter of 2007 from the same period in 2006, primarily in our Illinois regulated operations as a result of higher electric rates.

Depreciation and amortization increased $0.05 per share, primarily because of capital additions in 2006 and the start of the amortization of a regulatory asset associated with acquisition integration costs at IP in 2007 as required by an ICC order. First quarter 2007 dilution and financing costs increased $0.04 per share as a result of continued investments in power generation and delivery systems and higher borrowing costs resulting from recent credit rating downgrades.

Finally, we did announce yesterday that we were reaffirming our 2007 non-GAAP earnings guidance, which excludes the earnings impact of the severe January 2007 storms and any earnings impact that may result from commitments made to avoid rate rollback and generation tax legislation or the enactment of such legislation. The guidance also arbitrarily assumes mid-point regulatory outcomes for the Missouri electric rate case and the Illinois electric rehearing case.

As usual, this guidance assumes normal weather and is subject to among other things regulatory and legislative decisions, plant operations, energy market and economic conditions, severe storms, unusual or otherwise unexpected gains or losses and other risks and uncertainties outlined in our forward-looking statements section in yesterday's release and our filings with the SEC. This completes our prepared remarks. We will now be happy to take your questions.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Our first question come from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead.

Taxes other than income for the quarter went [up] -- or went down, excuse me, and I was wondering what was driving that? It was like $11 million decrease?

I think that when we look at the taxes other than income, I think most of that was principally in the property tax area. I think it was just principally related to some of the assessments that we looked at year-over-year, and there may be some other items that we had reflected in there from the prior year that were sort of maybe unusual one-time types of adjustments.

So we shouldn't expect it to be lower?

As opposed to one single item.

Okay. So the trend is sort of just a quarter event, it isn't something that we should go forward with respect to the earnings throughout the year, is that right?

That's correct.

Okay. And then also you mentioned in your footnote, in which you just mentioned just now, commitments made to avoid rate rollback or generation tax legislation with the enactment of such legislation. I haven't heard all that much detail on the generation tax legislation. Have you guys -- do you have any more information you can provide on that?

I think, Paul, that there have been discussions and actually there have been some legislation that had been considered and continues to be considered in terms of potentially assessing a generation tax among the generators in the state of Illinois. At this particular time, that piece of legislation isn't live. Certainly legislators have been considering that, in part to potentially address some of the issues that we're dealing with with regard to the electric rate issue in the state of Illinois. And so that's why we discussed that. In part, when you looked at the $150 million package that was originally put out there, that was meant to address some of those issues as well.

Okay. But there is no specific bill that's associated with it, it is just sort of more or less general discussions, is that right?

At this point in time there is no specific bill, but certainly there had been amendments to existing bills that would have addressed that. And so we have seen pieces of legislation that would address the generation tax.

And just then, I know it is hard to say, you're in the middle of everything, but any idea when we might see sort of the timing on a potential for resolution here or any more flavor you can give us on that?

Well, I would love to give you a lot of color and specificity. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to be able to do that. We continue to work as Gary said even to this moment to try and reach a constructive solution. There is no particular timetable set upon that. Obviously our desire, and I think a great many folks of the stakeholders their desire is to do it sooner than later. But we continue to work on this, certainly the Legislature is in session through at least the end of this month and potentially could go longer. But it is impossible to say just exactly when that solution would be worked out. We can say that we have people working on this daily to try and come to that constructive solution.

Okay. Appreciate it.

Thank you. David [Frank] with Capital Partners. Please go ahead with your question.

I had a question, well, two questions. One on the FERC ordered MISO charges, the payments that you made. Am I to understand this was essentially a one-time kind of catch-up payment?

This is Marty. That's correct. It was -- the FERC issued an order in the March time frame that caused the reallocation of revenue sufficiency guarantee charges back to the MISO Day 2 market start. So it is a catch-up for basically two years of reallocations of those costs. And the bulk of the costs, frankly, were back in the year of the market start, so when the market was operating more inefficiently than it is today.

I see. And you booked this to the generation subsidiary?

Actually, each of the subsidiaries had an impact of the reallocation of the MISO costs.

Well, when I look at your results for the quarter, and you talk about generating -- this net income being up $43 million year-over-year, how much of that $10 million expense related to the MISO charges was allocated to that reported number?

When you take a look at that, the way that the MISO costs were reallocated caused load-serving entities to get hit with charges. Nonload serving entities tended to get a credit as a result of it. So what you see is the regulated entities, for example, UE getting hit with charges in the $12 million range. The Illinois regulated companies getting hit with charges in the $20 million range. and then the nonrate-regulated generating segment getting hit with -- actually not getting hit but having a credit, a pickup, of around $15 to $16 million.

So, I am sorry, included embedded in your results for the first quarter of 2007 Ameren Energy generating benefited $15 to $16 million from MISO expenses?

That's the entire nonrate-regulated segment, not just GenCo. You have to recall it is Genco, AERG, as well as our 80% ownership in EEI, so those entities collectively.

