Rate and Regulatory Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Rate and Regulatory Matters

NOTE 2 - RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Below is a summary of significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. 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

2009 Electric Rate Order

In January 2009, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues of approximately $162 million for electric service and the implementation of a FAC and a vegetation management and infrastructure inspection cost tracking mechanism, among other things. In February 2009, Noranda, Ameren Missouri's largest electric customer, and the MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC decision to the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Missouri, the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri, and the Cole County Circuit Court. The Stoddard and Pemiscot County cases were consolidated (collectively, the Stoddard Circuit Court), and the Cole County case was dismissed. In September 2009, the Stoddard Circuit Court granted Noranda's request to stay the electric rate increase granted by the January 2009 MoPSC order as it applies specifically to Noranda's electric service account until the court renders its decision on the appeal. From the granting of the stay request until June 2010, Noranda paid into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry the entire amount of its monthly base rate increase and monthly FAC payments. In June 2010, when the May 2010 electric rate order became effective, Noranda ceased making base rate payments into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry. Noranda continued to pay into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry its monthly FAC payments that related to electric service received during the time periods prior to the effectiveness of the May 2010 electric rate order. Because of the lag between accumulations of changes in net fuel costs and when those net fuel costs are recovered through FAC charges applied to customers' bills, a portion of Noranda's FAC payment in January 2012 is expected to be the last contested amount deposited into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry relating to this 2009 electric rate order appeal. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry was $16 million.

In August 2010, the Stoddard Circuit Court issued a judgment that reversed parts of the MoPSC's decision. Also, upon issuance, the Stoddard Circuit Court suspended its own judgment. Therefore, the entire amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry will remain in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry pending the appeal discussed below.

In September 2010, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. The Missouri Court of Appeals will conduct an independent review of the MoPSC's order. Ameren Missouri believes the Stoddard Circuit Court's judgment, which reversed parts of the MoPSC decision, will be found erroneous by the Court of Appeals; however, there can be no assurances that Ameren Missouri's appeal will be successful. If Ameren Missouri prevails on all issues of its appeal, Ameren Missouri will receive all of the funds held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry, plus accrued interest. A decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals is expected in 2011.

2010 Electric Rate Order

In May 2010, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $230 million, including $119 million to cover higher fuel costs and lower revenue from sales outside Ameren Missouri's system.

The MIEC and MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC order to the Cole County Circuit Court. In addition to the MIEC appeal, four industrial customers, who are members of MIEC, also filed a request for a stay with the Cole County Circuit Court. In December 2010, the Cole County Circuit Court granted the request of the four industrial customers to stay the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order and required those customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under a Missouri electric rate order that became effective in June 2007, the last Ameren Missouri rate order for which appeals have been exhausted. On February 15, 2011, the four industrial customers posted the bond required by the stay. Since the bond was posted, the four industrial customers have made payments into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry equal to the difference between their billings under 2010 electric rates, which includes the FAC, and 2007 electric rates. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held by the Cole County Circuit Court, excluding the bond amount, was $8 million.

On February 16, 2011, the MoOPC and the MIEC separately made filings with the MoPSC in which each argued that the stay granted by the Cole County Circuit Court in December 2010 should apply to all Ameren Missouri customers rather than to just the four industrial customers that requested the stay. The MoOPC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The MIEC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order), including the FAC, and replace them with Ameren Missouri's rate schedules approved by the MoPSC in its 2007 electric rate order for all customers. On March 16, 2011, the MoPSC denied the MoOPC's request to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules for all customers. By denying the MoOPC's request, the MoPSC effectively denied the MIEC's request to suspend currently effective rate schedules as well. The MoOPC and the MIEC then asked the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, to require the MoPSC to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and to replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied the request. On March 28, 2011, the MoOPC and MIEC made the same request to apply the stay granted to four industrial customers to all Ameren Missouri electric customers to the Cole County Circuit Court. On April 12, 2011, the Cole County Circuit Court denied the motion filed by the MoOPC and MIEC. The Cole County Circuit Court's April 12, 2011 order concluded that the stay only granted the request of the four industrial customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under the 2007 Missouri electric rate order; and that the language in the stay on which the March 28, 2011 motion by the MIEC and MoOPC was based was not part of the operative language of the stay and therefore the stay did not require Ameren Missouri to cease charging the rates approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order to all Ameren Missouri electric customers.

With respect to further judicial proceedings regarding the 2010 electric rate order, Ameren Missouri will continue to address the merits of the order and any further filings that might be made relating to the stay, if any, through the judicial and regulatory review processes. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, which could have a material effect on Ameren Missouri's and Ameren's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.

