UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment

(Amendment No.     )

Filed by the Registrantx

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant¨

Check the appropriate box:

 

¨

Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨ 

¨Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only

(as (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

x           Definitive Proxy Statement

¨           Definitive Additional Materials

x
 Definitive Proxy Statement

¨

Definitive Additional Materials
¨Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

Ameren Corporation

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Itsin its Charter)

 

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

xNo fee required.

¨Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

 1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

 

     

 2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

 

     

 3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

 

     

 4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

 

     

 5)

Total fee paid:

 

     

¨Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 1)

Amount Previously Paid:

 

     

 2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

 3)

Filing Party:

 

     

 4)

Date Filed:

 

 

 

SEC 1913 (02-02)Persons who are to respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.


LOGO

NOTICEOF ANNUAL MEETINGOF SHAREHOLDERS

AND PROXY STATEMENTOF AMEREN CORPORATION

 

 Time and Date: 9:00

10:30 A.M.

Tuesday
CDT Thursday

April 24, 201223, 2015

 Place: Powell Symphony Hall
718 North Grand Boulevard

Saint Louis Art Museum Forest Park

One Fine Arts Drive

St. Louis, Missouri

(Free parking will be available)

IMPORTANTIMPORTANT

If you plan to attend the annual meeting of shareholders, please advise the Company in your proxy vote (by telephone or the Internet or, if you receive printed proxy materials, by checking the appropriate box on the proxy card) and bring the Admission Ticket on the reverse side of your proxy instruction card. Persons without tickets will be admitted to the meeting upon verification of their shareholdings in the Company. If your shares are held in the name of your broker, bank or other nominee, you must bring an account statement or letter from the nominee indicating that you were the beneficial owner of the shares on February 27, 2012,25, 2015, the record date for voting. Please note that cameras and other recording devices will not be allowed in the meeting.

Important Notice Relating to the Voting of Your Shares: Under New York Stock Exchange rules, brokers are not permitted to exercise discretionary voting authority with respect to shares for which voting instructions have not been received, as such voting authority pertains to the election of directors, shareholder proposals and to matters relating to executive compensation. Your vote is important, regardless of the number of shares you own. We urge you to please vote by proxy (via telephone, or the Internet or, the enclosedif you receive printed proxy materials, by mailing a proxy card) as soon as possible even if you own only a few shares. This will help ensure the presence of a quorum at the meeting. Promptly voting by proxy will also help save the Company the expenses of additional solicitations. If you attend the meeting and want to change your proxy vote, you can do so by voting in person at the meeting.


AMEREN CORPORATION

NOTICEOF ANNUAL MEETINGOF SHAREHOLDERS

To the Shareholders of

AMEREN CORPORATION

We will hold the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Ameren Corporation (the “Company”) at Powell Symphony Hall, 718 North Grand Boulevard,the Saint Louis Art Museum, Forest Park, One Fine Arts Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, on Tuesday,Thursday, April 24, 2012,23, 2015, at 9:0010:30 A.M., CDT, for the purposes of:

(1) electing 11 directors of the Company for terms ending at the annual meeting of shareholders to be held in 2013;2016;

(2) providing ana non-binding advisory vote to approve the compensation of our executives disclosed in the attached proxy statement;

(3) ratifying the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012;2015;

(4) considering a shareholder proposal relating to report on coal combustion waste,regarding having an independent board chairman, if presented at the meeting;meeting by the proponent;

(5) considering a shareholder proposal relating toregarding a report on coal-related costs and risks,lobbying, if presented at the meeting;meeting by the proponent;

(6) considering a shareholder proposal relating to assessment and report on greenhouse gas and other air emissions reductions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs,regarding adopting executive compensation incentives for carbon reduction, if presented at the meeting;meeting by the proponent; and

(7) acting on other proper business presented to the meeting.

The Board of Directors of the Company presently knows of no other business to come before the meeting.

If you owned shares of the Company’s Common Stock at the close of business on February 27, 2012,25, 2015, you are entitled to vote at the meeting and at any adjournment thereof. All shareholders are requested to be present at the meeting in person or by proxy so that a quorum may be assured.

You may vote via telephoneOn or about March 12, 2015, we will mail to certain of our shareholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, which will indicate how to access our proxy materials on the Internet. By furnishing the Notice of Internet or, if you prefer, you may signAvailability of Proxy Materials, we are lowering the costs and returnreducing the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed envelope. environmental impact of our annual meeting.

Your prompt vote by proxy will reduce expenses. Instructions for votingPlease promptly submit your proxy by telephone, Internet or mail by following the instructions found on your Notice of Internet are included with this mailing.Availability of Proxy Materials or proxy card. If you attend the meeting, you may revoke your proxy by voting in person.

By order of the Board of Directors.

/s/ Gregory L. Nelson

GREGORY L. NELSON

Secretary

By:/s/ Gregory L. Nelson
GREGORY L. NELSON
Secretary

St. Louis, Missouri

March 9, 201212, 2015

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting to be Held on April 23, 2015:

This proxy statement and our 2014 Form 10-K, including consolidated financial statements, are available to you at http://www.ameren.com/AmerenProxyMaterial.


TABLEOF CONTENTS

 

  PAGE

PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

   1  

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

   7
INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS MEETING7
VOTING78  

Who Can VoteQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTING

   7

How You Can Vote

9

How You Can Revoke Your Proxy

10

Householding of Proxy Statements and Annual Reports

10
OTHER ANNUAL MEETING MATTERS118  

How You Can Obtain Materials for the Annual MeetingAMEREN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

   11

How You Can Review the List of Shareholders

11

Webcast of the Annual Meeting

1113  

ITEMS YOU MAY VOTE ON

   1114  

Item (1): Election of Directors

   1114  

Information Concerning Nominees to the Board of Directors

   1215  

Board Structure

   1922

Board Committees

25  

Corporate Governance

   2529  

Director Compensation

   3539  

Item (2): Non-Binding Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation

   4143  

Item (3): Ratification of the Appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 20122015

   4244  

Item (4): Shareholder Proposal Relating to Report on Coal Combustion WasteRegarding Having an Independent Board Chairman

   4344  

Item (5): Shareholder Proposal Relating toRegarding a Report on Coal-Related Costs and RisksLobbying

   47  

Item (6): Shareholder Proposal Relating to Assessment and Report on Greenhouse Gas and Other Air Emissions Reductions Through Customer Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ProgramsRegarding Adopting Executive Compensation Incentives for Carbon Reduction

   5250  

Other Matters

   5753  

SECURITY OWNERSHIP

   5854  

Security Ownership of More Than Five Percent Shareholders

   5854  

Security Ownership of Directors and Management

   5955  

Stock Ownership Requirements

   6056  

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

   6056  

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

   6157  

Human Resources Committee Report

   6157  

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

   6157  

i


PAGE

Compensation Tables and Narrative Disclosures

   76  

Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table

   80  

Pension Benefits

   8283  

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

   8485  

Other Potential Post-Employment Payments

   8889  

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE REPORT

   9596  

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

   9798  

Fees for Fiscal Years 20112014 and 20102013

   9798  

Policy Regarding the Pre-Approval of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Provision of Audit, Audit-Related and Non-Audit Services

   9899  

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

98
PROXY SOLICITATION98
FORM 10-K

   99  

PROXY SOLICITATION

99

Policy Regarding Nominations of DirectorsFORM 10-K

   Appendix A100  

 

iii


PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement and in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20112014 (the “2011“2014 Form 10-K”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). You should read the entire proxy statement and the 20112014 Form 10-K carefully before voting.

Fiscal 20112014 Company Business Highlights

During 2011,2014, the Company was ablecontinued to achieve the following successes while continuingexecute its well-defined strategy to operatecreate long-term value for its shareholders, as well as its 2.4 million electric and more than 900,000 natural gas customers in Missouri and Illinois. This strategy is supported by three core pillars: (1) investing in and operating its businesses in a challenging economic environment:manner consistent with existing regulatory frameworks; (2) seeking to enhance regulatory frameworks and advocating for responsible energy policies; and (3) creating and capitalizing on opportunities for investment for the benefit of customers and shareholders.

 

Under the first pillar, the Company is focused on investing its discretionary capital in infrastructure of its electric and gas utility businesses that operate under regulatory frameworks with fair, predictable and timely recovery of costs incurred to better serve customers. Reflecting this focus, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois began construction of the FERC-regulated $1.4 billion Illinois Rivers Transmission Project and Ameren Illinois Company’s electric and natural gas delivery services installed almost 47,000 advanced electric and nearly 26,000 upgraded gas meters, exceeding the first-year goal for this project. In addition, Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri, placed into service several key infrastructure projects by year-end 2014 so that they would be eligible for inclusion in new rates expected to be effective by early June 2015. These projects include a new nuclear reactor vessel head at the Callaway Energy Center and additional environmental controls at the Labadie Energy Center, as well as a major substation in St. Louis and the largest investor-owned solar generation facility in Missouri. The Company also achieved notable regulatory successes in 2014, including a constructive outcome in Ameren Illinois’ electric delivery rate case. Ameren Illinois received approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission in December 2014 to increase rates by an amount nearly equal to its updated request, demonstrating that the formula rate framework is working as intended.

Under the second pillar, in December, the Illinois legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation that extended the constructive formula electric rates framework by two years until 2019. This legislation has been submitted to the governor. In addition, the Company aggressively advocated for responsible energy policies, including by raising concerns over the impact on customers’ rates and electric reliability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan. The Company offered pragmatic solutions to address these important concerns while also achieving the ultimate carbon emissions reductions proposed by the EPA by 2035, rather than the EPA’s final target date of 2030. The EPA is expected to issue its final rules on this matter in 2015.

Under the third pillar, in October, Ameren Missouri announced an Integrated Resource Plan to transition to a cleaner and more fuel-diverse generation

1


portfolio in a responsible fashion over the next 20 years. This plan maximizes the use of the Company’s current coal-fired generation fleet, while leveraging energy efficiency and investments in renewables, environmental controls and natural gas-fired generation to meet future needs in an environmentally balanced manner. The Integrated Resource Plan also includes extending the useful life of the Company’s Callaway nuclear energy center from 40 to 60 years. The Company also pursued additional transmission investment opportunities, including under FERC Order 1000.

The successful execution of the Company’s strategy, as described above, delivered positive 2014 results for both customers and shareholders.

The Company delivered strong earnings growth with results from continuing operations increasing 14.3%, to $2.40 per diluted share in 2014 from $2.10 per diluted share in 2013. Among other things, this increase reflected Illinois electric delivery and FERC-regulated transmission earnings under formula ratemaking, driven by infrastructure investments made to better serve customers.

In the fourth quarter of the year, the Company’s Board of Directors expressed confidence in the Company’s long-term outlook by increasing the Company’s quarterly dividend by 3.9% in the fourth quarterto 41 cents per share for a new annualized rate of Fiscal 2011;$1.64 per share, a 2.5% increase.

 

regulated utilityThe Company delivered solid safety performance in 2014, as well as strong electric distribution system reliability and natural gas rate increases;

the enactment of the Illinois Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act, which allows electric utilities in the State of Illinois (including Ameren Illinois) to make investments to upgrade aging electric infrastructure and technology, while creating jobs, increasing customer savings, reducing and shortening electric outages and expanding opportunities for renewable energy and efficiency measures;

the approval by the Midwest Independent Transmission Operator, Inc. of more than $1.2 billion in regional electric transmission projects, which are expected to earn timely and fair returns for shareholders;

continued disciplined cost management, reflected in lower core non-fuel operations and maintenance expense;

continued strong base load energy center availability and improved distribution system reliability;

strong storm recovery performance;

the development of lower cost environmental compliance strategies; and

the issuance ofperformance. In addition, the Company’s first Corporate Social Responsibility Report, which highlights the Company’s commitment to shareholders, customers, employeeselectric rates remained well below regional and the communities it servesnational averages and to continue to deliver safe and reliable energy in an environmentally responsible manner while enhancing shareholder value.customer satisfaction improved.

Annual Meeting of Shareholders

 

•        Time and Date:

  9:0010:30 A.M.; Tuesday; CDT on Thursday, April 24, 201223, 2015

•        Place:

  

Powell Symphony HallSaint Louis Art Museum

718 North Grand BoulevardForest Park

One Fine Arts Drive

St. Louis, Missouri

•        Record date:

  February 27, 201225, 2015

•        Voting:

  Shareholders as of the record date are entitled to vote. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote for each director nominee and one vote for each of the proposals. In general, shareholders may vote either in person at the Annual Meetingannual meeting or by telephone, the Internet or mail. See “VOTING“QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTINGHOW

YOU CAN VOTEHOW DO I VOTE?” on page 911 for more detaildetails regarding how you may vote if you are a registered holder or a beneficial owner of shares held in “street name.”

•        Admission:

  An admission ticket is required to enter the Company’s annual meeting. Please follow the advance registration instructions on your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or proxy card.

Meeting Agenda

 

2


Election of 11 directors

Advisory approval of executive compensation

Ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as independent registered public accounting firm for 2012

Vote on three shareholder proposals

Transact other business that may properly come before the meeting

Voting Matters

•        Notice:

On or about March 12, 2015, we began mailing to certain shareholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials containing instructions on how to access this proxy statement and our annual report and how to vote online. If you received that notice, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials unless you request it by following the instructions for requesting such materials contained on the notice. On or about March 12, 2015, we began mailing the accompanying proxy card to certain shareholders.

 

Voting Matters

 

 Board Vote Recommendation  Page Reference
(for more detail)

•       Election of 11 Directors

 FOR EACH DIRECTOR NOMINEE  1114
Management Proposals   

Non-Binding Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation

 FOR  4143

•       Ratification of PwCPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 20122015

 FOR  4244
Shareholder Proposals   

Shareholder Proposal Regarding Having an Independent Board Chairman

AGAINST44

•       Shareholder Proposal Relating toRegarding a Report on Coal Combustion WasteLobbying

 AGAINST  4347

•       Shareholder Proposal Relating to Report on Coal-Related Costs and RisksRegarding Adopting Executive Compensation Incentives for Carbon Reduction

 AGAINST  47

•       Shareholder Proposal Relating to Assessment and Report on Greenhouse Gas and Other Air Emissions Reductions Through Customer Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs

AGAINST5250

 

3


Board Nominees

The following provides summary information about each director nominee. Each director nominee is elected annually by a majority of votes cast.by shareholders entitled to vote and represented at the annual meeting.

 

     Committee Memberships     Committee Membership

Name

 Age Director
Since
 

Occupation

 

Experience/
Qualification

 Independent ARC HRC NCGC NOEC FC Age Director
Since
 

Occupation

 

Experience/
Qualification

 Independent ARC HRC(1) NCGC(1) NOEC FC
Stephen F. Brauer  66    2006   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hunter Engineering Company 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Risk Management

 X X  X  
Warner L. Baxter  53    2014   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Regulatory

•    Industry

•    Finance

      
Catherine S. Brune  58    2011   President, Allstate Protection Eastern Territory of Allstate Insurance Company 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Technology

•    Risk Management

 X X   X   61    2011   Retired President, Allstate Protection Eastern Territory of Allstate Insurance Company 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Technology

•    Risk Management

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

 X X   X 
J. Edward Coleman  63    2015   Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Unisys Corporation 

•    Leadership

•    Legal

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Technology

•    Customer Relations

•    Compensation

 X    X 
Ellen M. Fitzsimmons  51    2009   Senior Vice President of Law and Public Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of CSX Corporation 

•    Leadership

•    Government Relations

•    Finance

•    Risk Management

 X X  X    54    2009   Executive Vice President of Law and Public Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of CSX Corporation 

•    Leadership

•    Government Relations

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

•    Risk Management

 X X  C  
Walter J. Galvin  65    2007   Vice Chairman of Emerson Electric Co. 

•    Leadership

•    Accounting

•    Finance

•    Risk Management

 X C    X  68    2007   Consultant and Retired Vice Chairman of Emerson Electric Co. 

