Rate And Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Public Utilities, General Disclosures [Abstract]
RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS	RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS Below is a summary of updates to significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. See also Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters under Part II, Item 8, of the Form 10-K. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the timing of the final decisions of the various agencies and courts, or the impact on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. Missouri FAC Prudence Reviews Missouri law requires the MoPSC to perform prudence reviews of Ameren Missouri's FAC at least every 18 months. In April 2011, the MoPSC issued an order with respect to its review of Ameren Missouri's FAC for the period from March 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009. In this order, the MoPSC ruled that Ameren Missouri should have included in the FAC calculation all revenues and costs associated with certain long-term partial requirements sales that were made by Ameren Missouri because of the loss of Noranda's load caused by a severe ice storm in January 2009. As a result of the order, Ameren Missouri recorded a pretax charge to earnings of $18 million, including $1 million for interest, in 2011 for its obligation to refund to Ameren Missouri's electric customers the earnings associated with these sales previously recognized by Ameren Missouri during the period from March 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009. Ameren Missouri disagrees with the MoPSC order's classification of these sales and believed that the terms of its FAC tariff did not provide for the inclusion of these sales in the FAC calculation. In May 2012, upon appeal by Ameren Missouri, the Cole County Circuit Court reversed the MoPSC's April 2011 order. In June 2012, the MoPSC and a group of large industrial customers filed an appeal of the Cole County Circuit Court's ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Ameren Missouri has not recorded additional revenues as a result of the Cole County Circuit Court's May 2012 ruling as the MoPSC's appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals is ongoing. A decision is expected to be issued in 2013. In February 2012, the MoPSC staff issued its FAC review report for the period from October 1, 2009, to May 31, 2011. In its report, the MoPSC staff asked the MoPSC to direct Ameren Missouri to refund to customers the pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements sales contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The MoPSC staff calculated these pretax earnings to be $26 million. If Ameren Missouri were to determine that these sales were probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's electric customers, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the refund in the period in which that determination was made. Ameren Missouri does not currently believe these amounts are probable of refund to customers. Separately, in July 2011, Ameren Missouri filed a request with the MoPSC for an accounting authority order that would allow Ameren Missouri to defer, as a regulatory asset, fixed costs totaling $36 million that were not recovered from Noranda as a result of the loss of load caused by the severe 2009 ice storm for potential recovery in a future electric rate case. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these regulatory or judicial proceedings. If the courts ultimately rule in favor of Ameren Missouri's position regarding the classification of the long-term partial requirements sales, Ameren Missouri would not seek to recover from customers the amount covered by the accounting authority order, if it is granted. The MoPSC’s FAC prudence review for the period from June 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012, was initiated on March 1, 2013. The MoPSC is expected to issue an order for this prudence review in 2013. Illinois IEIMA In September 2012, the ICC issued an order in Ameren Illinois’ initial filing under the IEIMA’s performance-based formula rate framework. In October 2012, Ameren Illinois filed an appeal of the ICC’s initial filing order to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District of Illinois. A decision by the appellate court is expected in 2013. Ameren Illinois believes the ICC incorrectly implemented the IEIMA by using an average capital structure as opposed to a year-end capital structure on the revenue requirement, the method it used for calculating the equity portion of Ameren Illinois' capital structure, the method for calculating interest and the average rate base rather than year-end rate base for the revenue requirement reconciliation. In April 2012, Ameren Illinois submitted to the ICC an update filing under IEIMA. In December 2012, the ICC issued an order approving an Ameren Illinois electric delivery service revenue requirement of $765 million, based on 2011 recoverable costs and expected net plant additions for 2012. The delivery service rates became effective on January 1, 2013, and will be effective through the end of 2013. In January 2013, Ameren Illinois filed an appeal of the ICC's update filing order to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District of Illinois. A decision by the appellate court is expected in 2013. The ICC's orders in 2012 for Ameren Illinois’ initial and update rate filings jeopardize Ameren Illinois' ongoing ability to implement infrastructure improvements to the extent and on the timetable envisioned in the IEIMA. Until the uncertainty surrounding how the Illinois law will ultimately be implemented is removed, Ameren Illinois is slowing IEIMA capital spending with a corresponding negative effect on the job creation that the legislature sought to effectuate with the law. Ameren Illinois still intends to meet its IEIMA capital spending requirements. On April 19, 2013, Ameren Illinois filed its annual electric delivery formula rate update with the ICC based on 2012 recoverable costs and expected net plant additions for 2013. Pending ICC approval, the update filing will result in a $30 million decrease in Ameren Illinois’ electric delivery revenue requirement beginning in January 2014. The filing includes a refund to customers of the 2012 revenue requirement reconciliation of approximately $50 million. An expected refund was recorded in 2012 as a regulatory liability on Ameren Illinois’ balance sheet. In the filing, the proposed refund is partially offset by an annual revenue requirement increase of approximately $20 million primarily due to increased