The stay in effect for the four industrial customers does not address the merits of the appeals of the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order or the 2009 electric rate order, which will be addressed in the ordinary course of the judicial review process. At this time, Ameren Missouri does not believe any aspect of the 2009 and 2010 electric rate increases authorized by the 2009 and 2010 MoPSC electric rate orders are probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers. If Ameren Missouri were to conclude that some portion of these rate increases becomes probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the estimated amount of refund in the period in which that determination was made. A decision is expected to be issued on the MIEC's and MoOPC's appeal by the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011.

2011 Electric Rate Order

On July 13, 2011, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $173 million, including $52 million related to an increase in normalized net fuel costs above the net fuel costs included in base rates previously authorized by the MoPSC in its May 2010 electric rate order. The revenue increase was based on a 10.2% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.2% common equity, and a rate base of approximately $6.6 billion. The rate changes became effective on July 31, 2011. The MoPSC order approved the continued use of Ameren Missouri's vegetation management and infrastructure cost tracker, pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker, and FAC at the current 95% sharing level. The MoPSC order shortened the FAC recovery and refund period from 12 months to 8 months. The MoPSC order denied Ameren Missouri's request for the ability to recover any under-recovery of fixed costs as a result of lower sales volumes from the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

Additionally, the MoPSC order provided for a tracking mechanism for uncertain income tax positions. The order provides that reserves for uncertain tax positions do not reduce rate base. However, when an uncertain tax position liability is resolved, the order requires the creation of a regulatory asset or regulatory liability to reflect the time value (using the weighted average cost of capital in the order) of the difference between the uncertain tax position liability that was excluded from rate base and the final tax liability. The resulting regulatory asset or liability will be amortized over three years beginning on the effective date of the next electric rate case.

The 2011 electric rate order also allowed for the full recovery of investments for the Sioux energy center scrubbers and related 2011 property taxes for the Sioux and Taum Sauk energy centers. However, the MoPSC order disallowed the recovery of all costs of enhancements, or costs that would have been incurred absent the breach, related to the rebuilding of the Taum Sauk energy center in excess of amounts recovered from property insurance. As a result of the order, Ameren and Ameren Missouri will each record a pretax charge to earnings of $89 million, relating to the Taum Sauk disallowance, in the third quarter ending September 30, 2011.

Further, the MoPSC order adjusted or established the recovery period of multiple regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities. The following table summarizes the changes to the recovery period of regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities as directed in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order. The recovery periods became effective on August 1, 2011.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities	Regulatory Asset (Liability) Balance at June 30, 2011			Recovery Period Ends
Demand-side costs(a)	$	33			July 2017
Construction accounting for pollution control equipment(a)		25			July 2038
SO2 emissions allowances sales tracker(b)		8			July 2013
FERC-ordered MISO resettlements(b)		2			July 2013
2006 Storm costs(b)		1			July 2013
Vegetation management and infrastructure inspection(b)		(3	)		July 2013
Pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker for 2010 costs(a)		(11	)		July 2016
Total	$	55

(a) Recovery period first established in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

(b) Previous recovery period was extended.

On July 1, 2011, a new law took effect that reformed the judicial appeal process of MoPSC rate orders. Among other items, the new law allows appeals to be made directly to the appellate court, bypassing the circuit court. The new law provides that rates cannot be stayed; however, the Appellate Court could direct the MoPSC to revise the rates based on its appeal ruling. Such rate revisions could be ordered to be applied retroactively. The provisions of this new law will apply to any judicial appeals of the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

In July 2011, Ameren Missouri and other parties to the rate case filed for rehearing of various aspects of the order including the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements. The MoPSC rejected the requests. Subsequently, Ameren Missouri appealed the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Ameren Missouri cannot predict the ultimate outcome of its appeal.

FAC Prudence Review

Missouri law requires the MoPSC to complete prudence reviews of Ameren Missouri's FAC at least every 18 months. In April 2011, the MoPSC issued an order with respect to its prudence 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 due to 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 the second quarter of 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 believes that the terms of its FAC tariff did not provide for the inclusion of these sales in the FAC calculation. In May 2011, Ameren Missouri filed a rehearing request with the MoPSC, which was denied. In June 2011, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Cole County Circuit Court. A decision is expected from the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011. 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.

Ameren Missouri recognized an additional $25 million of pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements sales contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The MoPSC has not completed a prudence review of the FAC for this subsequent period. Consequently, the MoPSC order issued in April 2011 did not address any pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The next prudence review is scheduled to be initiated in September 2011. 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.

Illinois

Pending Electric and Natural Gas Delivery Service Rate Cases

In February 2011, Ameren Illinois filed a request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for electric delivery service. The currently pending request, as revised in July 2011, seeks to increase annual revenues for electric delivery service by $40 million. The revised electric rate increase request was based on an 11.0% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion.

In July 2011, Ameren Illinois also revised its February 2011 request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for natural gas delivery service. The currently pending request seeks to increase annual revenues for natural gas delivery service by $50 million. The revised natural gas rate increase request was based on a 10.75% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $957 million.