•    Leadership

•    Accounting

•    Finance

•    Risk Management

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

 X, L C    X
Richard J. Harshman  58    2013   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Allegheny Technologies Incorporated 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Industry

•    Operations

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

 X  X  X 
Gayle P. W. Jackson  65    2005   President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Global, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Industry

•    Finance

 X   X X   68    2005   President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Global, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Industry

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

 X   X X 
James C. Johnson  59    2005   General Counsel of Loop Capital Markets LLC 

•    Leadership

•    Legal

•    Governance

•    Compensation

 X  X C    62    2005   Retired General Counsel of Loop Capital Markets LLC 

•    Leadership

•    Legal

•    Governance

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Risk Management

•    Compensation

 X  X  X 
Steven H. Lipstein  55    2010   President and Chief Executive Officer of BJC HealthCare 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Compensation

 X  X   X  58    2010   President and Chief Executive Officer of BJC HealthCare 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Compensation

•    Customer Relations

 X  X   X
Patrick T. Stokes  69    2004   Former Chairman of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Compensation

 X, L  C   X
Thomas R. Voss  64    2009   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Regulatory

•    Industry

      
Stephen R. Wilson  63    2009   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of CF Industries Holdings, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Risk Management

 X    X C
Jack D. Woodard  68    2006   Retired Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Regulatory

•    Industry

•    Nuclear

 X  X  C 

4


              Committee Membership

Name

 Age  Director
Since
  

Occupation

 

Experience/
Qualification

 Independent ARC HRC(1) NCGC(1) NOEC FC
Stephen R. Wilson  66    2009   Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of CF Industries Holdings, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Strategy

•    Finance

•    Regulatory

•    Operations

•    Risk Management

•    Compensation

 X X   ��C
Jack D. Woodard  71    2006   Retired Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

•    Leadership

•    Regulatory

•    Industry

•    Nuclear

•    Finance

•    Operations

•    Compensation

 X   X C 

 

ARC

HRC

NCGC

NOEC

FC

  

Audit and Risk Committee

Human Resources Committee

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Finance Committee

C
L
  Member and Chair of a Committee
Lead Director

HRC(1)Patrick T. Stokes, who currently serves as the Chair of the Human Resources Committee
LLead Director
NCGC and as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee,
NOECNuclear Oversight is not standing for reelection and Environmental Committee
FCFinance Committeewill retire from the Board effective as of the Annual Meeting. Effective April 22, 2015, James C. Johnson will serve as the Chair of the Human Resources Committee.

The fact that we do not list a particular experience or qualification for a director nominee does not mean that nominee does not possess that particular experience or qualification.

All director nominees, each of whom is a current director, attended at least 75% of the Board meetings and committee meetings on which he or she sits. None of the director nominees were a participant to a “Related Person Transaction” in 2011, and no “Related Person Transactions” are currently proposed.

The Board recommends voting “FOR” each nominee.

Executive Compensation Non-Binding Advisory Vote

The Company is asking shareholders to approve, on ana non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of the executives named in the 2014 Summary Compensation Table in this proxy statement (the “Executives”“Named Executive Officers”) and as disclosed herein and encourageencourages shareholders to review closely the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the other narrative executive compensation disclosures contained in this proxy statement.

The Board has a long-standing commitment to goodstrong corporate governance and recognizes the interests that shareholders have in executive compensation. The Company’s compensation philosophy is to provide a competitive total compensation program that is based on the size-adjusted median of the range of compensation paid by similar utility industry companies (the “Market Data”), adjusted for our short- and long-term performance and the individual’s performance. The Board recommends a “FOR” vote because it believes that the Human Resources Committee, which is responsible for establishing the compensation for the Executives,Named Executive Officers, appropriately designed the 20112014 compensation program to align the long-term interests of the executivesNamed Executive Officers with that of shareholders to maximize shareholder value.

5


Compensation Program Components

 

Type    Form  Terms
• Fixed Pay    

• Base Salary

  

• Set annually by the Human Resources Committee based upon market conditions, peer datathe Market Data and other factors

• Short-term
incentives
    

• Executive Incentive��Incentive Plan

  

• Cash incentive pay based upon Company-wide EPSearnings per share (“EPS”) and safety performance with an individual performance modifier

• Long-term
incentives
    

• Performance Share Unit (“PSU”) Program

  

• Performance-based PSUs have three-year performance period dependent on total shareholder return versus utility industry peers

• Retention Agreement

• Retention Award payable in Company common stock made to Ameren Missouri Chief Nuclear Officer based upon overall performance at nuclear energy center during three-year performance period

• Other    

• Retirement Benefits

  

• Employee benefit plans available to all employees, including
401(k) savings and pension plans

 

• Supplemental retirement benefits that restore certain benefits not available due to Internal Revenue Codetax limitations

 

• Deferred compensation program that provides opportunity to defer part of base salary and short-term incentives, earned at market rates

    

“Double-Trigger” Change of Control Protections

  

• Severance pay and vesting or payment of PSUs upon a change of control together with a termination of employment

    

Limited Perquisites

  

• Company provides modestlimited perquisites to Executivesthe Named Executive Officers

Fiscal 20112014 Executive Compensation Highlights

The Company’s pay-for-performance program led to the following actual 2014 compensation being earned:

2014 annual incentive base awards based on EPS and safety were earned at 103.5 percent of target; this payout reflected strong financial and operational performance by the Company in 2014 that was attributable, in part, to the successful execution of the Company’s strategy as described on page 1; and

87.5 percent of the target three-year long-term incentive awards made in 2012 were earned (plus accrued dividends of approximately 14.3 percent) based on our total shareholder return relative to the defined utility peer group over the three-year measurement period (2012–2014). At the December 31, 2014 vesting date, the PSUs were worth $46.13 per share, rather than the $33.13 value at which they were granted; as a result, the actual earned amounts equaled 139 percent of the original target awards.

The Company’s compensation program for 20112014 was substantially similar to the 20102013 program, which was approved by 9294 percent of votes cast by shareholders.shareholders entitled to vote and represented at the Company’s 2014 annual meeting. Highlights of the Company’s 2011 executive compensation program, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, include:

 

pay opportunities that are appropriate to the size of the Company when compared to other companies in the utility industry;

 

a heavily performance-based pay program that is heavily performance-based, usinguses multiple performance measures;

 

6


full disclosure of the financial performance drivers used in our incentives, in numeric terms;

 

a long-term incentivesincentive program that is entirely performance-based and aligned with shareholder interests through a link to stock price and measurement of stock performance versus peer companies;

no backdating or repricing ofcompanies, and that does not use any stock options (none of the Executives hold any options to purchase shares of Company stock);

stock ownership requirements for Executives, which align the interests of the Executives and shareholders;

few perquisites;

no employment contracts;

relatively conservative change-in-control severance, and no excise tax gross-ups for new change of control plan participants;or time-vesting awards;

 

annual incentive plan and long-term incentive plan performance grants are subject to a provision in the Company’s 2014 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan and 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan that requires a “clawback” of such incentive compensation in certain circumstances;circumstances pursuant to the provisions of the applicable plan;

stock ownership requirements for Named Executive Officers, which align the interests of the Named Executive Officers and shareholders;

a prohibition against directors and executive officers pledging Company securities and against any transaction by directors and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries which hedges (or offsets) any decrease in the value of Company equity securities;

limited perquisites;

no excise tax gross-ups for change of control plan participants who began participating in the plan on or after October 1, 2009;

no backdating or repricing of stock options (and none of the Named Executive Officers hold any options to purchase shares of Company stock); and

 

retention of an independent compensation consultant engaged by, and who reports directly to, the Human Resources Committee.

The Company’s pay-for-performance program led to the following actions and actual 2011 compensation being earned:

2011 annual incentive awards were earned at 123.5 percent of target; this payout reflected strong operational performance by the Company in 2011 that was attributed, in part, to continued disciplined cost management, strong energy center performance and regulated utility rate relief; and

only 30 percent of the target three-year incentive awards made in 2009 were earned (plus accrued dividends of approximately 5.5 percent) based on total shareholder return relative to the defined peer group over the three-year (2009-2011) measurement period. At the December 31, 2011 vesting date, the PSUs were valued at $33.13 per share rather than the $22.20 value at which such PSUs were granted; as a result, the actual earned amounts equaled 53 percent of the original target awards.

The Board unanimously recommends shareholders vote “FOR” the approval of named executive officer compensation on an advisory basis.

Ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPwC as Our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

As a matter of good corporate governance, the Company is asking shareholders to ratify the appointment of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2012.2015. Set forth below is summary information with respect to PwC’s fees for services provided in fiscal 20112014 and fiscal 2010.2013.

 

    Year Ended
December 31, 2011
  Year Ended
December 31, 2010
Audit Fees    $3,023,026     $3,535,296 
Audit-Related Fees    531,074     478,252 
Tax Fees    50,000     634,776 
All Other Fees    20,400     175,700  

The Board recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” ratifying the appointment of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2012.

    Year Ended
December 31, 2014
   Year Ended
December 31, 2013
 
Audit Fees          $3,637,225                    $5,325,075          
Audit-Related Fees          $167,565                    $797,235          
Tax Fees          $0                    $165,000          
All Other Fees          $6,500                    $5,400          

 

7


PROXY STATEMENTOF AMEREN CORPORATION

(First sent or given to shareholdersmailed on or about March 9, 2012)12, 2015 to shareholders receiving written materials)

Principal Executive Offices:

One Ameren Plaza

1901 Chouteau Avenue

St. Louis, MO 63103

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Statements in this proxy statement not based on historical facts are considered “forward-looking” and, accordingly, involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed. Although such forward-looking statements have been made in good faith and are based on reasonable assumptions, there is no assurance that the expected results will be achieved. These statements include (without limitation) statements as to future expectations, beliefs, plans, strategies, objectives, events, conditions and financial performance. These statements are intended to constitute “forward-looking” statements inIn connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.1995, Ameren Corporation (the “Company,” “Ameren,” “we,” “us” and “our”) is providing this cautionary statement to disclose that there are important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. Reference is made to the 20112014 Form 10-K for a list of such factors.

INFORMATIONQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND VOTING

This solicitation of proxies is made by our Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors” or the “Board”) for

Q.When and where will the annual meeting be held?

A.            The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company to(the “Annual Meeting”) will be held on Tuesday,Thursday, April 24, 2012 (the “Annual Meeting”),23, 2015, and at any adjournment thereof. Our Annual Meeting will be held at Powell Symphony Hall, 718 North Grand Boulevard,the Saint Louis Art Museum, Forest Park, One Fine Arts Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, at 9:0010:30 A.M. Central Time.CDT.

We are a holding company and our principal direct and indirect subsidiaries include Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (“Ameren Missouri”); Ameren Illinois Company, doing business as Ameren Illinois (formed on October 1, 2010 as part of a corporate reorganization, whereby Central Illinois Light Company, doing business as AmerenCILCO (“CILCO”), and Illinois Power Company, doing business as AmerenIP (“IP”), merged with and into Central Illinois Public Service Company, doing business as AmerenCIPS (“CIPS”), with CIPS as the surviving entity and upon consummation of that merger, CIPS changed its name to Ameren Illinois Company) (“Ameren Illinois”); Ameren Services Company (“Ameren Services”) and Ameren Energy Generating Company (“AEG”).

Q.Who is entitled to vote?

VOTINGA.

WHO CAN VOTE

The accompanying proxy card represents all shares registered in the name(s) shown thereon, including shares in our dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan (“DRPlus Plan”), the 401(k) savings plan of Ameren, the Ameren Corporation
Long-Term Incentive Plan of 1998 (“Long-Term Incentive Plan of 1998”) and the Ameren Corporation 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (“2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan”).

Only shareholders of record of our common stock, $0.01 par value (“Common Stock”) at the close of business on the record date, February 27, 2012,25, 2015, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. In order

Q.What will I be voting on?

A.1. Election of Directors.

Eleven directors are to conductbe elected at the Annual Meeting holdersto serve until the next annual meeting of more than one-halfshareholders and until their respective successors have been duly elected and qualified.

2. Non-Binding Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation.

In accordance with Rule 14a-21(a) of the outstanding shares entitledExchange Act, the Company is providing shareholders with the right to cast a non-binding advisory vote at the Annual Meeting to approve the compensation of the Named Executive Officers. This proposal, commonly known as a “say-on-pay” proposal, provides shareholders with the opportunity to endorse or not endorse the Company’s compensation program.

8


3. Ratification of the Appointment of PwC as Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2015.

The Company is asking its shareholders to ratify the appointment of PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. PwC was appointed by the Audit and Risk Committee.

4. A Shareholder Proposal Regarding Having an Independent Board Chairman.

The Company is asking its shareholders to vote must be present in person or representedagainst a shareholder proposal regarding having an independent board chairman, if presented at the meeting by proxy so that therethe proponent.

5. A Shareholder Proposal Regarding a Report on Lobbying.

The Company is a quorum. A quorum consists of a majority of the outstanding shares entitledasking its shareholders to vote present or representedagainst a shareholder proposal regarding a report on lobbying, if presented at the meeting by proxy. the proponent.

6. A Shareholder Proposal Regarding Adopting Executive Compensation Incentives for Carbon Reduction.

The voting securities ofCompany is asking its shareholders to vote against a shareholder proposal regarding adopting executive compensation incentives for carbon reduction, if presented at the Company on February 27, 2012, consisted of 242,634,742 shares of Common Stock.meeting by the proponent.

Q.How many votes do I have?

A.            Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote. It is important that you vote promptly so that yourThe shares are counted toward the quorum.

In determining whether a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting, shares represented by a proxy which directs that the shares abstain from voting or that a vote be withheld on a matter and broker non-votes, shall be deemedreferred to be represented at the meeting for quorum purposes. A “broker non-vote” occurs when shares are represented by a proxy, returned by a broker, bank or other fiduciary holding shares as the record holder in nominee or “street” name for a beneficial owner, which gives voting instructions as to at least one of the matters to be voted on but indicates that the record holder does not have the authority to vote or give voting instructions by proxy on a particular matter, such as a non-discretionary matter for which voting instructions have not been given to the record holder by the beneficial owner. Shares as to which voting instructions are given as to at least one of the matters to be voted on shall also be deemed to be so represented. If the proxy states how shares will be voted in the absence of instructions by the shareholder, such shares shall be deemed to be represented at the meeting.

The New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) permits brokers to vote their customers’ shares on routine matters when the brokers have not received voting instructions from their customers. The ratification of the appointment of independent registered public accountants is an example of a routine matter on which brokers may vote in this way. Brokers may not vote their customers’ shares on non-routine matters such as shareholder proposals unless they have received voting instructions from their customers. Under NYSE rules, brokers are not permitted to exercise discretionary voting authority with respect to shares for which voting instructions have not been received, as such voting authority pertains to the election of directors (whether contested or uncontested) and to matters relating to executive compensation. As a result of the NYSE rules, brokers may not vote their customers’ shares in the following matters to be considered at the Annual Meeting: Item (1): Election of Directors; Item (2): Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation; Item (4): Shareholder Proposal Relating to Report on Coal Combustion Waste; Item (5): Shareholder Proposal Relating to Report on Coal-Related Costs and Risks; and Item (6): Shareholder Proposal Relating to Assessment and Report on Greenhouse Gas and Other Air Emissions Reductions Through Customer Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs.

Except as discussed in the following paragraph, in all matters, including the election of directors, every decision of a majority of the shares entitled to vote on the subject matter and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting at which a quorum is present shall be valid as an act of the shareholders. In tabulating the number of votes on such matters (i) shares represented by a proxy which directs that the shares abstain from voting or that a vote be withheld on a matter shall be deemed to be represented at the meeting as to such matter, (ii) broker non-votes shall not be deemed to be represented at the meeting for the purpose of the vote on such matter or matters, (iii) except as provided in (iv) below, shares represented by a proxy as to which voting instructions are not given as to one or more matters to be voted on shall not be deemed to be represented at the meeting for the purpose of the vote as to such matter or matters, and (iv) a proxy which states how shares will be voted in

the absence of instructions by the shareholder as to any matter shall be deemed to give voting instructions as to such matter. Shareholder votes are certified by independent inspectors of election.

With respect to Item (2): Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation, while the Board of Directors intends to carefully consider the shareholder vote resulting from this proposal, the final vote of shareholders will not be binding on the Company, but will be advisory in nature.

The Board of Directors has adopted a confidential shareholder voting policy for proxies, ballots or voting instructions submitted by shareholders. This policy does not prohibit disclosure where it is required by applicable law. In addition, nothing in the confidential shareholder voting policy prohibits shareholders or participants in the Company’s savings investment plans from voluntarily disclosing their votes or voting instructions, as applicable, to the Company’s directors or executive officers, nor does the policy prevent the Company or any agent of the Company from ascertaining which shareholders have voted or from making efforts to encourage shareholders to vote. The policy does not limit the free and voluntary communication between the Company and its shareholders. Except with respect to materials submitted regarding shares allocated to participant accounts in the Company’s savings investment plans, all comments written on proxies, ballots or voting materials, together with the names and addresses of the commenting shareholders, may be made available to Company directors and executive officers.