recoverable costs over 2011 levels. The filing is based on an electric delivery service revenue requirement of $785 million, before consideration of the 2012 revenue requirement reconciliation refund. An ICC decision with respect to the April 2013 update filing is expected in December 2013 and will establish rates for 2014. On March 14, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation, which, if enacted, would result in certain amendments to the IEIMA that would modify its implementation. The passed legislation, Senate Bill 9, clarifies the provisions in the IEIMA that require the year-end rate base be used to calculate the revenue requirement reconciliation and that the interest applied to the revenue requirement reconciliation and return on equity collar adjustments would be consistent with the company’s weighted-average return calculated under the formula rate. Additionally, the legislation specifies the use of year-end capital structure for both the revenue requirement and the revenue requirement reconciliation. On May 5, 2013, the Illinois Governor vetoed this legislation. If this legislation is ultimately enacted through a legislative override in 2013, Ameren Illinois will submit revisions to its April 19, 2013 update filing based on the new law. Federal 2011 Wholesale Distribution Rate Case In January 2011, Ameren Illinois filed a request with FERC to increase its annual revenues for electric delivery service for its wholesale customers. These wholesale distribution revenues are treated as a deduction from Ameren Illinois’ revenue requirement in retail rate filings with the ICC. In March 2011, FERC issued an order authorizing the proposed rates to take effect, subject to refund when the final rates are determined. Ameren Illinois has reached an agreement with four of its nine wholesale customers. The impasse with the remaining five wholesale customers has resulted in FERC litigation. In November 2012, a FERC administrative law judge issued an initial decision, which is now pending before FERC. The timing of a FERC decision is uncertain. Based on the administrative law judge's initial decision, Ameren and Ameren Illinois each has included on its balance sheet in “Current regulatory liabilities” as of March 31, 2013, an estimate of $9 million for the refund due to wholesale customers relating to billings from March 2011 through March 2013. Ameren Illinois Electric Transmission Rate Refund In July 2012, FERC issued an order with respect to Ameren Illinois' accounting for the Ameren Illinois Merger. As part of this order, FERC concluded that Ameren Illinois improperly included acquisition premiums, particularly goodwill, in determining its common equity used in its electric transmission formula rate, thereby inappropriately recovering a higher return on rate base from its electric transmission customers. The order required Ameren Illinois to make refunds to customers for such improperly included amounts. In August 2012, Ameren Illinois filed a request for rehearing of this order. It is unknown when FERC will rule on Ameren's rehearing request, as it is under no deadline to do so. After reviewing the FERC order and its calculation of the impact on electric transmission formula rates, Ameren Illinois concluded that no refund was warranted. Several wholesale customers filed a protest with FERC regarding Ameren's conclusion that no refund is warranted. If Ameren Illinois were to determine that a refund to its electric transmission customers is probable, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the refund in the period in which that determination was made and the amount could be estimated. Combined Construction and Operating License In 2008, Ameren Missouri filed an application with the NRC for a COL for a new nuclear unit at Ameren Missouri's existing Callaway County, Missouri, energy center site. In 2009, Ameren Missouri suspended its efforts to build a new nuclear unit at its existing Missouri nuclear energy center site, and the NRC suspended review of the COL application. In March 2012, the DOE announced the availability of investment funds for the design, engineering, manufacturing, and sale of American-made small modular nuclear reactors. In April 2012, Ameren Missouri entered into an agreement with Westinghouse to exclusively support Westinghouse's application for the DOE's small modular nuclear reactor investment funds. The DOE investment funding is intended to support engineering and design certifications and a COL for up to two small modular reactor designs over five years. In November 2012, the DOE awarded investment funds for only one small modular reactor design, which was not the Westinghouse design, but also stated that additional investment funds would be awarded during 2013. Westinghouse continues to pursue investment funds from the DOE. If Westinghouse is awarded DOE's small modular reactor investment funds, Ameren Missouri will seek a COL from the NRC for a Westinghouse small modular reactor or multiple reactors at its Callaway energy center site. A COL is issued by the NRC to permit construction and operation of a nuclear energy center at a specific site in accordance with established laws and regulations. Obtaining a COL from the NRC does not obligate Ameren Missouri to build a small modular reactor at the Callaway site; however, it does preserve the option to move forward in a timely fashion should conditions be right to build a small modular reactor in the future. A COL is valid for at least 40 years. Ameren Missouri estimates the total cost to obtain the small modular reactor COL will be in the range of $80 million to $100 million. Ameren Missouri expects its incremental investment to obtain the small modular reactor COL to be minimal due to several factors, including the company's capitalized investments in new nuclear energy center development of $69 million as of March 31, 2013, the DOE investment funds that would help support the COL application, and Ameren Missouri's agreement with Westinghouse. If the DOE does not approve Westinghouse's application for the small modular reactor investment funds, Ameren Missouri is not obligated to pursue a COL for the Westinghouse small modular reactor design and may terminate its agreement with Westinghouse. All of Ameren Missouri's costs incurred to license additional nuclear generation at the Callaway site will remain capitalized while management pursues options to maximize the value of its investment. If efforts are permanently abandoned or management concludes it is probable the costs incurred will be disallowed in rates, a charge to earnings would be recognized in the period in which that determination is made.

RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Below is a summary of updates to significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. See also Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters under Part II, Item 8, of the Form 10-K. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the timing of the final decisions of the various agencies and courts, or the impact on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.

Missouri

FAC Prudence Reviews

Missouri law requires the MoPSC to perform prudence reviews of Ameren Missouri's FAC at least every 18 months. In April 2011, the MoPSC issued an order with respect to its review of Ameren Missouri's FAC for the period from March 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009. In this order, the MoPSC ruled that Ameren Missouri should have included in the FAC calculation all revenues and costs associated with certain long-term partial requirements sales that were made by Ameren Missouri because of the loss of Noranda's load caused by a severe ice storm in January 2009. As a result of the order, Ameren Missouri recorded a pretax charge to earnings of $18 million, including $1 million for interest, in 2011 for its obligation to refund to Ameren Missouri's electric customers the earnings associated with these sales previously recognized by Ameren Missouri during the period from March 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009.

Ameren Missouri disagrees with the MoPSC order's classification of these sales and believed that the terms of its FAC tariff did not provide for the inclusion of these sales in the FAC calculation. In May 2012, upon appeal by Ameren Missouri, the Cole County Circuit Court reversed the MoPSC's April 2011 order. In June 2012, the MoPSC and a group of large industrial customers filed an appeal of the Cole County Circuit Court's ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Ameren Missouri has not recorded additional revenues as a result of the Cole County Circuit Court's May 2012 ruling as the MoPSC's appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals is ongoing. A decision is expected to be issued in 2013.

In February 2012, the MoPSC staff issued its FAC review report for the period from October 1, 2009, to May 31, 2011. In its report, the MoPSC staff asked the MoPSC to direct Ameren Missouri to refund to customers the pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements sales contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The MoPSC staff calculated these pretax earnings to be $26 million. If Ameren Missouri were to determine that these sales were probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's electric customers, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the refund in the period in which that determination was made. Ameren Missouri does not currently believe these amounts are probable of refund to customers.