In an attempt to limit regulatory lag, Ameren Illinois used a future test year, 2012, in each of these rate requests. In its July 2011 revision, Ameren Illinois withdrew its request for a rider mechanism for its pension costs.

In June 2011, the ICC staff responded to Ameren Illinois' original filed requests. The ICC staff recommended a net decrease in revenues for electric delivery service of $10 million, based on a 9.72% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion. The ICC staff recommended a net increase in revenues for natural gas delivery service of $16 million, based on an 8.9% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $942 million. Other parties also made recommendations through testimony filed in the electric and natural gas delivery service rate cases.

A decision by the ICC in these proceedings is required by January 2012. Ameren Illinois cannot predict the level of any delivery service rate changes the ICC may approve or whether any rate changes that may eventually be approved will be sufficient to enable Ameren Illinois to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return on its investments when the rate changes go into effect.

Federal

Electric Transmission Investment

FERC, in its order issued in May 2011, approved transmission rate incentives for ATX, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois for two new transmission projects. These initial projects, subject to MISO approval, consist of a potential $1 billion investment in high voltage transmission projects in Illinois and Missouri. The FERC order approved the following rate mechanisms with respect to ATX's initial portfolio of transmission projects:

• Full recovery of financing costs associated with construction work in progress before the asset is placed in service;

• Recovery of prudently incurred costs in developing project facilities that might later be abandoned due to issues outside the company's control;

• Use of a hypothetical capital structure reflecting the capital structure of Ameren Illinois as of December 31, 2009, which would afford ATX a capital structure that resembles that of a utility company; and

• Permission to allow ATX to recover operating and maintenance costs incurred in the early development stages of the projects.

COLA and ESP

In 2008, Ameren Missouri filed an application with the NRC for a COLA for a new 1,600-megawatt nuclear unit at Ameren Missouri's existing Callaway County, Missouri, nuclear 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 COLA.

Ameren Missouri is considering filing an application to obtain an ESP from the NRC for the Callaway energy center site. An ESP approves a specific location for a nuclear facility; however, additional licenses would be required for the specific type and design of nuclear facility to be built at that site. An ESP does not authorize construction of a plant. An ESP is valid for 20 years and potentially could be renewed for up to an additional 20 years. Attempts to pass legislation to maintain an option for nuclear power in the state of Missouri by recovering the costs of the ESP, subject to appropriate consumer protections, were not successful during the 2011 spring Missouri legislative session. However, support for nuclear power exists in the state of Missouri, which could lead to the passage of an ESP recovery mechanism in future legislative sessions. Ameren Missouri's pursuit of an ESP is dependent upon enactment of a legislative framework ensuring cost recovery.

As of June 30, 2011, Ameren Missouri had capitalized approximately $67 million relating to its efforts to construct a new nuclear unit. All of these incurred costs will remain capitalized while management assesses options to maximize the value of its investment in this project. 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 was made.

Ameren Illinois [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

NOTE 2 - RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Below is a summary of significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. 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

2009 Electric Rate Order

In January 2009, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues of approximately $162 million for electric service and the implementation of a FAC and a vegetation management and infrastructure inspection cost tracking mechanism, among other things. In February 2009, Noranda, Ameren Missouri's largest electric customer, and the MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC decision to the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Missouri, the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri, and the Cole County Circuit Court. The Stoddard and Pemiscot County cases were consolidated (collectively, the Stoddard Circuit Court), and the Cole County case was dismissed. In September 2009, the Stoddard Circuit Court granted Noranda's request to stay the electric rate increase granted by the January 2009 MoPSC order as it applies specifically to Noranda's electric service account until the court renders its decision on the appeal. From the granting of the stay request until June 2010, Noranda paid into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry the entire amount of its monthly base rate increase and monthly FAC payments. In June 2010, when the May 2010 electric rate order became effective, Noranda ceased making base rate payments into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry. Noranda continued to pay into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry its monthly FAC payments that related to electric service received during the time periods prior to the effectiveness of the May 2010 electric rate order. Because of the lag between accumulations of changes in net fuel costs and when those net fuel costs are recovered through FAC charges applied to customers' bills, a portion of Noranda's FAC payment in January 2012 is expected to be the last contested amount deposited into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry relating to this 2009 electric rate order appeal. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry was $16 million.

In August 2010, the Stoddard Circuit Court issued a judgment that reversed parts of the MoPSC's decision. Also, upon issuance, the Stoddard Circuit Court suspended its own judgment. Therefore, the entire amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry will remain in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry pending the appeal discussed below.

In September 2010, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. The Missouri Court of Appeals will conduct an independent review of the MoPSC's order. Ameren Missouri believes the Stoddard Circuit Court's judgment, which reversed parts of the MoPSC decision, will be found erroneous by the Court of Appeals; however, there can be no assurances that Ameren Missouri's appeal will be successful. If Ameren Missouri prevails on all issues of its appeal, Ameren Missouri will receive all of the funds held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry, plus accrued interest. A decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals is expected in 2011.