HOW YOU CAN VOTE

By Proxy.  Before the Annual Meeting, you can give a proxy to vote your shares of the Company’s Common Stock in one of the following ways:

-    by calling the toll-free telephone number;

-    by using the Internet (http://www.proxyvote.com); or

-    by completing and signing the enclosed proxy card and mailing it in time to be received before the Annual Meeting.

The telephone and Internet voting procedures are designed to confirm your identity and to allow you to give your voting instructions. If you wish to vote by telephone or the Internet, please follow the instructions on your proxy card. Additional instructions will be provided on the telephone message and website. Please have your proxy card at hand when voting. If you vote by telephone or Notice of Internet DO NOT mail a proxy card. The telephone and Internet voting facilities will close at 11:59 P.M. Eastern time on April 23, 2012.

If you mail us your properly completed and signed proxy card, or vote by telephone or the Internet, your sharesAvailability of our Common Stock will be voted according to the choices that you specify. If you sign and mail your proxy card without marking any choices, your proxy will be voted as recommended by the Board — FOR the Board’s nominees for director Item (1), FOR the advisory approval of the compensation of our executives disclosed in this proxy statement Item (2), FOR the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm Item (3), AGAINST the shareholder proposal Item (4), AGAINST the shareholder proposal Item (5), AGAINST the shareholder proposal Item (6), and in the discretion of the named proxies upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.

If you hold any shares in the 401(k) savings plan of Ameren, your completed proxy card or telephone or Internet proxy vote will serve as voting instructions to the plan trustee

and the plan trustee will vote your shares as you have directed. However, your voting instructions must be received at least five days prior to the Annual Meeting in order to count. In accordance with the terms of the plan, the trustee will voteProxy Materials represent all of the shares held in the plan for which voting instructions have not been received in accordance with instructions received from an independent fiduciary designated by Ameren Services.

If you have shares registered in the namename(s) shown thereon, including shares held in our dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan (“DRPlus Plan”) and Ameren’s 401(k) savings plan.

Q.How do I obtain materials for the Annual Meeting?

A.            As permitted by SEC rules, we are making this proxy statement and our annual report available to shareholders electronically via the Internet. On or about March 12, 2015, we began mailing to certain shareholders a Notice of a bank, broker, or other registered owner or nominee, you should receiveInternet Availability of Proxy Materials containing instructions from that registered owner abouton how to instruct them to vote those shares.

In Person.You may come to the Annual Meetingaccess this proxy statement and cast your vote there. Only shareholders of record at the close of business on the record date, February 27, 2012, are entitled to vote at or to attend the Annual Meeting.

HOW YOU CAN REVOKE YOUR PROXY

You may revoke your proxy at any time after you give it and before it is voted by entering a new vote by telephone or the Internet or by delivering either a written revocation or a signed proxy bearing a later date to the Secretary of the Company or by voting in person at the Annual Meeting. To revoke a proxy by telephone or the Internet, you must do so by 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on April 23, 2012 (following the directions on the proxy card). Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you specifically so request.

HOUSEHOLDINGOF PROXY STATEMENTSAND ANNUAL REPORTS

The Company is permitted and intends to mail only oneour annual report and one proxy statementhow to multiple registered shareholders sharing an address who have received prior notice of our intent and consented to the delivery of one annual report and proxy statement per address, so long as the Company has not received contrary instructions from one or more of such shareholders. This practice is commonly referred to as “householding.” Householding reduces the volume of duplicate information received at your household and the cost to the Company of preparing and mailing duplicate materials.

vote online. If you share an address with other registered shareholders and your household receives one set of the proxy statement and the annual report andreceived that notice, you decide you wantwill not receive a separateprinted copy of the proxy statement and/ormaterials unless you request it by following the annual report, the Company will promptly mail your separate copy if you contact the Office of the Secretary, Ameren Corporation, P.O. Box 66149, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-6149 or by calling toll free 1-800-255-2237 (orinstructions for requesting such materials contained in the St. Louis area 314-554-3502). Additionally, to resume the mailing of individual copies of future annual reports and proxy statements to a particular shareholder, you may contact the Office of the Secretary, and your request will be effective within 30 days after receipt. You may request householding of these documents by providing the Office of the Secretary with a written request to eliminate multiple mailings.notice. The written request must include names and account numbers of all shareholders consenting to householding for a given address and must be signed by those shareholders.

Additionally, the Company has been notified that certain banks, brokers and other nominees may household the Company’s annual report and proxy statement for shareholders who hold Company shares with the bank, broker or other nominee in “street” name and have consentedour 2014 Form 10-K, including consolidated financial statements, are available to householding. In this case, you may request an individual copy of this proxy statement and/or the annual report by contacting your bank, broker or other nominee.

OTHER ANNUAL MEETING MATTERS

HOW YOU CAN OBTAIN MATERIALSFORTHE ANNUAL MEETINGathttp://www.ameren.com/AmerenProxyMaterial.

This proxy statement and the accompanying proxy card are also first being mailed to certain shareholders on or about March 9, 2012.12, 2015. In the same package with this proxy material, you should have received a copy of our 20112014 Form 10-K, including consolidated financial statements. When you receive this package, if all of these materials are not included, please contact us and a copy of any missing material will be sent at no expense to you.

9


You may reach us:

- by mail addressed to

Office of the Secretary

Ameren Corporation

P.O. Box 66149, Mail Code 1370

St. Louis, MO 63166-6149

- by calling toll freetoll-free 1-800-255-2237 (or in the St. Louis area 314-554-3502).

Q.How many shares must be present to hold the Annual Meeting?

ImportantA.            In order to conduct the Annual Meeting, holders of more than one-half of the outstanding shares entitled to vote must be present in person or represented by proxy so that there is a quorum. The voting securities of the Company on February 25, 2015 consisted of 242,634,798 shares of Common Stock. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote. It is important that you vote promptly so that your shares are counted toward the quorum.

In determining whether a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting, shares represented by a proxy that directs that the shares abstain from voting or that a vote be withheld on a matter, as well as broker non-votes, shall be deemed to be represented at the meeting for quorum purposes. A “broker non-vote” occurs when shares are represented by a proxy, returned by a broker, bank or other fiduciary holding shares as the record holder in nominee or “street” name for a beneficial owner, which gives voting instructions as to at least one of the matters to be voted on but indicates that the record holder does not have the authority to vote or give voting instructions by proxy on a particular matter, such as a non-discretionary matter for which voting instructions have not been given to the record holder by the beneficial owner. Shares as to which voting instructions are given as to at least one of the matters to be voted on shall also be deemed to be so represented. If the proxy states how shares will be voted in the absence of instructions by the shareholder, such shares shall be deemed to be represented at the meeting.

Q.What are the vote requirements for each matter?

A.            In all matters, including the election of directors, every decision of a majority of the shares entitled to vote on the subject matter and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting at which a quorum is present shall be valid as an act of the shareholders, unless a larger vote is required by law, the Company’s By-Laws or the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation. Each matter on the agenda for the Annual Meeting is subject to this majority voting standard.

In tabulating the number of votes on a matter, (i) shares represented by a proxy which directs that the shares abstain from voting or that a vote be withheld on one or more matters shall be deemed to be represented at the meeting as to such matter or matters, (ii) broker non-votes shall not be deemed to be represented at the meeting for the purpose of the vote on such matter or matters, (iii) except as provided in (iv) below, shares represented by a proxy as to which voting instructions are not given as to one or more matters to be voted on shall not be deemed to be represented at the meeting for the purpose of the vote as to such matter or matters, and (iv) a proxy which states how shares will be voted in the absence of instructions by the shareholder as to any matter shall be deemed to give voting instructions as to such matter. Shareholder votes are certified by independent inspectors of election.

10


Q.How do I vote?

A.            By Proxy. Before the Annual Meeting, you can give a proxy to vote your shares of the Company’s Common Stock in one of the following ways:

-by calling the toll-free telephone number (1-800-690-6903);

-by using the Internet (http://www.proxyvote.com); or

-by completing and signing a proxy card and mailing it in time to be received before the Annual Meeting.

The telephone and Internet voting procedures are designed to confirm your identity and to allow you to give your voting instructions. If you wish to vote by telephone or the Internet, please follow the instructions on your proxy card or Notice Regardingof Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. Additional instructions will be provided on the telephone message and website. Please have your proxy card or Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting to Be Heldat hand when voting. If you vote by telephone or Internet, DO NOT mail a proxy card. The telephone and Internet voting facilities will close at 11:59 P.M. EDT on April 24, 2012:22, 2015.

ThisIf you mail us your properly completed and signed proxy card, or vote by telephone or the Internet, your shares of our Common Stock will be voted according to the choices that you specify. If you sign and mail your proxy card without marking any choices, your proxy will be voted as recommended by the Board — FOR the Board’s nominees for director (Item (1)), FOR the non-binding advisory approval of the compensation of our Named Executive Officers disclosed in this proxy statement (Item (2)), FOR the accompanyingratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent registered public accounting firm (Item (3)), AGAINST the shareholder proposal regarding having an independent board chairman (Item (4)), AGAINST the shareholder proposal regarding a report on lobbying (Item (5)), AGAINST the shareholder proposal regarding adopting executive compensation incentives for carbon reduction (Item (6)), and in the discretion of the named proxies upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting.

If you hold any shares in the 401(k) savings plan of Ameren, your completed proxy card or telephone or Internet proxy vote will serve as voting instructions to the plan trustee, and our 2011 Form 10-K, including consolidated financial statements, are also available tothe plan trustee will vote your shares as you have directed. However, your voting instructions must be received at http://www.ameren.com/AmerenProxyMaterial.

HOW YOU CAN REVIEWTHE LISTOF SHAREHOLDERS

The names of shareholders of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be available at the Annual Meeting and, for 10least five days prior to the Annual Meeting in order to count. In accordance with the terms of the plan, the trustee will vote all of the shares held in the plan for which voting instructions have not been received in accordance with instructions received from an independent fiduciary designated by Ameren Services.

If you have shares registered in the name of a bank, broker, or other registered owner or nominee, you should receive instructions from that registered owner about how to instruct them to vote those shares.

In Person. You may come to the Annual Meeting and cast your vote there. Only shareholders of record at the Officeclose of business on the record date, February 25, 2015, are entitled to vote at and to attend the Annual Meeting.

Q.Can I change my vote?

A.            You may revoke your proxy at any time after you give it and before it is voted by entering a new vote by telephone or the Internet or by delivering either a written revocation or a signed proxy bearing a later date to the Secretary of the Company.Company or by voting in person at the Annual Meeting. To revoke a proxy by telephone or the Internet, you must do so by 11:59 P.M. EDT on April 22, 2015 (following the directions on the proxy card or Notice of

11


Internet Availability of Proxy Materials). Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you specifically so request.

Q.Will my shares be voted if I do not provide instructions to my broker?

WEBCASTOFTHE ANNUAL MEETINGA.            If you hold your shares in street name and you do not provide your broker with timely voting instructions, New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules permit brokerage firms to vote your shares at their discretion on certain “routine” matters. At the Annual Meeting, the only routine matter is the ratification of the appointment of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm. Brokerage firms may not vote without instructions from you on the following matters: election of directors, advisory vote on approval of executive compensation, or any of the shareholder-presented proposals. Without your voting instruction on items that require them, a broker non-vote will occur.

Q.Who is soliciting my vote?

A.            The solicitation of proxies is made by our Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors” or the “Board”) for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company. We are a holding company, and our principal direct and indirect subsidiaries include Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (“Ameren Missouri”); Ameren Illinois Company (“Ameren Illinois”); and Ameren Services Company (“Ameren Services”).

Q.Does the Board consider director nominees recommended by shareholders?

A.            The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director nominations from shareholders in accordance with the Company’s Policy Regarding Nominations of Directors (the “Director Nomination Policy”), a copy of which can be found on the Company’s website.

Q.Do I need a ticket to attend the Annual Meeting?

A.            An admission ticket is required to enter the Company’s Annual Meeting. Please follow the advance registration instructions on your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or proxy card.

Q.Is my vote confidential?

A.            The Board of Directors has adopted a confidential shareholder voting policy for proxies, ballots or voting instructions submitted by shareholders. This policy does not prohibit disclosure where it is required by applicable law. In addition, nothing in the confidential shareholder voting policy prohibits shareholders or participants in the Company’s savings investment plans from voluntarily disclosing their votes or voting instructions, as applicable, to the Company’s directors or executive officers, nor does the policy prevent the Company or any agent of the Company from ascertaining which shareholders have voted or from making efforts to encourage shareholders to vote. The policy does not limit the free and voluntary communication between the Company and its shareholders. Except with respect to materials submitted regarding shares allocated to participant accounts in the Company’s savings investment plans, all comments written on proxies, ballots or voting materials, together with the names and addresses of the commenting shareholders, may be made available to Company directors and executive officers.

12


Q.Can I listen to the Annual Meeting online?

A.The Annual Meeting will also be webcast live on April 24, 2012.23, 2015. You are invited to visit http://www.ameren.com at 9:0010:30 A.M. CTCDT on April 24, 2012,23, 2015, to hear the webcast of the Annual Meeting. On our home page, you will click on “Live Webcast Annual Meeting April 24, 2012, 9:0023, 2015, 10:30 A.M. CT,CDT,” then the appropriate audio link. The webcast will remain on our website for one year. You cannot record your vote on this webcast.

Q.How do I review the list of shareholders?

A.            The names of shareholders of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be available at the Annual Meeting and, for ten days prior to the Annual Meeting, at the Office of the Secretary of the Company.

Q.What is the Company’s mailing policy when multiple registered shareholders share an address?

A.            The Company is permitted and intends to mail only one Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials and/or one annual report and one proxy statement to multiple registered shareholders sharing an address who have consented to the delivery of one set of proxy materials per address or have received prior notice of our intent to do so, so long as the Company has not received contrary instructions from one or more of such shareholders. This practice is commonly referred to as “householding.” Householding reduces the volume of duplicate information received at your household and the cost to the Company of preparing and mailing duplicate materials.

If you share an address with other registered shareholders and your household receives one set of the proxy materials and you decide you want a separate copy of the proxy materials, the Company will promptly mail your separate copy if you contact the Office of the Secretary, Ameren Corporation, P.O. Box 66149, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-6149 or by calling toll-free 1-800-255-2237 (or in the St. Louis area 314-554-3502). Additionally, to resume the mailing of individual copies of future proxy materials to a particular shareholder, you may contact the Office of the Secretary, and your request will be effective within 30 days after receipt. You may request householding of these documents by providing the Office of the Secretary with a written request to eliminate multiple mailings. The written request must include names and account numbers of all shareholders consenting to householding for a given address and must be signed by those shareholders.

Additionally, the Company has been notified that certain banks, brokers and other nominees may household the Company’s proxy materials for shareholders who hold Company shares with the bank, broker or other nominee in “street” name and have consented to householding. In this case, you may request individual copies of proxy materials by contacting your bank, broker or other nominee.

AMEREN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

The Company has a history of strong corporate governance practices and is continuously focused on ensuring that its corporate governance practices protect and enhance long-term shareholder value. The Company’s commitment to good corporate governance is demonstrated through practices such as:

Board of Directors:

Our entire Board is elected annually.

A majority voting standard is used to elect all directors.

13


Our Board is comprised entirely of independent directors, except for our CEO.

We have an independent Lead Director with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties and responsibilities.

We maintain a director retirement age of 72. Directors who attain age 72 must submit a letter offering to retire to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for its consideration.

Only independent directors serve on all standing Board committees, including the Audit and Risk Committee, the Human Resources Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board. Each committee operates under a written charter that has been approved by the Board.

Our independent directors regularly hold executive sessions of the Board, which are led by the Lead Director, outside the presence of the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer or any other Company employee and meet in private session with the Chief Executive Officer at every regularly scheduled Board meeting.

The Board and each of the Board committees annually reviews its performance, structure and processes in order to assess how effectively it is functioning.

The Board conducts succession planning on an annual basis and regularly focuses on senior executive development, including the transitioning of the CEO position in 2014.

The Board, and the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board, regularly consider key risks facing and regulations applicable to the Company.