Separately, in July 2011, Ameren Missouri filed a request with the MoPSC for an accounting authority order that would allow Ameren Missouri to defer, as a regulatory asset, fixed costs totaling $36 million that were not recovered from Noranda as a result of the loss of load caused by the severe 2009 ice storm for potential recovery in a future electric rate case. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these regulatory or judicial proceedings. If the courts ultimately rule in favor of Ameren Missouri's position regarding the classification of the long-term partial requirements sales, Ameren Missouri would not seek to recover from customers the amount covered by the accounting authority order, if it is granted.

The MoPSC’s FAC prudence review for the period from June 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012, was initiated on March 1, 2013. The MoPSC is expected to issue an order for this prudence review in 2013.

Illinois

IEIMA

In September 2012, the ICC issued an order in Ameren Illinois’ initial filing under the IEIMA’s performance-based formula rate framework. In October 2012, Ameren Illinois filed an appeal of the ICC’s initial filing order to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District of Illinois. A decision by the appellate court is expected in 2013. Ameren Illinois believes the ICC incorrectly implemented the IEIMA by using an average capital structure as opposed to a year-end capital structure on the revenue requirement, the method it used for calculating the equity portion of Ameren Illinois' capital structure, the method for calculating interest and the average rate base rather than year-end rate base for the revenue requirement reconciliation.

In April 2012, Ameren Illinois submitted to the ICC an update filing under IEIMA. In December 2012, the ICC issued an order approving an Ameren Illinois electric delivery service revenue requirement of $765 million, based on 2011 recoverable costs and expected net plant additions for 2012. The delivery service rates became effective on January 1, 2013, and will be effective through the end of 2013. In January 2013, Ameren Illinois filed an appeal of the ICC's update filing order to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District of Illinois. A decision by the appellate court is expected in 2013.

The ICC's orders in 2012 for Ameren Illinois’ initial and update rate filings jeopardize Ameren Illinois' ongoing ability to implement infrastructure improvements to the extent and on the timetable envisioned in the IEIMA. Until the uncertainty surrounding how the Illinois law will ultimately be implemented is removed, Ameren Illinois is slowing IEIMA capital spending with a corresponding negative effect on the job creation that the legislature sought to effectuate with the law. Ameren Illinois still intends to meet its IEIMA capital spending requirements.

On April 19, 2013, Ameren Illinois filed its annual electric delivery formula rate update with the ICC based on 2012 recoverable costs and expected net plant additions for 2013. Pending ICC approval, the update filing will result in a $30 million decrease in Ameren Illinois’ electric delivery revenue requirement beginning in January 2014. The filing includes a refund to customers of the 2012 revenue requirement reconciliation of approximately $50 million. An expected refund was recorded in 2012 as a regulatory liability on Ameren Illinois’ balance sheet. In the filing, the proposed refund is partially offset by an annual revenue requirement increase of approximately $20 million primarily due to increased recoverable costs over 2011 levels. The filing is based on an electric delivery service revenue requirement of $785 million, before consideration of the 2012 revenue requirement reconciliation refund. An ICC decision with respect to the April 2013 update filing is expected in December 2013 and will establish rates for 2014.

On March 14, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation, which, if enacted, would result in certain amendments to the IEIMA that would modify its implementation. The passed legislation, Senate Bill 9, clarifies the provisions in the IEIMA that require the year-end rate base be used to calculate the revenue requirement reconciliation and that the interest applied to the revenue requirement reconciliation and return on equity collar adjustments would be consistent with the company’s weighted-average return calculated under the formula rate. Additionally, the legislation specifies the use of year-end capital structure for both the revenue requirement and the revenue requirement reconciliation. On May 5, 2013, the Illinois Governor vetoed this legislation. If this legislation is ultimately enacted through a legislative override in 2013, Ameren Illinois will submit revisions to its April 19, 2013 update filing based on the new law.