2010 Electric Rate Order

In May 2010, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $230 million, including $119 million to cover higher fuel costs and lower revenue from sales outside Ameren Missouri's system.

The MIEC and MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC order to the Cole County Circuit Court. In addition to the MIEC appeal, four industrial customers, who are members of MIEC, also filed a request for a stay with the Cole County Circuit Court. In December 2010, the Cole County Circuit Court granted the request of the four industrial customers to stay the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order and required those customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under a Missouri electric rate order that became effective in June 2007, the last Ameren Missouri rate order for which appeals have been exhausted. On February 15, 2011, the four industrial customers posted the bond required by the stay. Since the bond was posted, the four industrial customers have made payments into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry equal to the difference between their billings under 2010 electric rates, which includes the FAC, and 2007 electric rates. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held by the Cole County Circuit Court, excluding the bond amount, was $8 million.

On February 16, 2011, the MoOPC and the MIEC separately made filings with the MoPSC in which each argued that the stay granted by the Cole County Circuit Court in December 2010 should apply to all Ameren Missouri customers rather than to just the four industrial customers that requested the stay. The MoOPC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The MIEC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order), including the FAC, and replace them with Ameren Missouri's rate schedules approved by the MoPSC in its 2007 electric rate order for all customers. On March 16, 2011, the MoPSC denied the MoOPC's request to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules for all customers. By denying the MoOPC's request, the MoPSC effectively denied the MIEC's request to suspend currently effective rate schedules as well. The MoOPC and the MIEC then asked the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, to require the MoPSC to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and to replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied the request. On March 28, 2011, the MoOPC and MIEC made the same request to apply the stay granted to four industrial customers to all Ameren Missouri electric customers to the Cole County Circuit Court. On April 12, 2011, the Cole County Circuit Court denied the motion filed by the MoOPC and MIEC. The Cole County Circuit Court's April 12, 2011 order concluded that the stay only granted the request of the four industrial customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under the 2007 Missouri electric rate order; and that the language in the stay on which the March 28, 2011 motion by the MIEC and MoOPC was based was not part of the operative language of the stay and therefore the stay did not require Ameren Missouri to cease charging the rates approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order to all Ameren Missouri electric customers.

With respect to further judicial proceedings regarding the 2010 electric rate order, Ameren Missouri will continue to address the merits of the order and any further filings that might be made relating to the stay, if any, through the judicial and regulatory review processes. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, which could have a material effect on Ameren Missouri's and Ameren's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.

The stay in effect for the four industrial customers does not address the merits of the appeals of the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order or the 2009 electric rate order, which will be addressed in the ordinary course of the judicial review process. At this time, Ameren Missouri does not believe any aspect of the 2009 and 2010 electric rate increases authorized by the 2009 and 2010 MoPSC electric rate orders are probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers. If Ameren Missouri were to conclude that some portion of these rate increases becomes probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the estimated amount of refund in the period in which that determination was made. A decision is expected to be issued on the MIEC's and MoOPC's appeal by the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011.

2011 Electric Rate Order

On July 13, 2011, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $173 million, including $52 million related to an increase in normalized net fuel costs above the net fuel costs included in base rates previously authorized by the MoPSC in its May 2010 electric rate order. The revenue increase was based on a 10.2% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.2% common equity, and a rate base of approximately $6.6 billion. The rate changes became effective on July 31, 2011. The MoPSC order approved the continued use of Ameren Missouri's vegetation management and infrastructure cost tracker, pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker, and FAC at the current 95% sharing level. The MoPSC order shortened the FAC recovery and refund period from 12 months to 8 months. The MoPSC order denied Ameren Missouri's request for the ability to recover any under-recovery of fixed costs as a result of lower sales volumes from the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

Additionally, the MoPSC order provided for a tracking mechanism for uncertain income tax positions. The order provides that reserves for uncertain tax positions do not reduce rate base. However, when an uncertain tax position liability is resolved, the order requires the creation of a regulatory asset or regulatory liability to reflect the time value (using the weighted average cost of capital in the order) of the difference between the uncertain tax position liability that was excluded from rate base and the final tax liability. The resulting regulatory asset or liability will be amortized over three years beginning on the effective date of the next electric rate case.

The 2011 electric rate order also allowed for the full recovery of investments for the Sioux energy center scrubbers and related 2011 property taxes for the Sioux and Taum Sauk energy centers. However, the MoPSC order disallowed the recovery of all costs of enhancements, or costs that would have been incurred absent the breach, related to the rebuilding of the Taum Sauk energy center in excess of amounts recovered from property insurance. As a result of the order, Ameren and Ameren Missouri will each record a pretax charge to earnings of $89 million, relating to the Taum Sauk disallowance, in the third quarter ending September 30, 2011.