Shareholder Rights:

We do not have a shareholder rights plan (“poison pill”) in place.

Other than a super-majority requirement (66.67%) to approve mergers as provided by Missouri state statute, we have no super-majority voting requirement for shareholder action.

Our directors may be removed without cause.

ITEMS YOU MAY VOTE ON

ITEM (1): ELECTIONOF DIRECTORS

Eleven directors are to be elected at the Annual Meeting to serve until the next annual meeting of shareholders and until their respective successors have been duly elected and qualified. In the absence of instructions to the contrary, executed proxies will be voted in favor of the election of the persons listed below. In the event that any nominee for election as director should become unavailable to serve, votes will be cast pursuant to the enclosed proxy card, for such substitute nominee or nominees as may be nominated by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors and approved by the Board of Directors.Directors, or the Board of Directors may reduce the size of the Board in accordance with the Company’s By-Laws and Restated Articles of Incorporation. The Board of Directors knows of no reason why any nominee will not be able to serve as director. The 11 nominees for director who receive the vote of at least a majority of the shares entitled to vote in the election of directors and represented in person or by proxy at

the meeting at which a quorum is present will be elected. Shareholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors. In the event any nominee for re-election fails

14


to obtain the required majority vote, such nominee will tender his or her resignation as a director for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate the best interests of the Company and its shareholders and will recommend to the Board the action to be taken with respect to any such tendered resignation. In future years, ifIf there is a nominee, other than a nominee for re-election, that fails to obtain the required majority vote, such nominee will not be elected to the Board and there will be a vacancy on the Board of Directors as a result thereof. Pursuant to the Company’s By-Laws and Restated Articles of Incorporation, any vacancy on the Board of Directors shall be filled by a majority of the directors then in office.

INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS

The nominees for our Board of Directors are listed below, along with their age as of December 31, 2011,2014, tenure as director, other directorships held by such nominee during the previous five years and business background for at least the last five years. Each nominee’s biography below also includes a description of the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills of each director or nominee that led the Board to conclude that such person should serve as a director of Ameren at the timeAmeren. The fact that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.we do not list a particular experience, qualification, attribute or skill for a director nominee does not mean that nominee does not possess that particular experience, qualification, attribute or skill. In addition to those specific experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills detailed below, each nominee has demonstrated the highest professional and personal ethics, a broad experience in business, government, education or technology, the ability to provide insights and practical wisdom based on their experience and expertise, a commitment to enhancing shareholder value, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, and the ability to develop a good working relationship with other Board members and contribute to the Board’s working relationship with senior management of the Company. In assessing the composition of the Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends Board nominees so that collectively, the Board is balanced by having the necessary experience, qualifications, attributes and skills and that no nominee is recommended because of one particular criterion, except that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does believe it appropriate for at least one member of the Board to meet the criteria for an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC rules. See
“— CORPORATE GOVERNANCE “— CORPORATE GOVERNANCE — Consideration of Director Nominees” below for additional information regarding director nominees and the nominating process.

Each nominee has consented to being nominated for director and has agreed to serve if elected. No arrangement or understanding exists between any nominee and the Company or, to the Company’s knowledge, any other person or persons pursuant to which any nominee was or is to be selected as a director or nominee. All of the nominees are currently directors of the Company, and, except for Mr. Coleman, all of the nominees have been previously elected by shareholders at the Company’s prior annual meeting, except for Catherine S. Brune, who was elected as a director by the Board of Directors at a meeting of the Board in October 2011. Ms. Brune was recommended for nomination to the Board by a third-party search firm.meeting. There are no family relationships between any director, executive officer, or person nominated or chosen by the Company to become a director or executive officer. All of the nominees for election to the Board were unanimously recommended by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors and were unanimously nominated by the Board of Directors.

15


WARNER L. BAXTER

CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFTHE COMPANY

LOGOLOGO 

STEPHEN F. BRAUEROutside directorships:UMB Financial Corporation, 2013–Present

 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hunter Engineering Company, a privately held firm that engages in the design, manufacture and sale of computer-based automotive service equipment worldwide. Mr. Brauer joined Hunter Engineering in 1971, became Chief Operating Officer in 1978 and Chief Executive Officer in 1980. In 2001, Mr. Brauer took a leave of absence from Hunter Engineering to become the United States ambassador to Belgium, serving two and one-half years in that capacity before returning to Hunter Engineering in 2003. Director of the Company since 2006. Age: 66.

Based primarily upon Mr. Brauer’s extensive 32-year executive management and leadership experience as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of an industrial manufacturing company; strong strategic planning, accounting, financial, risk management and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Brauer should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.

LOGO

CATHERINE S. BRUNEsince:2014

 

President, Allstate Protection Eastern Territory of Allstate Insurance Company,Age:a leading personal lines insurer. Ms. Brune has worked in various managerial capacities for Allstate since 1976. She was elected the company’s youngest officer in 1986, moving into information technology in the early 1990s. In 2002, Ms. Brune was named Allstate’s Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer. In October 2010, Ms. Brune was named to her current position, where she oversees Property/Casualty operations in 23 states and Canada for Allstate. Ms. Brune is a member of Allstate’s senior leadership team. Director of the Company since 2011. Age: 58.

Based primarily upon Ms. Brune’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as a President and former Chief Information Officer of a leading insurance company; and strong information and technology, strategic planning, regulatory and administrative skills and experience, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Ms. Brune should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.53

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Baxter began his career with Ameren Missouri in 1995 as Assistant Controller. He was named Controller of Ameren Missouri in 1996. Following the 1997 merger of Ameren Missouri and CIPSCO Incorporated, he served as Vice President and Controller of Ameren and Ameren Services. In 2001, Mr. Baxter was named Senior Vice President, Finance. From 2003 to 2009, Mr. Baxter was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ameren and certain of its subsidiaries, where he led the finance, strategic planning and business risk management functions. From 2007 to 2009, he was also President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Services. From 2009 to 2014, Mr. Baxter served as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri. On February 14, 2014, Mr. Baxter succeeded Thomas R. Voss as President of the Company. Mr. Baxter succeeded Mr. Voss as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014 and as Chairman of the Board on July 1, 2014. Prior to joining Ameren, Mr. Baxter served as senior manager in PwC’s national office in New York City from 1993 to 1995. From 1983 to 1993, Mr. Baxter worked in PwC’s St. Louis office, where he provided auditing and consulting services to clients in a variety of industries.

Mr. Baxter served as a director of Ameren Missouri from 1999 to 2014, and as a director of Ameren Illinois from 1999 to 2009.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Baxter’s extensive executive management and directorship experience, strong strategic planning, accounting, financial and administrative skills and experience; tenure with the Company (and its current and former affiliates); and contributions as a current Board member, the Board concluded that Mr. Baxter should serve as a director of Ameren.

CATHERINE S. BRUNE

RETIRED PRESIDENT, ALLSTATE PROTECTION EASTERN TERRITORYOF ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Audit and Risk Committee

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Outside directorships:None

Director since:2011

Age:61

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Ms. Brune served as President of Allstate, a personal lines insurer, from October 2010 to November 2013 and oversaw Property/Casualty operations in 23 states and Canada. Ms. Brune worked in various managerial capacities for Allstate from 1976 to 2013. She was elected the company’s youngest officer in 1986, moving into information technology in the early 1990s. In 2002, Ms. Brune was named Allstate’s Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer. Ms. Brune was a member of Allstate’s senior leadership team. Ms. Brune retired from Allstate in November 2013.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Ms. Brune’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as a former President and Chief Information Officer of a leading insurance company; strong information and technology, strategic planning, financial, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Ms. Brune should serve as a director of Ameren.

16


J. EDWARD COLEMAN

FORMER CHAIRMANAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF UNISYS CORPORATION

LOGO

Standing Board committees:

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Outside directorships:

•        Lexmark International, Inc., 2010–Present

Director since:2015

Age:63

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Coleman served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Unisys Corporation from October 2008 to December 2014. He previously served as Chief Executive Officer of Gateway, Inc. from 2006 to 2008, as Senior Vice President and President of Enterprise Computing Solutions at Arrow Electronics from 2005 to 2006, and as Chief Executive Officer of CompuCom Systems, Inc. from 1999 to 2004 and as Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2004. Earlier in his career, he held various leadership positions at Computer Sciences Corporation and IBM Corporation.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Coleman’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as a former chief executive officer of three publicly-traded technology companies; strong strategic planning, financial, information technology, customer relations, compensation and administrative skills and experience, the Board concluded that Mr. Coleman should serve as a director of Ameren.

ELLEN M. FITZSIMMONS

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENTOF LAWAND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, GENERAL COUNSELAND CORPORATE SECRETARYOF CSX CORPORATION

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Audit and Risk Committee

•        Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

ELLEN M. FITZSIMMONSOutside directorships:None

 

Senior Vice President of Law and Public Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of CSX Corporation,a leading transportation supplier. Ms. Fitzsimmons joined CSX Corporation in 1991 and has served in her current position since December 2003. Ms. Fitzsimmons oversees all legal, government relations and public affairs activities for CSX. During Ms. Fitzsimmons’ tenure with CSX, her responsibilities have included key roles in major risk and corporate governance-related areas. Director of the Company since 2009.Age: 51.since:2009

Based primarily upon Ms. Fitzsimmons’ extensive executive and leadership experience as the Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of a transportation supplier; strong legal, government relations, public affairs, regulatory, accounting, financial, risk management, internal audit, compliance, corporate governance and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Ms. Fitzsimmons should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.Age:54

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Ms. Fitzsimmons joined CSX Corporation, a transportation supplier, in 1991 and has served in her current position since 2003. Ms. Fitzsimmons oversees all legal, government relations and public affairs activities for CSX. During Ms. Fitzsimmons’ tenure with CSX, her responsibilities have included key roles in major risk and corporate governance-related areas.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Ms. Fitzsimmons’ extensive executive and leadership experience as the Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of a transportation supplier; strong legal, government relations, public affairs, regulatory, accounting, financial, risk management, internal audit, compliance, corporate governance, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Ms. Fitzsimmons should serve as a director of Ameren.

17


WALTER J. GALVIN

FORMER VICE CHAIRMANAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICEROF EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.

LOGO 

WALTER J. GALVINStanding Board committees:

•        Audit and Risk Committee

•        Finance Committee

 

Vice Chairman of Emerson Electric Co.,an electrical and electronic manufacturer. Mr. Galvin has served as Emerson’s Vice Chairman since October 2009. He served as Emerson’s Chief Financial Officer from 1993 until February 2010. He has served as a management member of Emerson’s Board of Directors since 2000. Director of the Company since 2007. OtherOutside directorships: Emerson Electric Co. (2000-present);

        F.M. Global Insurance Company (1995-present). Age: 65.(non-reporting company), 1995–Present

•        Aegion Corporation, 2014–Present

•        Emerson Electric Co., 2000–2013

Director since:2007

•        Lead Director since 2014

Based primarily upon Mr. Galvin’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the Vice Chairman and former Chief Financial Officer of an industrial manufacturing company; significant accounting, financial, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Galvin should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.Age:68

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Galvin is currently a consultant to Emerson Electric, an electrical and electronics manufacturer, and served as Emerson Electric’s Vice Chairman from October 2009 to February 2013. He served as Emerson Electric’s Chief Financial Officer from 1993 until February 2010. He served as a management member of Emerson Electric’s Board of Directors from 2000 to February 2013.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Galvin’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of an industrial manufacturing company; significant accounting, financial, risk management, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Galvin should serve as a director of Ameren.

RICHARD J. HARSHMAN

CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Human Resources Committee

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Outside directorships:None

Director since:2013

Age:58

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Harshman serves as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, a producer of specialty materials products to the global electrical energy, aerospace and defense, oil and gas, chemical process industry, medical, and other diversified consumer and durable goods markets.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Harshman’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and previously Chief Financial Officer, of ATI; his significant strategic planning, financial, operations, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Harshman should serve as a director of Ameren.

18


GAYLE P.W. JACKSON, PH.D.

PRESIDENTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENERGY GLOBAL, INC.

LOGO 

GAYLE P. W. JACKSONStanding Board committees:

•        Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Outside directorships:

•        Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., PH.D.2005–2009, 2011–2015

•        Atlas Energy, Inc., 2009–2011

Director since:2005

 

President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Global, Inc.,Age: a consulting firm which specializes in corporate development, diversification and government relations strategies for energy companies. From 2002 to 2004, Dr. Jackson served as Managing Director of FE Clean Energy Group, a global private equity management firm that invests in energy companies and projects in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. Dr. Jackson is a past Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Director of the Company since 2005. Other directorships: Atlas Energy, Inc. (2009-2011); Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (2005-2009;
2011-present). Age: 65.

Based primarily upon Dr. Jackson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the President and Chief Executive Officer of a consulting firm which specializes in corporate development, diversification and government relations strategies for energy companies; strong strategic planning, marketing, banking, regulatory, financial and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Dr. Jackson should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.68

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Dr. Jackson serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Global, Inc., a consulting firm which specializes in corporate development, diversification and government relations strategies for energy companies. From 2002 to 2004, Dr. Jackson served as Managing Director of FE Clean Energy Group, a global private equity management firm that invests in energy companies and projects in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. Dr. Jackson is a past Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Dr. Jackson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the President and Chief Executive Officer of a consulting firm which specializes in corporate development, diversification and government relations strategies for energy companies; strong strategic planning, marketing, banking, regulatory, financial, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Dr. Jackson should serve as a director of Ameren.

JAMES C. JOHNSON

RETIRED GENERAL COUNSEL, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Human Resources Committee

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

Outside directorships:

•        Hanesbrands Inc., 2006–Present

•        Energizer Holdings, Inc., 2013–Present

JAMES C. JOHNSONDirector since:2005

 

General Counsel of Loop Capital Markets LLCAge:, a financial services firm, since November 2010. From 1998 until 2009, Mr. Johnson served in a number of responsible positions at The Boeing Company, an aerospace and defense firm, including serving as Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Assistant General Counsel from December 2003 until November 2007 and, as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Commercial Airplanes from November 2007 to his retirement in March 2009. Director of the Company since 2005. Other directorships: Hanesbrands Inc. (2006-present). Age: 59.

Based primarily upon Mr. Johnson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the General Counsel of a financial services firm; the former Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Assistant General Counsel of an aerospace and defense firm; strong legal, compliance, risk management, board-management relations, corporate governance and compensation skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Johnson should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.62

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Johnson served as General Counsel of Loop Capital Markets LLC, a financial services firm, from November 2010 to December 2013. From 1998 until 2009, Mr. Johnson served in a number of responsible positions at The Boeing Company, an aerospace and defense firm, including serving as Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Assistant General Counsel from 2003 until 2007 and as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Commercial Airplanes, from 2007 until his retirement in March 2009.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Johnson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former General Counsel of a financial services firm and as the former Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Assistant General Counsel of an aerospace and defense firm; his strong legal, compliance, risk management, board-management relations, corporate governance, finance, regulatory and compensation skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Johnson should serve as a director of Ameren.

19


STEVEN H. LIPSTEIN

PRESIDENTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF BJC HEALTHCARE

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Human Resources Committee

•        Finance Committee

Outside directorships:

•        BJC HealthCare (nonprofit organization), 1999–Present

STEVEN H. LIPSTEINDirector since:2010

 

President and Chief Executive Officer of BJC HealthCare,Age: one of the largest non-profit health care organizations in the U.S. Mr. Lipstein joined BJC HealthCare in 1999. From 1982 to 1999, Mr. Lipstein held various executive positions within The University of Chicago Hospitals and Health System and The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System. Mr. Lipstein served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 2009 to 2011. Director of the Company since 2010. Age: 55.

Based primarily upon Mr. Lipstein’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the President and Chief Executive Officer of a health care organization; strong strategic planning, banking, regulatory, financial and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Lipstein should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.58

LOGO

PATRICK T. STOKES

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Lipstein joined BJC HealthCare, one of the largest non-profit health care organizations in the U.S., in 1999. From 1982 to 1999, Mr. Lipstein held various executive positions within The University of Chicago Hospitals and Health System and The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System. Mr. Lipstein served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 2009 to 2011.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Lipstein’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the President and Chief Executive Officer of a health care organization; strong strategic planning, banking, regulatory, financial, customer relations, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Lipstein should serve as a director of Ameren.

STEPHEN R. WILSON

RETIRED CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.