So, you had higher expenses, so I am just trying to figure out how this -- so, this $0.05 number was really like a $0.10 charge at one utility, a $0.15 charge at another, a $0.20 benefit --?

It is a net of those, and the ultimately, the net charge that Ameren had in total was in the $16 to $17 million range, which gives you that $0.05 charge overall.

Are you talking pretax now?

I am sorry, that is correct.

Just to be clear, David, this is Warner. Bottom line is the regulated utilities basically on an earnings per share basis had a charge of about $0.10 per share, and the nonrate-regulated segment had a pickup of about $0.05 and that's how you get to your net $0.05.

I see. And one question on Illinois. Warner or Gary, maybe you could comment, what do you think has brought House Speaker Madigan to the negotiating table? Why now? Has that -- what's changed in his mind and do you think that he or the other leaders of the Legislature really know what they want or do they know what they're looking for at this point?

David, it is just the fact that the bill is back in the House now. When the Senate bill went to the House, it really shifted the negotiation from the Senate to the House. I think Speaker Madigan has always been interested in a settlement, and we continue to work with him, and I think we're still optimistic we will get a constructive settlement.

To my knowledge, he has never actually -- his position was always rate freeze, get out of my office. And maybe I am wrong but I think it is just recently the tact has turned a little bit that he is actually open or he's discussing alternatives, which maybe I am wrong. I thought that was -- this like the first time he has done that so I am trying to figure out what's taking place?

David, remember the legality of a rate freeze. Our view is very strong that it would ultimately be over turned in the courts.

Do you think he is starting to share that view now or he has been enlightened to that view?

David, we won't speculate on what he thinks. I don't know what he thinks. But we know that we are engaged in settlement discussions and we think those are constructive at this point.

Okay. I realize there is a limit on what you can say. Thank you and good luck.

Thank you. Paul Ridzon with Keybanc. Please go ahead.

Your sales were up everywhere except Illinois residential. Is that just elasticity response or is there something else going on?

This is Marty. It is difficult to say, but certainly that is a possibility as we assess it. That the usage from the residential customers may be declining because of the increase in rates.

And the only thing you are excluding from your guidance is storms and any Illinois give-ups. Is that correct?

That's correct. We've identified those two as sort of unusual or non-GAAP related adjustments, so to speak.

And what quarter was it in '06 that you booked the reserve for potential Illinois give-back?

That was in the fourth quarter we booked that $15 million. So, that's what's being reversed here. And that was pretax number I gave you. That's what's being reversed here in the quarter.

And guidance assumes a mid-point outcome in Illinois. Obviously, the bookends haven't moved but the mid-point is the same place still?

I think with regard to Illinois, what that issue addressed was the pending rehearing order.

I am sorry, Missouri.

And Missouri was the same thing. I think that's right. The guidance assumed at that point in time, the arbitrary mid-point between the $360 and the (Inaudible) about $160 million at that point in time. So, we obviously haven't modified that. But as you said the bookends have moved a little bit and we expect to hear something by the end of the month by the Missouri Public Service Commission.

But the new -- (Inaudible) to ask in Missouri, the mid-point is still about the same place, right?

Roughly. Maybe a little less frankly when you look at the mid-points, probably $10 to $15 million less if you just took the arbitrary mid-point between the two.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Doug Fischer with AG Edwards, please go ahead with your question.

When you mentioned that you would earn, I forget the exact phrasing, roughly half of the allowed return in -- less than half allowed return in Illinois, are you thinking about the rate base, the old rate base, and the regulatory lag number or on more of a current rate base or current GAAP basis?

Doug, I would characterize it more the latter, sort of the current rate base, current GAAP number that we would expect to realize this year. Because of the continued increases in operating costs, among other things, as well as the continued investment that we continue to make in the Illinois operations.

Could you share with us what rate base of the three Illinois entities was at the end of the year? You may have given that to us before but maybe you can refresh me on that.

Sure. Give us a moment. We can try and get our arms around that in terms of what the rate base is. Probably can give you a more accurate rate base as of March 31.

That would be even better.

For the electric -- you want it for both the electric and gas?

Yes, please.

For --

You were talking on a combined basis about this half or on just an electric basis?

Combined.

Yes.

The combined. But the rate base for CIPS on the electric side is about $670 million. On the gas side for CIPS is $176 million. For CILCO, it approximate $345 million, on the electric. And on CILCO gas is approximately $170 million. And with regard to IP it is about $1.57 billion on the electric side. And on the gas side about $455 million.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Scott [Angstros] with [Glenheim] Capital Management, please go ahead with your question.

It seems clear you were trying to keep me off the call by filing your Q's on the same day as your earnings.

(Laughter) Yes.

I still managed a question to bother you, actually a couple questions. One, the $15 million of charge you took in the fourth quarter and then reversed, do you have that? I don't remember how that was broken down been CIPS, CILCO and IP.

Off the top of my head, I don't recall how that was broken out either. We can get that information back to you, but it was broken out between the entities, I just don't have that at my fingertips.