Further, the MoPSC order adjusted or established the recovery period of multiple regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities. The following table summarizes the changes to the recovery period of regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities as directed in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order. The recovery periods became effective on August 1, 2011.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities	Regulatory Asset (Liability) Balance at June 30, 2011			Recovery Period Ends
Demand-side costs(a)	$	33			July 2017
Construction accounting for pollution control equipment(a)		25			July 2038
SO2 emissions allowances sales tracker(b)		8			July 2013
FERC-ordered MISO resettlements(b)		2			July 2013
2006 Storm costs(b)		1			July 2013
Vegetation management and infrastructure inspection(b)		(3	)		July 2013
Pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker for 2010 costs(a)		(11	)		July 2016
Total	$	55

(a) Recovery period first established in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

(b) Previous recovery period was extended.

On July 1, 2011, a new law took effect that reformed the judicial appeal process of MoPSC rate orders. Among other items, the new law allows appeals to be made directly to the appellate court, bypassing the circuit court. The new law provides that rates cannot be stayed; however, the Appellate Court could direct the MoPSC to revise the rates based on its appeal ruling. Such rate revisions could be ordered to be applied retroactively. The provisions of this new law will apply to any judicial appeals of the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

In July 2011, Ameren Missouri and other parties to the rate case filed for rehearing of various aspects of the order including the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements. The MoPSC rejected the requests. Subsequently, Ameren Missouri appealed the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Ameren Missouri cannot predict the ultimate outcome of its appeal.

FAC Prudence Review

Missouri law requires the MoPSC to complete prudence reviews of Ameren Missouri's FAC at least every 18 months. In April 2011, the MoPSC issued an order with respect to its prudence 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 due to 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 the second quarter of 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 believes that the terms of its FAC tariff did not provide for the inclusion of these sales in the FAC calculation. In May 2011, Ameren Missouri filed a rehearing request with the MoPSC, which was denied. In June 2011, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Cole County Circuit Court. A decision is expected from the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011. 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.

Ameren Missouri recognized an additional $25 million of pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements sales contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The MoPSC has not completed a prudence review of the FAC for this subsequent period. Consequently, the MoPSC order issued in April 2011 did not address any pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The next prudence review is scheduled to be initiated in September 2011. 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.

Illinois

Pending Electric and Natural Gas Delivery Service Rate Cases

In February 2011, Ameren Illinois filed a request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for electric delivery service. The currently pending request, as revised in July 2011, seeks to increase annual revenues for electric delivery service by $40 million. The revised electric rate increase request was based on an 11.0% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion.

In July 2011, Ameren Illinois also revised its February 2011 request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for natural gas delivery service. The currently pending request seeks to increase annual revenues for natural gas delivery service by $50 million. The revised natural gas rate increase request was based on a 10.75% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $957 million.

In an attempt to limit regulatory lag, Ameren Illinois used a future test year, 2012, in each of these rate requests. In its July 2011 revision, Ameren Illinois withdrew its request for a rider mechanism for its pension costs.

In June 2011, the ICC staff responded to Ameren Illinois' original filed requests. The ICC staff recommended a net decrease in revenues for electric delivery service of $10 million, based on a 9.72% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion. The ICC staff recommended a net increase in revenues for natural gas delivery service of $16 million, based on an 8.9% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $942 million. Other parties also made recommendations through testimony filed in the electric and natural gas delivery service rate cases.

A decision by the ICC in these proceedings is required by January 2012. Ameren Illinois cannot predict the level of any delivery service rate changes the ICC may approve or whether any rate changes that may eventually be approved will be sufficient to enable Ameren Illinois to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return on its investments when the rate changes go into effect.

Federal

Electric Transmission Investment

FERC, in its order issued in May 2011, approved transmission rate incentives for ATX, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois for two new transmission projects. These initial projects, subject to MISO approval, consist of a potential $1 billion investment in high voltage transmission projects in Illinois and Missouri. The FERC order approved the following rate mechanisms with respect to ATX's initial portfolio of transmission projects:

• Full recovery of financing costs associated with construction work in progress before the asset is placed in service;

• Recovery of prudently incurred costs in developing project facilities that might later be abandoned due to issues outside the company's control;

• Use of a hypothetical capital structure reflecting the capital structure of Ameren Illinois as of December 31, 2009, which would afford ATX a capital structure that resembles that of a utility company; and

• Permission to allow ATX to recover operating and maintenance costs incurred in the early development stages of the projects.

COLA and ESP

In 2008, Ameren Missouri filed an application with the NRC for a COLA for a new 1,600-megawatt nuclear unit at Ameren Missouri's existing Callaway County, Missouri, nuclear 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 COLA.