 

Former Chairman of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., which was the holding company parent of Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, a producer and distributor of beer, which was acquired by InBev N.V./S.A. in November 2008. Mr. Stokes served as Chairman of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. from December 2006 to November 2008 and was affiliated with
Anheuser-Busch since 1969. He served as Senior Executive Vice President of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. from 2000 to 2002 and as President and Chief Executive Officer from 2002 until December 2006. Director of the Company since 2004. Director of the following former Ameren subsidiary: CILCORP Inc. (a former Ameren subsidiary that merged with the Company in 2010) (“CILCORP”) (2008-2010). Other directorships: Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (2000-2008); U.S. Bancorp (1992-present); Wilton Brands, Inc. (2010-present (non-reporting company)). Age: 69.

Based primarily upon Mr. Stokes’ extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of a beverage producer and distributor; strong strategic planning, banking, regulatory, financial, risk management, compensation, corporate governance and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Stokes should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.

LOGO

THOMAS R. VOSS

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.Mr. Voss began his career with Ameren Missouri in 1969. He was elected Senior Vice President of Ameren Missouri, CIPS and Ameren Services in 1999, of AEG in 2001, of CILCORP and CILCO in 2003 and of IP in September 2004. He was elected Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company effective January 1, 2005 and Executive Vice President of Ameren Missouri, CIPS, CILCORP, CILCO and IP effective in May 2006. In January 2007, Mr. Voss was elected Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri. In April 2007, in connection with certain organizational changes to the Company’s structure and reporting relationships, Mr. Voss relinquished his officer positions at CIPS, Ameren Services, CILCO and IP and in May 2007, he relinquished his officer positions at CILCORP and AEG. Effective May 1, 2009, Mr. Voss assumed the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and relinquished his positions of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri. In 2010, the Board of Directors elected Mr. Voss to the position of Chairman of the Board. Director of the Company since 2009. Director of the following former Ameren subsidiaries: CILCO (2003-2008); IP (2004-2008); CILCORP (2003-2008; 2009-2010). Director of the following Ameren subsidiaries: Ameren Illinois (formerly CIPS) (2001-2008); Ameren Missouri (2001-2009); AEG (2003-2008). Age: 64.

Based primarily upon Mr. Voss’ extensive executive management and leadership experience as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Ameren, and the former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri; 43 years of experience with the Company (or subsidiaries); strong strategic planning, financial, regulatory, nuclear operations and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Voss should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Audit and Risk Committee

•        Finance Committee

Outside directorships:

•        CF Industries Holdings, Inc., 2005–2014

•        Terra Nitrogen GP, Inc., 2010–2014

•        GATX Corporation, 2014–Present

STEPHEN R. WILSONDirector since:2009

 

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of CF Industries Holdings, Inc.,Age: a manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer products. Mr. Wilson served as CF Industries Holdings’ Chief Financial Officer from 1991 until 2003, when he was named President and Chief Executive Officer. He was elected Chairman of CF Industries Holdings, Inc. in 2005. Director of the Company since 2009. Other directorships: CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (2005-present). Age: 63.

Based primarily upon Mr. Wilson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer of an industrial manufacturing company; strong strategic planning, financial, risk management and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Wilson should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.66

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Wilson is the retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of CF Industries Holdings, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer products. He served in those capacities from 2005 until his retirement in 2014, as President and Chief Executive Officer of CF Industries, Inc. (a predecessor company) from 2003 to 2005 and as Chief Financial Officer from 1991 to 2003.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Wilson’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer of an industrial manufacturing company; strong strategic planning, financial, operations, risk management, regulatory, compensation and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Wilson should serve as a director of Ameren.

20


JACK D. WOODARD

RETIRED EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENTAND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICEROF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC.

LOGO 

Standing Board committees:

•        Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

•        Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

JACK D. WOODARDOutside directorships:None

 

Retired Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of The Southern Company, which is a utility holding company. Mr. Woodard joined The Southern Company system in 1971 and in 1993, Mr. Woodard was elected Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. He retired in 2004. Mr. Woodard served as an independent advisor to Ameren’s Board of Directors and to the Board’s Nuclear Oversight Committee (predecessor to the Board’s Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee) from 2005 until his election as a director. Director of the Company since 2006. Age: 68.since:2006

Based primarily upon Mr. Woodard’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of a utilities company; experience as an advisor to Ameren’s Board and the Nuclear Oversight Committee prior to his election to Ameren’s Board and as a consultant to certain electric utilities and power generation equipment and services supplier companies; strong regulatory, nuclear operations and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, as well as those demonstrated attributes discussed in the first paragraph under “INFORMATION CONCERNING NOMINEESTOTHE BOARDOF DIRECTORS” above, the Board concluded that Mr. Woodard should serve as a director of Ameren at the time that this proxy statement is filed with the SEC.Age:71

EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE:

Mr. Woodard served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of The Southern Company, which is a utility holding company. Mr. Woodard joined The Southern Company system in 1971 and in 1993, Mr. Woodard was elected Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. He retired in 2004. Mr. Woodard served as an independent adviser to Ameren’s Board of Directors and to the Board’s Nuclear Oversight Committee (predecessor to the Board’s Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee) from 2005 until his election as a director.

SKILLSAND QUALIFICATIONS:

Based primarily upon Mr. Woodard’s extensive executive management and leadership experience as the former Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of a utility company; experience as an adviser to Ameren’s Board and the Nuclear Oversight Committee prior to his election to Ameren’s Board and as a consultant to certain electric utilities and power generation equipment and services supplier companies; strong regulatory, nuclear operations, financial, regulatory and administrative skills and experience; and tenure and contributions as a current Board and Board committee member, the Board concluded that Mr. Woodard should serve as a director of Ameren.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF THESE DIRECTOR NOMINEES.

21


BOARD STRUCTURE

Board and Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Attendance

During 2011,2014, the Board of Directors met 7six times. All then incumbent directors attended or participated in 75 percent or more of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and the Board Committees of which they were members.

The Company has adopted a policy under which Board members are expected to attend each shareholders’ meeting. At the 20112014 annual meeting of shareholders, all of the 10then incumbent directors (and nominated for election in 2011 and all of the then incumbent directors (except for Charles W. Mueller and Harvey Saligman, both of whom retired on the date of the 2011 annual meeting of shareholders)2014) were in attendance.

Director Qualification Standards

The Board of Directors, in accordance with NYSE listing standards, has adopted a formal set of Corporate Governance Guidelines which include certain director qualification standards.

DirectorsA director who attainattains age 72 prior to the date of an annual meeting areis required to submit a letter to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee offering his or her resignation from the Board, effective with the end of the director’s elected term, for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will review the appropriateness of continued service on the Board of Directors by that director and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors and, if applicable, repeat such review annually thereafter.

In addition, the Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a director who undergoes a significant change in professional responsibilities, occupation or business associationwith respect to principal employment is required to notify the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and offer his or her resignation from the Board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will then evaluate the facts and circumstances and make a recommendation to the Board whether to accept the offered resignation or request that the director continue to serve on the Board.

Board Leadership Structure

The Company’s By-Laws and Corporate Governance Guidelines delegate to the Board of Directors the right to exercise its discretion to either separate or combine the offices of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The Board annually considers the appropriate leadership structure for the Company and has concluded that the Company and its shareholders are best served by the Board retaining discretion to determine whether the same individual should serve as both Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. This decision is based upon the Board’s determination of what is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, in light of then-current and anticipated future circumstances and taking into consideration succession planning, skills and experience of the individual(s) filling those positions, and other relevant factors. The Board has determined that the Board leadership structure that is most appropriate at this time, given the specific characteristics and circumstances of the Company and the skills and experience of Mr. Voss,Baxter, is a leadership structure that combines the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer with Mr. VossBaxter filling those roles for the following primary reasons:

 

such a Board leadership structure with combined Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles has previously served the Company and its shareholders well, and the Board expects that the structure serveswill continue to serve them well again, based primarily on Mr. Voss’Baxter’s background, skills and experience, as detailed in his biography above;

22


pursuant to the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, when the Chairman of the Board is the Chief Executive Officer or an employee of the Company, the Company has a designated independent Lead Director (as defined and discussed below), selected by the Company’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and ratified by vote of the non-managementindependent directors, with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties and responsibilities as set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, which provides the Company with a strong counterbalancing governance and leadership structure that is designed so that independent directors exercise oversight of the Company’s management and key issues related to strategy and risk and thus, makes separating the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer positions at this time unnecessary;

 

only independent directors serve on all standing Board committees, including the Audit and Risk Committee, the Human Resources Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board and all standing Board committees are currently chaired by independent directors;Board;

 

non-managementindependent directors regularly hold executive sessions of the Board, which are led by the Lead Director, outside the presence of the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer or any other Company employee and meet in private session with the Chief Executive Officer at every regularly scheduled Board meeting;

 

the Board’s independent directors also hold executive sessions at least once each year, which are led by the Lead Director;

the Company has established a Policy Regarding Communications to the Board of Directors for all shareholders and other interested parties;

 

the combined chairmanChairman and chief executive officerChief Executive Officer position continues to be the principal board leadership structure among public companies in corporate America and amongthe United States, including the Company’s peer companies; and

 

there is no empirical evidence that separating the roles of chairmanChairman and chief executive officerChief Executive Officer improves return for shareholders.

The Board recognizes that, depending on the specific characteristics and circumstances of the Company, other leadership structures might also be appropriate. A Board leadership structure that separates the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer has previously served the Company and its shareholders well and may serve them well in the future. The Company is committed to reviewing this determination on an annual basis.

According to the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, when the Chairman of the Board is the Chief Executive Officer or an employee of the Company, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors shallwill select an independent director to preside or lead at eachthe executive sessionsessions (which selection shallwill be ratified by vote of the non-managementindependent directors of the Board of Directors) (the “Lead Director”). The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the Lead Director will serve a one-year term and that it is expected that the Lead Director will serve at least three and no more than five consecutive terms in order to facilitate the rotation of the Lead Director position while maintaining experienced leadership. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth the authority, duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors’ Lead Director as follows: convene and chair meetings of the non-management directors in executive session at each Board meeting; convene and chair meetings of the independent directors in executive session no less than once each year;

preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the non-managementindependent directors;

convene and chair meetings of the independent directors and independent directors; in executive session at each Board meeting;

23


solicit the non-management directors for advice on agenda items for meetings of the Board;

serve as a liaison between the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the non-managementindependent directors;

call meetings of the independent directors;

collaborate with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in developing the agenda for meetings of the Board and approve such agendas;

consult with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on and approve information that is sent to the Board;

collaborate with the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer and the ChairpersonsChairs of the standing Board committees in developing and managing the schedule of meetings of the Board and approve such schedules;schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items; and

if requested by major shareholders, ensure that he or she is available for consultation and direct communication.

In performing the duties described above, the Lead Director is expected to consult with the Chairs of the appropriate Board committees and solicit their participation. The Lead Director also performs such other duties as may be assigned to the Lead Director by the Company’s By-Laws or the Board of Directors.

Risk Oversight Process

Given the importance of monitoring risks, the Board has determined to utilize a committee specifically focused on oversight of the Company’s risk management. The Board has charged its Audit and Risk Committee with oversight responsibility of the Company’s overall business risk management process, which includes the identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of risks on a Company-wide basis. The Audit and Risk Committee meets on a regular basis to review the business risk management processes, at which time applicable members of senior management provide reports to the Audit and Risk Committee. While the Audit and Risk Committee retains this responsibility, it coordinates this oversight with other committees of the Board having primary oversight responsibility for specific risks (see “— Board Committees — Standing Board Committee and Function” below). Each of the Board’s standing committees, in turn, receives regular reports from members of senior management concerning its assessment of Company risks within the purview of such committee. Each such committee also has the authority to engage independent advisers. The risks that are not specifically assigned to a Board committee are considered by the Audit and Risk Committee through its oversight of the Company’s business risk management process. The Audit and Risk Committee then discusses with members of senior management methods to mitigate such risks.

Notwithstanding the Board’s oversight delegation to the Audit and Risk Committee, the entire Board is actively involved in risk oversight. The Audit and Risk Committee annually reviews for the Board which committees maintain oversight responsibilities described above and the overall effectiveness of the business risk management process. In addition, at each of its meetings, the Board receives a report from the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee, as well as from the Chair of each of the Board’s other standing committees identified below, each of which is currently chaired by an independent director. The Board then discusses and deliberates on the Company’s risk management practices. Through the process outlined above, the Board believes that the leadership structure of the Board supports effective oversight of the Company’s risk management.

Considerations

24


Consideration of Risks Associated with Compensation

In evaluating the material elements of compensation available to executives and other Company employees, the Human Resources Committee takes into consideration whether the Company’s compensation policies and practices may incentivize behaviors that might lead to excessive risk behavior. In 2010, thetaking. The Human Resources Committee, with the assistance of its independent compensation consultant, Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”), and Company management, reviewedreviews the Company’s compensation policies and practices each year for certain design features that were identified by Meridian as havinghave the potential to encourage excessive risk taking, including such features as high variable pay components and short performance periods.

Meridian additionally provided the Human Resources Committee in 2010 with a plan-by-plan risk analysis for each of the Company’s short-term, long-term and severance plans (executive and broad-based) to determine if any practices might encourage excessive risk taking on the part of executives and other Company employees. During 2011, the Human Resources Committee updated its review of the Company’s compensation policies, practices and plans, including the incentives that they create and the factors that may reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking, to determine whether those compensation policies, practices and plans present a material risk to the Company.

taking. The Human Resources Committee identified or implemented several Company compensationprogram contains multiple design features that effectively managedmanage or mitigatedmitigate these potential risks, including:

 

an appropriate balance of fixed and variable pay opportunities;

 

caps on incentive plan payouts;

 

the use of multiple performance measures in the Company’s compensation program;

 

measurement of performance measured at the corporate level;

 

a mix between short-term and long-term incentives, with an emphasis for executives on rewarding long-term performance;

 

Committee discretion regarding individual executive awards;

 

oversight by non-participants in the plans;

 

thea code of conduct, internal controls and other measures implemented by the Company;

 

the existence of anti-hedging and anti-pledging policies for executives;

 

annual incentive plan and long-term incentive plan performance grants are subject tothe existence of a clawback provision in the 2014 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2014 Plan”) and 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2006 Plan”) that requires a “clawback” of suchapplies to annual and long-term incentive compensationplan grants in certain circumstances; and

 

the implementation of stock ownership and holding requirements thatapplicable to members of the Company’s management team (including the Named Executive Officers) who are subject to reporting under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (collectively the “Section 16 Officers”) and stock ownership guidelines applicable to all other members of the Ameren Leadership Team, including the Executives.Company’s management team.

In its plan-by-plan evaluation, the Human Resources Committee noted several of the practices of the Company in those plans that mitigate risk, including the balance of fixed and variable pay, the use of multiple metrics, the use of different performance measures for the annual and long-term incentive compensation plans, Committee discretion in payment of incentives in executive plans and payment caps.

Based upon the above considerations, the Human Resources Committee determined that the Company’s compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Board CommitteesBOARD COMMITTEES

The Board of Directors has a standing Audit and Risk Committee, Human Resources Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee and Finance Committee, the chairs and members of which are recommended by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, appointed annually by the Board and are identified below. The Audit and Risk Committee, Human Resources Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are comprised entirely of non-management directors, each of whom the Board of Directors has determined to be “independent” as defined by the relevant provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Policy Regarding Nominations of Directors (the “DirectorDirector Nomination Policy”).Policy. In addition, the Nuclear

25


Oversight and Environmental Committee and the Finance Committee are currently comprised entirely of non-management directors, each of whom the Board has also determined to be “independent” under the Director Nomination Policy. A more complete description of the duties of each standing Board committee is contained in each standing Board committee’s charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.

 

Standing Board Committee and Function Chair and Members Meetings
in 20112014

Audit and Risk Committee

 

•    Appoints and oversees the independent registered public accountants; pre-approves all audit, audit-related services and non-audit engagements with independent registered public accountants; approvesaccountants.

•    Approves the annual internal audit plan, annual staffing plan and financial budget of the internal auditors; reviews with management the design and effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting; reviewsreporting.

•    Reviews with management and independent registered public accountants the scope and results of audits and financial statements, disclosures and earnings press releases; reviewsreleases.

•    Reviews the appointment, replacement, reassignment or dismissal of the leader of internal audit manager or approves the retention of, and engagement terms for, any third-party provider of internal audit services; reviews the internal audit function; reviewsfunction.