Okay. And then the storm costs in the Q looks like primarily at UE about $29 million pre-tax and a little at CIPS, is that --?

That's a fair assessment. I think it was maybe $2 to $3 million at CIPS, but the lion's share by far was at UE.

And then just back on the MISO charges for the quarter. You didn't break it out as kind of a non-recurring, but should we -- is this a new level or I think you characterized them as catch-up? David asked you, or somebody, if it was more catch-up, and you said yes. So, is it repeatable? Is it more of a one-time thing? How should we think about these?

This is Marty again. The catch-up is really a one-time thing. Again, it is catching up for the prior two years of cost allocations. And as I said, the majority of the charges and the reallocation of the charges really goes back to the year of the market start. With that said, the order does call for a different allocation of costs on a prospective basis. And so there will be some impact on us going forward. But again, this $16 to $17 million is accumulation of reallocation over a multi-year period, a couple-year period. So we would expect some impact going forward, but we're evaluating the order and we're evaluating our strategies to try to minimize any impact on our Company.

And is that different say than when you went about making guidance initially? Is this something new or had you known that, and this is sort of just the financial representation that came in the first quarter?

This was not included in our guidance initially. This is something that was the result of a FERC order in the March time frame and information MISO has provided to us subsequently about the impact on our Company. So, this is new information.

And if we were thinking on an ongoing basis how much -- what would be the higher level say '07 versus '06, is it in the in the $1 million range or is there a way you can kind of ballpark this?

I expect it would be in the $1 million range. Again at $16 or $17 million charge reallocation of a couple year period, if you just take a straight average, which I am not sure that that even should be done, given that the bulk from 2005 but you would get to a single digit it kind of impact.

Thanks a lot, guys.

Andrew [Levy] with Brencourt Advisors, please go ahead.

Hi, guys, just on the Illinois thing, just kind of following up on what David Frank was asking you. But it seems to me that it makes sense to settle here. You guys, I would assume, have a strong desire to settle. Is that a fair statement? Versus going through a litigated process, whether you win or not.

Well, certainly. I think we've indicated time and again that we think that the best solution for all stakeholders and that goes to our customers, it goes the state of Illinois, it goes to our shareholders; a constructive solution, a compromised solution is the best way forward as opposed to a litigation route at the end of the day. But there will be a point where we'll have to decide just exactly when we can no longer go forward with those discussions and go the other route. And as Gary said earlier, we're cautiously optimistic we can find a solution. But should that not be the case, then we'll vigorously defend our interests as necessary.

Thank you.

Dan Jenkins with the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, please go ahead with your question.

Good morning. I have a couple here. First on your operating statistics, given it is obviously a lot different than it was a year ago, is that kind of the breakdown we can expect, especially the commercial and industrial, as far as what the breakdown between delivery to service-only and the generation and delivery service combined?

Yes. That is our plan to give it in the format going forward.

And those levels are the type of levels you'd expect going forward as well?

Well, obviously there is going to be a seasonal impact to them but generally, yes.

Okay. On the Missouri side, the KWH interchange was down quite a bit. Is that related to the change in Illinois as well or is that something else going on with Missouri?

Not so much in Missouri. What you had is the megawatt hours were going to serve increased native load due to the colder winter and increased load growth.

Okay.

And if you look at the total and the statistics, it is slightly down and production in the Missouri operations were slightly down due to increased planned maintenance activities at the power plant.

Okay. And then on your cash flow statement, I noticed there is a big swing on the receivables side. Is that due to the higher rates in Illinois?

Generally, yes.

Okay. So that probably would not continue after the first quarter, is that reasonable to expect? It wouldn't be a big negative?

I am sorry, I could not hear on you that one.

It is a big negative in the first quarter, but that probably would not continue going forward given how the rates are impacted on the receivables?

In theory that's right, once you get up to kind of a normalized level, that would be the case, yes.

And then, I noticed next week you have $250 million of debt maturing and you added quite a bit of short-term debt. How do you plan to finance that going -- do you expect to come to the market or more short-term debt or what's the plan there?

This is Jerre Birdsong, for the maturity that occurs next week, we will just refinance that with our credit facilities that we already have, but we will eventually get to the market to refinance that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. (OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS) Management, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue.

Great. I want to thank you all for participating in this call. Let me remind you again that this call is available through May 18 on playback and for one year on our Website. The announcement carries instructions on listening to the playback. You can also call the contacts listed on our news release. Those on the call who are financial analysts please call Bruce Steinke or Theresa Nistendirk Missouri media should call Tim Fox. And Illinois media should call Shelley Epstein. Contact numbers are on the news release. Again, thanks for dialing in.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the Ameren Corporation 2007 first quarter earnings conference call. If you would like to listen to a replay of today's conference in its entirely, you may do so be dialing 1-800-405-2236 or 303-590-3000 using the access code 11089184. Again, 800-405-2236 or 303-590-3000 using the access code 11089184. ACT would like to thank you very much for your participation today. You may now disconnect and have a very pleasant day.