Ameren Missouri is considering filing an application to obtain an ESP from the NRC for the Callaway energy center site. An ESP approves a specific location for a nuclear facility; however, additional licenses would be required for the specific type and design of nuclear facility to be built at that site. An ESP does not authorize construction of a plant. An ESP is valid for 20 years and potentially could be renewed for up to an additional 20 years. Attempts to pass legislation to maintain an option for nuclear power in the state of Missouri by recovering the costs of the ESP, subject to appropriate consumer protections, were not successful during the 2011 spring Missouri legislative session. However, support for nuclear power exists in the state of Missouri, which could lead to the passage of an ESP recovery mechanism in future legislative sessions. Ameren Missouri's pursuit of an ESP is dependent upon enactment of a legislative framework ensuring cost recovery.

As of June 30, 2011, Ameren Missouri had capitalized approximately $67 million relating to its efforts to construct a new nuclear unit. All of these incurred costs will remain capitalized while management assesses options to maximize the value of its investment in this project. 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 was made.

Union Electric Company [Member]

Rate and Regulatory Matters

NOTE 2 - RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Below is a summary of significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. 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

2009 Electric Rate Order

In January 2009, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues of approximately $162 million for electric service and the implementation of a FAC and a vegetation management and infrastructure inspection cost tracking mechanism, among other things. In February 2009, Noranda, Ameren Missouri's largest electric customer, and the MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC decision to the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Missouri, the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri, and the Cole County Circuit Court. The Stoddard and Pemiscot County cases were consolidated (collectively, the Stoddard Circuit Court), and the Cole County case was dismissed. In September 2009, the Stoddard Circuit Court granted Noranda's request to stay the electric rate increase granted by the January 2009 MoPSC order as it applies specifically to Noranda's electric service account until the court renders its decision on the appeal. From the granting of the stay request until June 2010, Noranda paid into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry the entire amount of its monthly base rate increase and monthly FAC payments. In June 2010, when the May 2010 electric rate order became effective, Noranda ceased making base rate payments into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry. Noranda continued to pay into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry its monthly FAC payments that related to electric service received during the time periods prior to the effectiveness of the May 2010 electric rate order. Because of the lag between accumulations of changes in net fuel costs and when those net fuel costs are recovered through FAC charges applied to customers' bills, a portion of Noranda's FAC payment in January 2012 is expected to be the last contested amount deposited into the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry relating to this 2009 electric rate order appeal. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry was $16 million.

In August 2010, the Stoddard Circuit Court issued a judgment that reversed parts of the MoPSC's decision. Also, upon issuance, the Stoddard Circuit Court suspended its own judgment. Therefore, the entire amount held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry will remain in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry pending the appeal discussed below.

In September 2010, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. The Missouri Court of Appeals will conduct an independent review of the MoPSC's order. Ameren Missouri believes the Stoddard Circuit Court's judgment, which reversed parts of the MoPSC decision, will be found erroneous by the Court of Appeals; however, there can be no assurances that Ameren Missouri's appeal will be successful. If Ameren Missouri prevails on all issues of its appeal, Ameren Missouri will receive all of the funds held in the Stoddard Circuit Court's registry, plus accrued interest. A decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals is expected in 2011.

2010 Electric Rate Order

In May 2010, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $230 million, including $119 million to cover higher fuel costs and lower revenue from sales outside Ameren Missouri's system.

The MIEC and MoOPC appealed certain aspects of the MoPSC order to the Cole County Circuit Court. In addition to the MIEC appeal, four industrial customers, who are members of MIEC, also filed a request for a stay with the Cole County Circuit Court. In December 2010, the Cole County Circuit Court granted the request of the four industrial customers to stay the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order and required those customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under a Missouri electric rate order that became effective in June 2007, the last Ameren Missouri rate order for which appeals have been exhausted. On February 15, 2011, the four industrial customers posted the bond required by the stay. Since the bond was posted, the four industrial customers have made payments into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry equal to the difference between their billings under 2010 electric rates, which includes the FAC, and 2007 electric rates. As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate amount held by the Cole County Circuit Court, excluding the bond amount, was $8 million.