•    Reviews with management the business risk management processes, which include the identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of risks on a Company-wide basis; coordinatesbasis.

•    Coordinates its oversight of business risk management with other Board committees having primary oversight responsibilities for specific risks; overseesrisks.

•    Oversees an annual audit of the Company’s political contributions; performs other actions as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the NYSE listing standards and its Charter; establishesCharter.

•    Establishes a system by which employees may communicate directly with members of the Committee about accounting, internal controls and financial reporting deficiency; and performsdeficiency.

•    Performs its committee functions for all Ameren subsidiaries which are registered companies pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Each of Walter J. Galvin and Stephen R. Wilson qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined by the SEC. A more complete description of the duties of the Committee is contained in the Audit and Risk Committee’s Charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.

 Walter J. Galvin,
Chair

Chairman

 

Stephen F. Brauer

Catherine S. Brune


Ellen M. Fitzsimmons
Stephen R. Wilson

 9

26


Standing Board Committee and Function Chair and Members Meetings
in 20112014

Human Resources Committee

 

•    Reviews and approves objectives relevant to the compensation of the Chief Executive OfficersOfficer of the Company and Presidents of its subsidiaries as well as other executive officers; administersofficers.

•    Administers and approves awards under the incentive compensation plan; administersplan.

•    Administers and approves incentive compensation plans, executive employment agreements, if any, severance agreements and change in control agreements and determines policy with respect to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “IRC”); reviewsagreements.

•    Reviews with management, and prepares an annual report regarding, the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K and proxy statement; actsstatement.

•    Acts on important policy matters affecting personnel; recommends to the Board amendments to those pension plans sponsored by the Company or one or more of its subsidiaries, except as otherwise delegated; performsdelegated.

•    Performs other actions as required by the NYSE listing standards and its Charter;Charter, including the retention of outside compensation consultants and performsother outside advisors.

•    Performs its committee functions for all Ameren subsidiaries which are registered companies pursuant to the Exchange Act. A more complete description of

•    Reviews the duties of the Committee is contained in the Human Resources Committee’s Charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.Company’s compensation policies and practices to determine whether they encourage excessive risk taking.

 Patrick T. Stokes,
Chair

Chairman

 

Richard J . Harshman
James C. Johnson


Steven H. Lipstein

Jack D. Woodard

 58

27


Standing Board Committee and FunctionChair and MembersMeetings
in 2014

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

 

•    Adopts policies and procedures for identifying and evaluating director nominees; identifies and evaluates individuals qualified to become Board members and director candidates, including individuals recommended by shareholders; reviewsshareholders.

•    Reviews the Board’s policy for director compensation and benefits; establishesbenefits.

•    Establishes a process by which shareholders and other interested persons will be able to communicate with members of the Board; developsBoard.

•    Develops and recommends to the Board corporate governance guidelines; oversees the Company’s code of business conduct (referred to as its Corporate Compliance Policy)Principles of Business Conduct), Code of Ethics for Principal Executive and Senior Financial Officers and the Policy and Procedures With Respect to Related Person Transactions (see “— CORPORATE GOVERNANCECORPORATE GOVERNANCE” below); assures.

•    Assures that the Company addresses relevant public affairs issues from a perspective that emphasizes the interests of its key constituents (including, as appropriate, shareholders, employees, communities and customers); reviews and recommends to the Board shareholder proposals for inclusion in proxy materials that relate to public affairs and/or corporate social responsibility issues; reviewsissues.

•    Reviews semi-annually with management the performance for the immediately preceding six months regarding constituent relationships (including, as appropriate, relationshiprelationships with shareholders, employees, communities and customers); reviews requests for certain charitable contributions in accordance with the Company’s Charitable Contribution Policy; performs.

•    Performs other actions as required by the NYSE listing standards and its Charter; and performsCharter.

•    Performs its committee functions for all Ameren subsidiaries which are registered companies pursuant to the Exchange Act. A more complete description of the duties of the Committee is contained in the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s Charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.

 James C. Johnson,

Chairman

Stephen F. Brauer

Ellen M. Fitzsimmons,
Chair

Gayle P.W.P. W. Jackson

Patrick T. Stokes

Jack D. Woodard

 6

Standing Committee and Function5  Chair and MembersMeetings
in 2011

Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee

 

•    Provides Board-level oversight of the Company’s nuclear power facility as well as long-term plans and strategies of the Company’s nuclear power program; and assistsprogram.

•    Assists the Board in providing oversight of the Company’s policies, practices and performance relating to environmental affairs. A more complete description of the duties of the Committee is contained in the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee’s Charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.

 Jack D. Woodard,
Chair

Chairman

 

Catherine S. Brune

J. Edward Coleman
Richard J. Harshman

Gayle P.W.P. W. Jackson

Stephen R. WilsonJames C. Johnson

 7

28


Standing Board Committee and FunctionChair and MembersMeetings
in 2014

Finance Committee

 

•    Oversees overall financial policies and objectives of the Company and its subsidiaries, including capital project review and approval of financing plans and transactions, investment policies and rating agency objectives; reviewsobjectives.

•    Reviews and makes recommendations regarding the Company’s dividend considerations; reviewspolicy.

•    Reviews and recommends to the Board the capital budget of the Company and its subsidiaries; reviews, approves and monitors all capital projects with estimated capital expenditures of between $25 million and $50 million; recommends to the Board and monitors all capital projects with estimated capital costs in excess of $50 million; reviews and evaluates potential mergers, acquisitions, participations in joint ventures, divestitures and other similar transactions; approves the investment strategy and asset allocation guidelines for those pension plans sponsored by the Company or one or more of its wholly owned subsidiaries (“Company Pension Plans”); approves actions or delegates responsibilities for the investment strategy and asset allocation guidelines for the Company Pension Plans; monitors actuarial assumptions and reviews the investment performance, funded status and projected contributions for the Company Pension Plans; reviews the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ capital markets and other financing plans; reviewsmillion.

•    Reviews and recommends to the Board the Company’s equity financings; approves the parameters for the material terms of the Company’s long-term debt financings and its subsidiaries’ long-term debt and equity issuances; and overseesfinancing plans.

•    Oversees the Company’s commodity risk assessment process, system of controls and the measures taken by management to address failures in compliance with established risk management policies and procedures. A more complete description of the duties of the Committee is contained in the Finance Committee’s Charter available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors.

 Stephen R. Wilson,
Chair

Chairman

 

Walter J. Galvin

Steven H. Lipstein

Patrick T. Stokes

 65

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance Guidelines and Policies, Committee Charters and Codes of Conduct

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, a Director Nomination Policy, a Policy Regarding Communications to the Board of Directors, a Policy and Procedures With Respect to Related Person Transactions and written charters for its Audit and Risk Committee, Human Resources Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee and Finance Committee. The Board of Directors also has adopted the Company’s code of business conduct (referred to as its Corporate Compliance Policy)Ameren’s Principles of Business Conduct) applicable to all of the Company’s directors, officers and employees, and the Company’s Code of Ethics for Principal Executive and Senior Financial Officers. These documents and other items relating to the governance of

the Company can be found on our website at http://www.ameren.com.www.ameren.com/investors. These documents are also available in print free of charge to any shareholder who requests them from the Office of the Company’s Secretary.

Human ResourcesStanding Board Committee Governance Practices

The Human Resources Committee focusesstanding Board committees focus on good governance practices in its operation. In 2011, this included:practices. This includes:

considering compensation for the Executives (as defined below) in the context of all of the components of total compensation;

 

requiring several meetings to discuss important decisions;

 

reviewing tally sheets for the Executives including all components of total compensation packages (tally sheets help the Committee understand the cumulative effect of the compensation decisions it has made over time, to determine whether the result has been excessive or unreasonable; the Committee concluded upon review that it was neither);

receiving meeting materials several days in advance of meetings; and

 

conducting executive sessions with Committee members only; andonly.

Human Resources Committee Governance Practices

obtainingThe Human Resources Committee obtains professional advice from an independent compensation consultant engaged directly by and who reports to the Committee. It is the

Delegation of Authority

The

29


Human Resources Committee has delegated authorityCommittee’s view that its compensation consultant should be able to the Company’s Administrative Committee, comprisedrender candid and expert advice independent of designated members of management, to approve changes, within specified parameters, to certain of the Company’s retirement plans.

Role of Executive Officers

The role of executive officers in compensation decisions for 2011 is described below under “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Role of Executive Officers.” Mr. Voss, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, was not involved in determining his own compensation. See “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Timing of Compensation Decisions and Awards” below.

Role of Compensation Consultant

management’s influence. In February 2011,2014, the Human Resources Committee approved the continued engagement of Meridian as its independent compensation consulting firm.

For 2011, In its decision to retain Meridian providedas its independent compensation consultant, the following servicesCommittee gave careful consideration to a broad range of attributes necessary to assist the Committee:needs of the Committee in setting compensation, including:

 

competitive market pay and market trend analyses, including comparisons of short-term incentive payouts and financial performance to utility peers;a track record in providing independent, objective advice;

 

preparation of tally sheets and review of the same with the Committee;broad organizational knowledge;

 

reviewindustry reputation and advice on the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section included in the Company’s proxy statement;experience;

 

advice in connection with the Committee’s risk analysisin-depth knowledge of the Company’s compensation policiescompetitive pay levels and practices;

advice regarding retention agreements for Ameren Missouri’s nuclear officers;

advice with respect to legal, regulatory and/or accounting considerations impacting Ameren’s compensation and benefit programs; and

 

other requests relating to executive compensation issues.responsiveness and working relationship.

Meridian representatives attended allseven of the Human Resources Committee meetings during 2011.2014. At the Human Resources Committee’s request, the consultant met separately with the Committee members outside the presence of management at each meeting, and spoke separately with the Committee Chair and other Committee members between meetings, as necessary or desired.

During 2014, the Committee requested of Meridian the following items:

competitive market pay and market trend analyses, which assist the Committee in targeting executive compensation at the desired level versus market;

a review of the competitiveness of Ameren’s benefits programs that apply to executives;

comparisons of short-term incentive payouts and financial performance to utility peers, which the Committee uses to evaluate prior-year short-term incentive goals and set future short-term incentive goals;

preparation of tally sheets, which the Committee uses to evaluate the cumulative impact of prior compensation decisions;

review and advice on the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section included in the Company’s proxy statement to ensure full and clear disclosure;

advice in connection with the Committee’s risk analysis of the Company’s compensation policies and practices, in furtherance of the Committee’s responsibilities pursuant to its charter;

advice with respect to legal, regulatory and/or accounting considerations impacting Ameren’s compensation and benefit programs, to ensure the Committee is aware of external views regarding the programs;

advice in connection with preparation of the 2014 Plan, which was approved by shareholders at the 2014 Annual Meeting; and

other requests relating to executive compensation issues.

Other than services provided to the Human Resources Committee as set forth above and for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as described below, Meridian did not perform any other services for the Company or any of its subsidiaries in 2011.

In 2011, Meridian also was retained by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as its outside consulting firm with respect to director compensation matters. See “— DIRECTOR COMPENSATION — Role of Director Compensation Consultant” below for a description of the services Meridian provided to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in 2011.2014.

Pursuant to its letter agreement with the Committee, if the Company or management of the Company proposes that Meridian perform services for the Company or management of

30


the Company other than in Meridian’s retained role as consultant to the Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, any such proposal is required to be submitted to the Committee for approval before such services begin.

In February 2014, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also approved the continued engagement of Meridian as its independent consulting firm with respect to director compensation matters. See “— DIRECTOR COMPENSATION — Role of Director Compensation Consultant” below for a description of the services Meridian provided to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in 2014.

In December 2012, each of the Human Resources Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee established procedures for the purpose of determining whether the work of any compensation consultant raised any conflict of interest. Pursuant to such procedures, in December 2014 each such committee considered various factors, including the six factors mandated by SEC rules, and determined that with respect to executive and director compensation-related matters, no conflict of interest was raised by the work of Meridian.

Delegation of Authority

The Human Resources Committee has delegated authority to the Company’s Administrative Committee, comprised of designated members of management, to approve changes, within specified parameters, to certain of the Company’s retirement plans. It has also delegated authority to management to make pro rata equity grants in the first year of PSUP eligibility to executives below a specified level who are newly promoted into a PSUP eligible role or hired into a PSUP eligible role from an external source during the year.

Role of Executive Officers

The role of executive officers in compensation decisions for 2014 is described below under “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS — Role of Executive Officers. Neither Mr. Voss, while he was Chief Executive Officer of the Company, nor Mr. Baxter, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, was involved in determining his own compensation. See “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Timing of Compensation Decisions and Awards” below.

Human Resources Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The current members of the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors, Messrs. Harshman, Johnson, Lipstein, Stokes and Woodard,Stokes, were not at any time during 20112014 or at any other time an officer or employee of the Company, and no member had any relationship with the Company requiring disclosure under applicable SEC rules.

No executive officer of the Company has served on the board of directors or compensation committee of any other entity that has or has had one or more executive officers who served as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors or the Human Resources Committee during 2011.2014.

Consideration of Director Nominees

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director nominations from shareholders in accordance with the Company’s Director Nomination Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A.can be found on the Company’s website. Briefly, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider as a candidate any director of the

31


Company who has indicated to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee that he or she is willing to stand for re-election as well as any other person who is recommended by any shareholders of the Company who provide the required information and certifications within the time requirements, as set forth in the Director Nomination Policy. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may also undertake its own search process for candidates and may retain the services of professional search firms or other third parties to assist in identifying and evaluating potential nominees. In 2011,2014, the Company made payments in the approximate amount of $92,500$98,500 to Robert Gariano Associates, LLC, which was engaged by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, to assist in identifying and evaluating potential director nominees.

In considering a potential nominee for the Board, shareholders should note that in selecting candidates, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee endeavors to

find individuals of high integrity who have a solid record of accomplishment in their chosen fields and who display the independence to effectively represent the best interests of all shareholders. Candidates are selected for their ability to exercise good judgment, and to provide practical insights and diverse perspectives.perspectives and to contribute to the regular refreshment of skill sets represented on the Board. Candidates also will be assessed in the context of the then-current composition of the Board, the average tenure of the Board, the operating requirements of the Company and the long-term interests of all shareholders. In conducting this assessment, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will, in connection with its assessment and recommendation of candidates for director, consider diversity (including, but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, age, experience and skills), director tenure, board refreshment and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the then-current and anticipated future needs of the Board and the Company, and to maintain a balance of perspectives, qualifications, qualities and skills on the Board. Although the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may seek candidates that have different qualities and experiences at different times in order to maximize the aggregate experience, qualities and strengths of the Board members, nominees for each election or appointment of directors will be evaluated using a substantially similar process and under no circumstances will the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee evaluate nominees recommended by a shareholder of the Company pursuant to a process substantially different than that used for other nominees for the same election or appointment of directors.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers the following qualifications at a minimum in recommending to the Board potential new Board members, or the continued service of existing members:

 

the highest professional and personal ethics;

 

broad experience in business, government, education or technology;

 

ability to provide insights and practical wisdom based on their experience and expertise;

 

commitment to enhancing shareholder value;

 

sufficient time to effectively carry out their duties; their service on other boards of public companies should be limited to a reasonable number;

 

compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;

 

ability to develop a good working relationship with other Board members and contribute to the Board’s working relationship with senior management of the Company; and

 

32


independence; a substantial majority of the Board shall consist of independent directors, as defined by the Company’s Director Nomination Policy. See “—Director Independence” below.

Other than the foregoing, there are no stated minimum criteria for director nominees, although the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may also consider such other factors as it may deem are in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does, however, believe it appropriate for at least one member of the Board to meet the criteria for an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC rules. In addition, because the Company is committed to maintaining its tradition of inclusion and diversity within the Board, each assessment and selection of director candidates will be made by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in compliance with the Company’s policy of non-discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, veteran status, pregnancy, marital status, sexual orientation or any other reason prohibited by law. The Nominating and

Corporate Governance Committee considers and assesses the implementation and effectiveness of its diversity policy in connection with Board nominations annually to assure that the Board contains an effective mix of individuals to best advance the Company’s long-term business interests.