Federal

2011 Wholesale Distribution Rate Case

In January 2011, Ameren Illinois filed a request with FERC to increase its annual revenues for electric delivery service for its wholesale customers. These wholesale distribution revenues are treated as a deduction from Ameren Illinois’ revenue requirement in retail rate filings with the ICC. In March 2011, FERC issued an order authorizing the proposed rates to take effect, subject to refund when the final rates are determined. Ameren Illinois has reached an agreement with four of its nine wholesale customers. The impasse with the remaining five wholesale customers has resulted in FERC litigation. In November 2012, a FERC administrative law judge issued an initial decision, which is now pending before FERC. The timing of a FERC decision is uncertain. Based on the administrative law judge's initial decision, Ameren and Ameren Illinois each has included on its balance sheet in “Current regulatory liabilities” as of March 31, 2013, an estimate of $9 million for the refund due to wholesale customers relating to billings from March 2011 through March 2013.

Ameren Illinois Electric Transmission Rate Refund

In July 2012, FERC issued an order with respect to Ameren Illinois' accounting for the Ameren Illinois Merger. As part of this order, FERC concluded that Ameren Illinois improperly included acquisition premiums, particularly goodwill, in determining its common equity used in its electric transmission formula rate, thereby inappropriately recovering a higher return on rate base from its electric transmission customers. The order required Ameren Illinois to make refunds to customers for such improperly included amounts. In August 2012, Ameren Illinois filed a request for rehearing of this order. It is unknown when FERC will rule on Ameren's rehearing request, as it is under no deadline to do so. After reviewing the FERC order and its calculation of the impact on electric transmission formula rates, Ameren Illinois concluded that no refund was warranted. Several wholesale customers filed a protest with FERC regarding Ameren's conclusion that no refund is warranted. If Ameren Illinois were to determine that a refund to its electric transmission customers is probable, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the refund in the period in which that determination was made and the amount could be estimated.

Combined Construction and Operating License

In 2008, Ameren Missouri filed an application with the NRC for a COL for a new nuclear unit at Ameren Missouri's existing Callaway County, Missouri, energy center site. In 2009, Ameren Missouri suspended its efforts to build a new nuclear unit at its existing Missouri nuclear energy center site, and the NRC suspended review of the COL application.

In March 2012, the DOE announced the availability of investment funds for the design, engineering, manufacturing, and sale of American-made small modular nuclear reactors. In April 2012, Ameren Missouri entered into an agreement with Westinghouse to exclusively support Westinghouse's application for the DOE's small modular nuclear reactor investment funds. The DOE investment funding is intended to support engineering and design certifications and a COL for up to two small modular reactor designs over five years. In November 2012, the DOE awarded investment funds for only one small modular reactor design, which was not the Westinghouse design, but also stated that additional investment funds would be awarded during 2013. Westinghouse continues to pursue investment funds from the DOE.

If Westinghouse is awarded DOE's small modular reactor investment funds, Ameren Missouri will seek a COL from the NRC for a Westinghouse small modular reactor or multiple reactors at its Callaway energy center site. A COL is issued by the NRC to permit construction and operation of a nuclear energy center at a specific site in accordance with established laws and regulations. Obtaining a COL from the NRC does not obligate Ameren Missouri to build a small modular reactor at the Callaway site; however, it does preserve the option to move forward in a timely fashion should conditions be right to build a small modular reactor in the future. A COL is valid for at least 40 years.

Ameren Missouri estimates the total cost to obtain the small modular reactor COL will be in the range of $80 million to $100 million. Ameren Missouri expects its incremental investment to obtain the small modular reactor COL to be minimal due to several factors, including the company's capitalized investments in new nuclear energy center development of $69 million as of March 31, 2013, the DOE investment funds that would help support the COL application, and Ameren Missouri's agreement with Westinghouse. If the DOE does not approve Westinghouse's application for the small modular reactor investment funds, Ameren Missouri is not obligated to pursue a COL for the Westinghouse small modular reactor design and may terminate its agreement with Westinghouse.

All of Ameren Missouri's costs incurred to license additional nuclear generation at the Callaway site will remain capitalized while management pursues options to maximize the value of its investment. If efforts are permanently abandoned or management concludes it is probable the costs incurred will be disallowed in rates, a charge to earnings would be recognized in the period in which that determination is made.