On February 16, 2011, the MoOPC and the MIEC separately made filings with the MoPSC in which each argued that the stay granted by the Cole County Circuit Court in December 2010 should apply to all Ameren Missouri customers rather than to just the four industrial customers that requested the stay. The MoOPC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The MIEC requested the MoPSC suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order), including the FAC, and replace them with Ameren Missouri's rate schedules approved by the MoPSC in its 2007 electric rate order for all customers. On March 16, 2011, the MoPSC denied the MoOPC's request to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules for all customers. By denying the MoOPC's request, the MoPSC effectively denied the MIEC's request to suspend currently effective rate schedules as well. The MoOPC and the MIEC then asked the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, to require the MoPSC to suspend Ameren Missouri's currently effective rate schedules (approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order) and to replace them with Ameren Missouri's previously effective rate schedules (approved by the 2009 Missouri electric rate order) for all customers. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied the request. On March 28, 2011, the MoOPC and MIEC made the same request to apply the stay granted to four industrial customers to all Ameren Missouri electric customers to the Cole County Circuit Court. On April 12, 2011, the Cole County Circuit Court denied the motion filed by the MoOPC and MIEC. The Cole County Circuit Court's April 12, 2011 order concluded that the stay only granted the request of the four industrial customers to pay into the Cole County Circuit Court's registry the difference between their billings under the 2010 Missouri electric rate order and their billings under the 2007 Missouri electric rate order; and that the language in the stay on which the March 28, 2011 motion by the MIEC and MoOPC was based was not part of the operative language of the stay and therefore the stay did not require Ameren Missouri to cease charging the rates approved by the 2010 Missouri electric rate order to all Ameren Missouri electric customers.

With respect to further judicial proceedings regarding the 2010 electric rate order, Ameren Missouri will continue to address the merits of the order and any further filings that might be made relating to the stay, if any, through the judicial and regulatory review processes. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, which could have a material effect on Ameren Missouri's and Ameren's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.

The stay in effect for the four industrial customers does not address the merits of the appeals of the MoPSC's 2010 electric rate order or the 2009 electric rate order, which will be addressed in the ordinary course of the judicial review process. At this time, Ameren Missouri does not believe any aspect of the 2009 and 2010 electric rate increases authorized by the 2009 and 2010 MoPSC electric rate orders are probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers. If Ameren Missouri were to conclude that some portion of these rate increases becomes probable of refund to Ameren Missouri's customers, a charge to earnings would be recorded for the estimated amount of refund in the period in which that determination was made. A decision is expected to be issued on the MIEC's and MoOPC's appeal by the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011.

2011 Electric Rate Order

On July 13, 2011, the MoPSC issued an order approving an increase for Ameren Missouri in annual revenues for electric service of approximately $173 million, including $52 million related to an increase in normalized net fuel costs above the net fuel costs included in base rates previously authorized by the MoPSC in its May 2010 electric rate order. The revenue increase was based on a 10.2% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.2% common equity, and a rate base of approximately $6.6 billion. The rate changes became effective on July 31, 2011. The MoPSC order approved the continued use of Ameren Missouri's vegetation management and infrastructure cost tracker, pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker, and FAC at the current 95% sharing level. The MoPSC order shortened the FAC recovery and refund period from 12 months to 8 months. The MoPSC order denied Ameren Missouri's request for the ability to recover any under-recovery of fixed costs as a result of lower sales volumes from the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

Additionally, the MoPSC order provided for a tracking mechanism for uncertain income tax positions. The order provides that reserves for uncertain tax positions do not reduce rate base. However, when an uncertain tax position liability is resolved, the order requires the creation of a regulatory asset or regulatory liability to reflect the time value (using the weighted average cost of capital in the order) of the difference between the uncertain tax position liability that was excluded from rate base and the final tax liability. The resulting regulatory asset or liability will be amortized over three years beginning on the effective date of the next electric rate case.

The 2011 electric rate order also allowed for the full recovery of investments for the Sioux energy center scrubbers and related 2011 property taxes for the Sioux and Taum Sauk energy centers. However, the MoPSC order disallowed the recovery of all costs of enhancements, or costs that would have been incurred absent the breach, related to the rebuilding of the Taum Sauk energy center in excess of amounts recovered from property insurance. As a result of the order, Ameren and Ameren Missouri will each record a pretax charge to earnings of $89 million, relating to the Taum Sauk disallowance, in the third quarter ending September 30, 2011.

Further, the MoPSC order adjusted or established the recovery period of multiple regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities. The following table summarizes the changes to the recovery period of regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities as directed in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order. The recovery periods became effective on August 1, 2011.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities	Regulatory Asset (Liability) Balance at June 30, 2011			Recovery Period Ends
Demand-side costs(a)	$	33			July 2017
Construction accounting for pollution control equipment(a)		25			July 2038
SO2 emissions allowances sales tracker(b)		8			July 2013
FERC-ordered MISO resettlements(b)		2			July 2013
2006 Storm costs(b)		1			July 2013
Vegetation management and infrastructure inspection(b)		(3	)		July 2013
Pension and postretirement benefit cost tracker for 2010 costs(a)		(11	)		July 2016
Total	$	55

(a) Recovery period first established in the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

(b) Previous recovery period was extended.

On July 1, 2011, a new law took effect that reformed the judicial appeal process of MoPSC rate orders. Among other items, the new law allows appeals to be made directly to the appellate court, bypassing the circuit court. The new law provides that rates cannot be stayed; however, the Appellate Court could direct the MoPSC to revise the rates based on its appeal ruling. Such rate revisions could be ordered to be applied retroactively. The provisions of this new law will apply to any judicial appeals of the MoPSC's July 2011 rate order.