Pursuant to the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, directors are expected to advise the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee prior to accepting any other company directorship or any assignment to the audit committee or compensation committee of the board of directors of any other company of which such director is a member. Directors accepting a directorship (or equivalent position) with a not-for-profit organization are also expected to advise the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee before or promptly after accepting such a position. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines also provide that if a director has a significant change in professional responsibilities, occupation or business association,with respect to principal employment, he or she is required to notify the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and offer his or her resignation from the Board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate the facts and circumstances and make a recommendation to the Board whether to accept the resignation or request the director to continue to serve on the Board.

The Company’s Director Nomination Policy requires all directors standing for re-election to agree that in the event any director fails to obtain the required majority vote at an annual meeting of shareholders, such director will tender his or her resignation as a director for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and recommendation to the Company’s Board.

Executive Sessions of Non-management Directors and of Independent Directors

The non-managementindependent directors meet privately in executive sessions to consider such matters as they deem appropriate, without management being present, as a routinely scheduled agenda item for every Board meeting. An executive session including only independent directors as defined by the NYSE listing standards is also held no less than once each year. During 2011,2014, all non-management directors were independent except Charles W. Mueller (a former director who retired from the Board of Directors on April 21, 2011). See(see “— Director Independence” below. Patrick T. Stokes,below). Walter J. Galvin, who currently serves as the Lead Director, presides at the executive sessions of non-management directors and the executive sessions of independent directors.sessions. The Lead Director’s duties also include those detailed under “— Board Leadership Structure” above.

Director Independence

Pursuant to NYSE listing standards, the Company’s Board of Directors has adopted a formal set of categorical independent standards with respect to the determination of director

33


independence. These standards are set forth in the Company’s Director Nomination Policy, as amended, attached to this proxy statement as Appendix A.Policy. The provisions of the Director Nomination Policy regarding director independence meet and in some areas exceed the NYSE listing standards of the NYSE.standards. In accordance with the Director Nomination Policy, in order to be considered independent a director must be determined to have no material relationship with the Company other than as a director. The Director Nomination Policy specifies the criteria by which the independence of our directors will be determined.

Under the Director Nomination Policy, an “independent director” is one who:

 

has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company;

 

is not an employee of the Company and no member of his or her immediate family is an executive officer of the Company;

 

has not been employed by the Company and no member of his or her immediate family has been an executive officer of the Company during the past three years;

has not received and no member of his or her immediate family has received more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from the Company in any capacity other than as a director or as a pension for prior service during the past three years;

 

is not currently a partner or employee of a firm that is the Company’s internal or external auditor; does not have an immediate family member who is a current partner of the Company’s internal or external auditor; does not have an immediate family member who is a current employee of the Company’s internal or external auditor and who personally works on the Company’s audit; and for the past three years has not, and no member of his or her immediate family has been a partner or employee of the Company’s internal or external auditor and personally worked on the Company’s audit within that time;

 

is not and no member of his or her immediate family is currently, and for the past three years has not been, and no member of his or her immediate family has been, part of an interlocking directorate in which an executive officer of the Company serves on the compensation committee of another company that employs the director or an immediate family member of the director;

 

is not an executive officer or an employee, and no member of his or her immediate family is an executive officer, of another company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, the Company for property or services in an amount which, in any single year, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or two percent of such other company’s consolidated revenues during any of the past three years;

 

is free of any relationships with the Company that may impair, or appear to impair his or her ability to make independent judgments; and

 

is not and no member of his or her immediate family is employed as an executive officer of a charitable organization that receives contributions from the Company or a Company charitable trust, in an amount which exceeds the greater of $1 million or two percent of such charitable organization’s total annual receipts.

34


For purposes of determining a “material relationship,” the following standards are utilized:

 

any payments by the Company to a director’s primary business affiliation or the primary business affiliation of an immediate family member of a director for goods or services, or other contractual arrangements, must be made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with non-affiliated persons; and

 

the aggregate amount of such payments must not exceed two percent of the Company’s consolidated gross revenues; provided, however, there may be excluded from this two percent standard payments arising from (a) competitive bids which determined the rates or charges for the services and (b) transactions involving services at rates or charges fixed by law or governmental authority.

For purposes of these independence standards, (i) immediate family members of a director include the director’s spouse, parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, siblings, mother- and father-in-law, sons- and daughters-in-law, and brothers- and sisters-in-law and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares the director’s home and (ii) the term

“primary “primary business affiliation” means an entity of which the director or the director’s immediate family member is a principal/executive officer or in which the director or the director’s immediate family member holds at least a five percent equity interest.

In accordance with the Director Nomination Policy, the Board undertook its annual review of director and director nominee independence. During this review, the Board considered transactions and relationships between each director and director nominee or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Board also considered whether there were any transactions or relationships between directors, nominees or any member of their immediate family (or any entity of which a director, director nominee or an immediate family member is an executive officer, general partner or significant equity holder). As provided in the Director Nomination Policy, the purpose of this review was to determine whether any such relationships or transactions existed that were inconsistent with a determination that the director or nominee is independent.

This review specifically includedIn evaluating the independence of directors, the Board considered all transactions withbetween the Company and entities with which the directors and nominees are associated. Certain directorsDirectors Fitzsimmons, Galvin and Lipstein are employed by or otherwise associatedaffiliated with companies whichthat purchased energy services from subsidiaries ofand/or sold services to the Company or its subsidiaries, which services were either rate-regulated or competitively bid. In particular, the Board reviewed non rate-regulatedDirectors Fitzsimmons, Galvin and non-competitively bid transactions between subsidiaries ofLipstein are affiliated with companies that purchased services from and/or sold services to the Company and Emerson Electric Co. and BJC HealthCare and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates since the aggregate amount involved in such transactions exceeded $120,000. Mr. Galvin is the Vice Chairman of Emerson Electric Co., which, together withor its subsidiaries, (“Emerson”), purchasedwhich services were not rate-regulated energy services fromor competitively bid but which were entered into in the ordinary course of business and made utility pole attachment license payments to Company subsidiaries. Certain Company subsidiaries purchased, on a negotiated basis, engineering system support and consulting services,substantially the same terms as well as electric motors, control valves and associated instrumentation and other materials from Emerson. Thethose prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with non-affiliated persons. In each case, the Board determined that its subsidiaries followed the Company procurement and sales policies and procedures, that the amountstransactions were well undersignificantly below the thresholds under the director independence standards under the NYSE requirements thatand the relationship with Emerson serves the best interests of the CompanyCompany’s own standard for determining “material relationships” and its shareholders and should continue, and that Mr. Galvin did not have a direct or indirect material interest inaffect the transactions and therefore, such transactions do not affect Mr. Galvin’s independence and are not Related Person Transactions (as defined under “— Policy and Procedures With Respect to Related Person Transactions” below). Mr. Lipstein is President and Chief Executive Officer of BJC HealthCare which, together with its affiliates (“BJC HealthCare”), purchased rate-regulated energy services from Company subsidiaries. Certain Company subsidiaries made claims payments, on a negotiated basis, to BJC HealthCare, one of the health care providers under our group health plan. The Board determined that its subsidiaries followed the Company procurement and sales policies and procedures, that the amounts were well under the thresholds under the director independence requirements, that the relationship with BJC HealthCare serves the best interests of the Company and its shareholders and should continue, and that Mr. Lipstein did not have a direct or indirect material interest in the transactions and therefore, such transactions do not affect Mr. Lipstein’s independence and are not Related Person Transactions.directors’ independence.

The Board also reviewed all contributions made by the Company and its subsidiaries to charitable organizations with which the directors or their immediate family members serve as an executive officer. The Board determined that the contributions were consistent with similar contributions, were approved in accordance with the Company’s normal procedures and were under the thresholds of the director independence requirements.

35


All of the referenced transactions discussed above were ordinary course commercial transactions made on an armsarms’ length basis.basis and on terms comparable to those generally available to unaffiliated third parties under the same or similar circumstances. The Board considered each of these transactions and relationships and determined that none of them was material or affected the independence of directors involved under either the general independence standards contained in the NYSE’s listing standards or the categorical standards contained in our Director Nomination Policy.

As a result of this review, the Board, at its meeting in February 2012,2015, affirmatively determined that the following directors are independent under the standards set forth in the Director Nomination Policy: Stephen F. Brauer, Catherine S. Brune, J. Edward Coleman, Ellen M. Fitzsimmons, Walter J. Galvin, Richard J. Harshman, Gayle P.W.P. W. Jackson, James C. Johnson, Steven H. Lipstein, Patrick T. Stokes, Stephen R. Wilson and Jack D. Woodard; and that Thomas R. Voss,Warner L. Baxter, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, is not independent under the Director Nomination Policy. The Board also determined that Patrick T. Stokes, who is currently a director of the Company but who is not standing for reelection and will retire as of the annual meeting, is independent under such standards.

All members of the Audit and Risk Committee, the Human Resources Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee and the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors are independent under the standards set forth in the Director Nomination Policy.

Policy and Procedures Withwith Respect to Related Person Transactions

The Board of Directors has adopted the Ameren Corporation Policy and Procedures With Respect to Related Person Transactions. This written policy provides that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will review and approve Related Person Transactions (as defined below); provided that the Human Resources Committee will review and approve the compensation of each Company employee who is an immediate family member of a Company director or executive officer and whose annual compensation exceeds $120,000. The Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has been delegated authority to act between Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meetings.

The policy defines a “Related Person Transaction” as a transaction (including any financial transaction, arrangement or relationship (or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships)) in which the Company (including any of its subsidiaries) was, is or will be a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000 and in which any Related Person (as defined below) had, has or will have a direct or indirect material interest, other thanthan: (1) competitively bid or regulated public utility services transactions; (2) transactions involving trustee type services; (3) transactions in which the Related Person’s interest arises solely from ownership of Company equity securities and all equity security holders received the same benefit on a pro rata basis; (4) an employment relationship or transaction involving an executive officer and any related compensation solely resulting from that employment relationship or transaction if (i) the compensation arising from the relationship or transaction is or will be reported pursuant to the SEC’s executive and director compensation proxy statement disclosure rules, or (ii) the executive officer is not an immediate family member of another executive officer or director and such compensation would have been reported under the SEC’s executive and director compensation proxy statement disclosure rules as compensation earned for services to the Company if the executive officer was a named executive officer as that term is defined in the SEC’s executive and director compensation proxy statement disclosure rules, and such

36


compensation has been or will be approved, or recommended to our Board of Directors for approval, by the Human Resources Committee of our Board of Directors; or (5) if the compensation of or transaction with a director, if the compensation or transaction is or will be reported pursuant to the SEC’s executive and director compensation proxy statement disclosure rules.

“Related Person” is defined as (1) each director, director nominee and executive officer of the Company, (2) any person who is known by the Company (or any subsidiary of the Company) to be five percent or greater beneficial owners of more than five percent of any class of the Company’s voting securities, (3) immediate family members of the foregoing persons and (4) any entity in which any of the foregoing persons is

a general partner or principal or in a similar position or in which such person and all other related persons toimmediate family members of such person has a 10ten percent or greater beneficial interest.

The Office of the Corporate Secretary of the Company assesses whether a proposed transaction is a Related Person Transaction for purposes of the policy.

The policy recognizes that certain Related Person Transactions aremay, in some circumstances, be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The approval procedures in the policy identify the factors the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider in evaluating whether to approve or ratify Related Person Transactions or material amendments to pre-approved Related Person Transactions. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances available to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, including (if applicable) but not limited to: the benefits to the Company; the actual or apparent conflict of interest of the Related Person in the event of the Related Person Transaction, including, but not limited to, the impact on a director’s independence in the event the Related Person is a director, an immediate family member of a director or an entity in which a director is a general partner, 10 percent or greater shareholder or executive officer;independence; the availability and costs of other sources for comparable products or services; the terms of the transaction; the terms available to or from unrelated third parties or to employees generally; and an analysis of the significance of the transaction to both the Company and the Related Person. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will approve or ratify only those Related Person Transactions (a) that are in compliance with applicable SEC rules and regulations, NYSE listing requirements and the Company’s policies, including but not limited to the Corporate Compliance Policy and (b) that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, as the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee determines in good faith.

The policy provides for the annual pre-approval by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of certain Related Person Transactions that are identified inup to one year prior to the policy, ascommencement of the policy may be supplementedtransaction. The Human Resources Committee will review and amended. approve on an annual basis the compensation of each Company employee who is an immediate family member of a Company director or executive officer and whose total annual compensation exceeds $120,000.

Based on the standards described above and certain determinations made by the Board discussed under “— Director Independence,” we had no Related Person Transactions in 2011, except for the employment relationships described below. In accordance with the policy, the Human Resources Committee, in the case of employment relationships involving compensation exceeding $120,000, approved the following Related Person Transactions for 2011:

employment of Michael G. Mueller, the Vice President, Energy Trading and Fuel Commodities of Ameren Missouri and former President of Ameren Energy Fuels and Services Company and son of Charles W. Mueller, a former director of Ameren; and

employment of Charles R. Mueller, Manager, Strategic Initiatives of Ameren Illinois, son of Charles W. Mueller, a former director of Ameren.

A former Company director had reportable family relationships in 2011. Charles W. Mueller, a former director who retired from the Board of Directors on April 21, 2011, is the father of Michael G. Mueller, Vice President of Ameren Missouri, for which he received total compensation (consisting of all equivalent items included in total compensation in columns (c) through (i), inclusive, of the Summary Compensation Table in this proxy statement) of $642,477 in 2011 (including $164,023, representing the grant date fair value computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance of performance share unit awards under the Company’s 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan). See below for more information regarding performance share unit awards and2014 other compensation. Another son of Mr. Mueller, Charles R. Mueller, is employed by Ameren Illinois as a Manager of Strategic Initiatives, for which he received total compensation (consisting of all equivalent items included in total compensation in columns (c) through (i), inclusive, of the Summary

Compensation Table in this proxy statement) of $342,383 in 2011 (including $30,028, representing the grant date fair value computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance of performance share unit awards under the Company’s 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan).

Other than the employment relationships involving former Director Mueller and his sons, Michael G. Mueller and Charles R. Mueller, described above, no other former or current director wasof Julie V. Catron, a participant to a Related Person Transaction in 2011, and no Related Person Transactions are currently proposed.

Legal and Regulatory Matters

In 2011, BJC HealthCare, in conjunction with other industrial customers as a coalition, acted as an intervenor in Missouri Public Service Commission proceedings relating to an Ameren Missouri request for changes to its electric service delivery rates. Director Lipstein,daughter of the Company’s then Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Voss. Ms. Catron’s employment and 2014 and 2015 compensation were reviewed and approved in accordance with applicable Company policies. Ms. Catron became an employee of BJC HealthCare,Ameren Missouri on January 6, 2014 and for 2014 earned total compensation of approximately $150,706 representing base salary on an annualized basis, participation in the Executive Incentive Plan at a target award opportunity of 20% of base salary and participation in the PSUP at a target award opportunity of 20% of base salary. In April 2014, Ms. Catron received a PSUP grant in an amount equal to 75% of what she would have received had she been employed before January 1, 2014. For

37


2015 Ms. Catron will earn a total compensation of approximately $176,080 representing base salary on an annualized basis, participation in the Executive Incentive Plan at a target award opportunity of 20% of base salary and participation in the PSUP at a target award opportunity of 20% of base salary. Ms. Catron also participates in the Company’s benefit and retirement plans as in effect from time to time. Mr. Voss did not participatesupervise Ms. Catron and had no role in Ameren’s Board and Committee deliberations relating to these matters.setting her compensation.

Policy Regarding Communications to the Board of Directors

The non-management directors of the Board of Directors havehas adopted a policy for shareholders and other interested persons to send communications to the Board. Shareholders and other interested persons who desire to communicate with the Company’s directors or a particular director may write to: Ameren Corporation Board of Directors, c/o Head of Investor Relations, Mail Code 202, 1901 Chouteau Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63103. E-mail communications to directors should be sent to directorcommunication@ameren.com. All communications should not exceed 500 words in length and must be accompanied by the following information: if the person submitting the communication is a shareholder, a statement of the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock that the person holds; if the person submitting the communication is not a shareholder and is submitting the communication to the Lead Director or the non-management directors as an interested party, the nature of the person’s interest in the Company; any special interest, meaning an interest not in the capacity of a shareholder of the Company, of the person in the subject matter of the communication; and the address, telephone number and e-mail address, if any, of the person submitting the communication. Communications received from shareholders and other interested persons to the Board of Directors will be reviewed by the Head of Investor Relations, and if they are relevant to, and consistent with, the Company’s operations and policies that are approvedor such other person designated by all non-management members of the Board, and if they conform to the procedural requirementssuch communications are not solicitations, advertisements or other forms of the Policy,mass mailings, they will be forwarded by the Office of the Corporate Secretary to the Lead Director or applicable Board member or members as expeditiously as reasonably practicable.