In July 2011, Ameren Missouri and other parties to the rate case filed for rehearing of various aspects of the order including the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements. The MoPSC rejected the requests. Subsequently, Ameren Missouri appealed the disallowance of Taum Sauk enhancements to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Ameren Missouri cannot predict the ultimate outcome of its appeal.

FAC Prudence Review

Missouri law requires the MoPSC to complete prudence reviews of Ameren Missouri's FAC at least every 18 months. In April 2011, the MoPSC issued an order with respect to its prudence 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 due to 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 the second quarter of 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 believes that the terms of its FAC tariff did not provide for the inclusion of these sales in the FAC calculation. In May 2011, Ameren Missouri filed a rehearing request with the MoPSC, which was denied. In June 2011, Ameren Missouri filed an appeal with the Cole County Circuit Court. A decision is expected from the Cole County Circuit Court in 2011. 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.

Ameren Missouri recognized an additional $25 million of pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements sales contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The MoPSC has not completed a prudence review of the FAC for this subsequent period. Consequently, the MoPSC order issued in April 2011 did not address any pretax earnings associated with the same long-term partial requirements contracts subsequent to September 30, 2009. The next prudence review is scheduled to be initiated in September 2011. 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.

Illinois

Pending Electric and Natural Gas Delivery Service Rate Cases

In February 2011, Ameren Illinois filed a request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for electric delivery service. The currently pending request, as revised in July 2011, seeks to increase annual revenues for electric delivery service by $40 million. The revised electric rate increase request was based on an 11.0% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion.

In July 2011, Ameren Illinois also revised its February 2011 request with the ICC to increase its annual revenues for natural gas delivery service. The currently pending request seeks to increase annual revenues for natural gas delivery service by $50 million. The revised natural gas rate increase request was based on a 10.75% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 52.9% common equity, and a rate base of $957 million.

In an attempt to limit regulatory lag, Ameren Illinois used a future test year, 2012, in each of these rate requests. In its July 2011 revision, Ameren Illinois withdrew its request for a rider mechanism for its pension costs.

In June 2011, the ICC staff responded to Ameren Illinois' original filed requests. The ICC staff recommended a net decrease in revenues for electric delivery service of $10 million, based on a 9.72% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $2 billion. The ICC staff recommended a net increase in revenues for natural gas delivery service of $16 million, based on an 8.9% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.8% common equity, and a rate base of $942 million. Other parties also made recommendations through testimony filed in the electric and natural gas delivery service rate cases.

A decision by the ICC in these proceedings is required by January 2012. Ameren Illinois cannot predict the level of any delivery service rate changes the ICC may approve or whether any rate changes that may eventually be approved will be sufficient to enable Ameren Illinois to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return on its investments when the rate changes go into effect.

Federal

Electric Transmission Investment

FERC, in its order issued in May 2011, approved transmission rate incentives for ATX, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois for two new transmission projects. These initial projects, subject to MISO approval, consist of a potential $1 billion investment in high voltage transmission projects in Illinois and Missouri. The FERC order approved the following rate mechanisms with respect to ATX's initial portfolio of transmission projects:

• Full recovery of financing costs associated with construction work in progress before the asset is placed in service;

• Recovery of prudently incurred costs in developing project facilities that might later be abandoned due to issues outside the company's control;

• Use of a hypothetical capital structure reflecting the capital structure of Ameren Illinois as of December 31, 2009, which would afford ATX a capital structure that resembles that of a utility company; and

• Permission to allow ATX to recover operating and maintenance costs incurred in the early development stages of the projects.

COLA and ESP

In 2008, Ameren Missouri filed an application with the NRC for a COLA for a new 1,600-megawatt nuclear unit at Ameren Missouri's existing Callaway County, Missouri, nuclear 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 COLA.

Ameren Missouri is considering filing an application to obtain an ESP from the NRC for the Callaway energy center site. An ESP approves a specific location for a nuclear facility; however, additional licenses would be required for the specific type and design of nuclear facility to be built at that site. An ESP does not authorize construction of a plant. An ESP is valid for 20 years and potentially could be renewed for up to an additional 20 years. Attempts to pass legislation to maintain an option for nuclear power in the state of Missouri by recovering the costs of the ESP, subject to appropriate consumer protections, were not successful during the 2011 spring Missouri legislative session. However, support for nuclear power exists in the state of Missouri, which could lead to the passage of an ESP recovery mechanism in future legislative sessions. Ameren Missouri's pursuit of an ESP is dependent upon enactment of a legislative framework ensuring cost recovery.

As of June 30, 2011, Ameren Missouri had capitalized approximately $67 million relating to its efforts to construct a new nuclear unit. All of these incurred costs will remain capitalized while management assesses options to maximize the value of its investment in this project. 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 was made.