Annual Assessment of Board, Board Committee and Individual Director Performance

The Board of Directors annually reviews its own performance, structure and processes in order to assess how effectively it is functioning. This assessment is implemented and administered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee through an annual Board self-evaluation survey. Individual directors are also asked annually to assess each other’s performance through asurvey and director peer assessment. The views of individual directors are collected by the Secretary of the Company and the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and summarized for consideration by the full Board. In addition,Further, each of the Audit and Risk Committee, Human Resources Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee and Finance Committee of the Board conductconducts an annual self-evaluationevaluation of its performance. After reviewing the Board self-evaluations and director peer assessments, the Lead Director discusses the Board’s effectiveness with each director individually. The Lead Director reports on the Board self-evaluations and director peer assessments. The full Board of Directors discusses the Board self-evaluation, director peer assessment and committee evaluation reports to determine what, if any, action could improve (1) Board and Board committee performance and (2) if necessary, a director’s performance as it relates to the overall effectiveness of the Board.

In addition to the performance evaluations and assessments described above, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also reviews annually the performance of all incumbent directors who are eligible for re-election at the Company’s next annual meeting of shareholders.

38


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Role of Director Compensation Consultant

As noted above under “— CORPORATE GOVERNANCE — Human Resources Committee Governance — Role of Compensation Consultant,” the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee directly retainedretains Meridian to advise it with respect to director compensation matters. During 2011,2014, Meridian conducted an outside director market pay analysis for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as discussed further under “— Fees and Stock Awards” below, and attended a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meeting to discuss the analysis.

Fees Pursuant to policies and Stock Awards

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommended andprocedures established by the Board of Directors of Ameren has previously approved the following compensation program, which was in place for fiscal year 2011, for each director who is not an employee of the Company:

an annual cash retainer of $50,000 payable in 12 equal installments;

an award of immediately vested shares of the Company’s Common Stock equaling approximately $80,000 provided annually to all directors on or about January 1. An award of immediately vested shares of the Company’s Common Stock equaling approximately $80,000 is also provided to new directors upon initial election to the Board;

a fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended;

a fee of $1,500 for each Board committee meeting attended;

an additional annual cash retainer of $20,000 for the Lead Director and $10,000 forpurposes of determining whether the Chairpersonswork of the Human Resources Committee,any compensation consultant raised any conflict of interest, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee determined that with respect to director compensation-related matters, no conflict of interest was raised by the Nuclear Oversightwork of Meridian.

Fees and Environmental Committee and the Finance Committee;

an additional annual cash retainer of $15,000 for the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee and an additional $10,000 annual cash retainer for the other members of the Audit and Risk Committee;

an additional annual cash retainer of $5,000 for members of the Human Resources Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee and the Finance Committee;

reimbursement of customary and usual travel expenses; and

eligibility to participate in a nonqualified deferred compensation program, as described below.

Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive compensation for their services as a director.Stock Awards

The compensation program for non-management directors is reviewed on an annual basis by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. In June 2011,Committee with a view to provide a pay program that compensates non-management directors at the median of the market. For 2014, this review, in consultation with its director compensation independent consultant, included an evaluation of a comparative peer group of companies that iswas identical to the 20112013 PSUP peer group (as discussed under “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Long-Term Incentives: Performance Share Unit Program (“PSUP”)” below)in the proxy statement prepared in connection with the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of shareholders) to determine the overall competitiveness of pay and prevalence of program features of Ameren’s director compensation program.

Based on this review, in December 2011, theThe Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommended and the Board of Directors of Ameren has previously approved the following compensation program for each director who is not an employee of the Company, effective January 1, 2012:Company:

 

an annual cash retainer of $55,000 payable in 12 equal monthly installments;

 

an award of immediately vested shares of the Company’s Common Stock equaling approximately $85,000$100,000 provided annually to all directors on or about January 1. An1; in addition, an award of immediately vested shares of the Company’s Common Stock equaling approximately $85,000$100,000 shall also be provided to new directors upon initial election to the Board;

 

a fee of $1,750$2,000 for each Board meeting attended;

 

a fee of $1,750$2,000 for each Board committee meeting attended;

 

an additional annual cash retainer of $20,000 for the Lead Director and $10,000 for the ChairpersonsChairs of the Human Resources Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Finance Committee;

 

an additional annual cash retainer of $15,000 for the ChairpersonsChairs of the Audit and Risk Committee and the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee, and an additional $10,000 annual cash retainer for the other members of the Audit and Risk Committee and the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee;

 

an additional annual cash retainer of $5,000 for members of the Human Resources Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Finance Committee;

 

39


reimbursement of customary and usual travel expenses; and

 

eligibility to participate in a nonqualified deferred compensation program, as described below.

Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive compensation for their services as a director.

The following table sets forth the compensation paid to non-management directors for fiscal year 2011,2014, other than reimbursement for travel expenses.

2014 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

 

Name

(a)

  Fees
Earned

or Paid in
Cash(1)

($)
(b)
   Stock
Awards(2)
($)
(c)
   Option
Awards(3)
($)
(d)
  Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation(3)
($)
(e)
  Change In Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings(4)
($)
(f)
  All Other
Compensation
($)
(g)
  Total
($)
(h)
 

S.F. Brauer

   95,004     80,010        –          –          –          –       175,014  

C.S. Brune

   12,834     79,479        –          –          –          –       92,313  

E.M. Fitzsimmons

   93,504     80,010        –          –          –          –       173,514  

W.J. Galvin

   103,008     80,010        –          –      8,563      –       191,581  

G.P.W. Jackson

   90,012     80,010        –          –          –          –       170,022  

J.C. Johnson

   90,504     80,010        –          –          –          –       170,514  

S.H. Lipstein

   90,601     80,010        –          –          –          –       170,611  

C.W. Mueller(5)

   29,168     80,010        –          –          –          –       109,178  

H. Saligman(5)

   26,004     80,010        –          –      21,991      –       128,005  

P.T. Stokes

   115,008     80,010        –          –      19,497      –       214,515  

S.R. Wilson

   99,504     80,010        –          –          –          –       179,514  

J.D. Woodard

   95,004     80,010        –          –      14,497      –       189,511  

Name

  Fees
Earned or
Paid in
Cash(1)
($)
   Stock
Awards(2)
($)
   Option
Awards(3)
($)
  Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation(3)
($)
  Change In Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings(4)
($)
  All Other
Compensation
($)
  Total
($)
 

Brune

   119,000     100,018        –          –          –          –       219,018  

Fitzsimmons

   113,336     100,018        –          –          –          –       213,354  

Galvin

   135,016     100,018        –          –      7,321      –       242,355  

Harshman

   108,008     100,018        –          –          –          –       208,026  

Jackson

   106,008     100,018        –          –          –          –       206,026  

Johnson

   114,008     100,018        –          –          –          –       214,026  

Lipstein

   103,016     100,018        –          –          –          –       203,034  

Stokes

   110,008     100,018        –          –      16,668      –       226,694  

Wilson

   115,000     100,018        –          –          –          –       215,018  

Woodard

   123,012     100,018        –          –      12,394      –       235,424  

 

(1)Represents the cash retainer and fees for service on the Board of Directors and its committees and meeting attendance as discussed above.

 

(2)As discussed above, the annual grants of immediately vested shares of the Company’s Common Stock equaling approximately $80,000$100,000 were awarded to Directors Brauer,Brune, Fitzsimmons, Galvin, Harshman, Jackson, Johnson, Lipstein, Mueller, Saligman, Stokes, Wilson and Woodard on January 10, 2011, and to Director Brune on December 22, 2011, in connection with her initial election to the Board. The price at which such shares were granted to the non-management directors pursuant to the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan was $28.48 per share on January 10, 2011 and $32.09 per share on December 22, 2011.2014. As of December 31, 2011,2014, Directors Galvin, Saligman, Stokes and Woodard each had an aggregate of 34,97819,266 deferred Stock Units (as defined below); Director Galvin had 17,828 deferred Stock Units; and Director Johnson had 2,875 deferred Stock Units accumulated in their deferral accounts from deferrals of annual stock awards, including additional deferred Stock Units credited as a result of dividend equivalents earned with respect to the deferred Stock Units (see “— Directors Deferred Compensation Plan Participation” below).

 

(3)No stock option awards or payouts under non-equity incentive plans were received by any non-management director in 2011.2014.

 

(4)Ameren does not have a pension plan for non-management directors. The amount in this column consists solely of the above market earnings on cash compensation deferred with respect to plan years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010 for deferrals made prior to January 1, 2010 and with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 for deferrals made prior to January 1, 2010 (see “— Directors Deferred Compensation Plan Participation” below). There are no above-market or preferential earnings on compensation deferred with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 for deferrals made on and after January 1, 2010.

 

(5)Each of Messrs. Mueller and Saligman completed his term of service as a director on April 21, 2011.

40


Directors Deferred Compensation Plan Participation

The Ameren Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Members of the Board of Directors, as amended (the “Directors Deferred Compensation Plan”), offers non-management directors the option to defer all or part of their annual cash retainers, meeting fees and Company Common Stock share awards as described below. The deferred compensation plan available to directors prior to 2009 permitted non-management directors to defer only annual cash retainers and meeting fees. In 2011,2014, Directors Galvin, Stokes and Woodard and former Director Saligman elected to defer all of their annual Board and Board committee cash retainers and meeting feesfees. Directors Johnson, Stokes and 2011Woodard elected to defer all of, and Director Galvin elected to defer half of, their 2014 stock award under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan.

All deferrals of Company Common Stock awards pursuant to the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan are converted to “Stock Units,” representing each share of Company Common Stock awarded to and deferred by the participant. Stock Units are not considered actual shares of Company Common Stock, and participants have no rights as an Ameren shareholder with respect to any Stock Units until shares of Company Common Stock are delivered in accordance with the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. Participants will have the right to receive dividend equivalents on Stock Units as of each dividend payment date, which are to be converted to additional Stock Units on the dividend payment date of Company Common Stock in accordance with the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.Plan and the 2014 Plan, as applicable. The price used for converting dividend equivalents to additional Stock Units is determined using the same methodology as the price used for calculating the number of additional shares purchased as of such dividend payment date under the Ameren DRPlus Plan.

All payments under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan relating to deferrals of a director’s Company Common Stock award (including dividend equivalents which will be converted into additional Stock Units) will be made in the form of one share of Company Common Stock for each whole Stock Unit and cash equal to the fair market value of each fraction thereof. Each such share of Company Commona Stock will be distributed subjectUnit credited to the terms of and pursuant to the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan and the related award agreement issued to the director thereunder.participant’s account.

With respect to annual cash retainer and meeting fees, deferred amounts, plus an interest factor, are used to provide payout distributions following completion of Board service and certain death benefits. In October 2009, the Company adopted an amendment to the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan which amended the portion of the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan relating to the interest crediting rates used for cash amounts deferred with respect to plan years commencing on and after January 1, 2010. In October 2010, the Company adopted an amendment to the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2011 to change the measurement period for the applicable interest rates for cash amounts deferred under such plan prior to January 1, 2010. Pursuant to the amended Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, cash amounts deferred (and interest attributable thereto) accrue interest at the rate to be applied to the participant’s

41


account balance depending on (1) the plan year for which the rate is being calculated and (2) the year in which the deferral was made, as follows:

 

Table A

Calculation for Plan Year

 

Deferral Date

  

Rate

Plan Years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010 Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010  150 percent of the average of the monthly Mergent’s Seasoned AAA Corporate Bond Yield Index rate (the “Directors Deferred Plan Index Rate”) for the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 7.44 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2011Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010Directors Deferred Plan Index Rate for the 12-month period ending on November 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 2011 such interest crediting rate was 7.446.23 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 

Deferrals on and after

January 1, 2010

  120 percent of the applicable federal long-term rate, with annual compounding (as prescribed under Section 1274(d) of the IRC)Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”)) (“AFR”) for the December immediately preceding such plan year (the “Directors Deferred Plan Interest Rate”) — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 4.243.99 percent

After the participant director retires or dies, the deferred amounts (and interest attributable thereto) accrue interest as follows:

 

Table B

Calculation for Plan Year

 

Deferral Date

  

Rate

Plan Years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010 Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010  Average monthly Mergent’s Seasoned AAA Corporate Bond Yield Index rate (the “Directors Deferred Plan Base Index Rate”) for the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 4.96 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2011Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010Directors Deferred Plan Base Index Rate for the 12-month period ending on November 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 2011 such interest crediting rate was 4.964.15 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 

Deferrals on and after

January 1, 2010

  Directors Deferred Plan Interest Rate — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 4.243.99 percent

As a result of the changes described in the narrative preceding the tables above, there are no above-market or preferential earnings on compensation deferred with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 for deferrals made on and after January 1, 2010.

A participant director may choose to receive the deferred amounts upon ceasing to be a member of the Company’s Board of Directors at age 55 or over in a lump sum payment or in installments over a set period of up to 15 years. However, in the event a participant ceases being a member of the Company’s Board of Directors prior to age 55, the balance in such participant’s deferral account shall be distributed in a lump sum to the participant within 30 days of the date the participant ceases being a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. In the event a participant ceases being a member of the Company’s Board of Directors prior to attainment of at leastage 55 years of age and after the occurrence of a Change of Control (as hereinafter defined under “EXECUTIVE

42


“EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTSOTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS — Change of Control Protection — In General —Change of Control Severance Plan”), the balance in such director’s deferral account, with any interest payable as described in Table A above, shall be distributed in a lump sum to the director within 30 days after the date the director ceases being a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. In the event that the Company ceases to exist or is no longer publicly traded on the NYSE or the NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”), upon the occurrence of such Change of Control, any Stock Units held by a participating director will be converted to a cash value upon the Change of Control and thereafter will be credited with interest as described in Table A above.above until distributed. The cash value of the Stock Unit will equal the value of one share of Company Common Stock based upon the closing price on the NYSE or NASDAQ on the last trading day prior to the Change of Control.

Director Stock Ownership Requirement

Since 2007, the Company has had a stock ownership requirement applicable to all of its non-management directors. In connection with the Nominating and Corporate Governance

Committee’s review in 2011 of the compensation program for non-management directors, the Committee recommended and the Board of Directors approved an increase in the director stock ownership requirement. Under this requirement, as set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, within the later of five years of the January 1, 2007 effective date or within five years after initial election to the Board, all non-management directors are required to own Company Common Stock equal in value to at least five times (increased from three times) their base annual cash retainer and hold such amount of stock throughout their directorship.

AtIf at any time if a non-management director hasdoes not satisfiedsatisfy the stock ownership requirement, such director must retain at least 50 percent of the netafter-tax shares deliveredacquired by such director subsequent to him or her after January 1, 2012 under Ameren’s equity compensation programs.programs until the stock ownership requirement is satisfied.

All non-management directors currently satisfy the stock ownership requirement with the exception of Director Coleman, who is a new director and has until 2020 to meet this requirement.

ITEM (2): NON-BINDING ADVISORY APPROVALOF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

In accordance with Rule 14a-21(a) of the Exchange Act, the Company is providing shareholders with the right to cast ana non-binding advisory vote to approve the compensation of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers at the Annual Meeting. This proposal, commonly known as a “say-on-pay” proposal, provides shareholders with the opportunity to endorse or not endorse the Company’s compensation program for ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers through the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the shareholders approve, on ana non-binding advisory basis, the compensation of the Executives,Named Executive Officers, as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and other narrative executive compensation disclosures in this proxy statement.”

As described inPlease refer to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section entitled “Executive Compensation” of this proxy statement the Company has adopted an Executive compensation philosophy which provides for a competitive totaldetailed discussion of our executive compensation program based onprinciples and practices and the size-adjusted median2014 compensation of the rangeour Named Executive Officers. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, paid by similar utility industry companies, adjusted forbut rather the Company’s short-overall compensation principles and long-term performancepractices and the individual Executive’s performance. The Company’s compensation program for 2011 was substantially similar to the 2010 program approved by 92 percent of votes cast by shareholders. The Company believes that the Human Resources Committee, which is responsible for establishing the2014 compensation of Executives, has appropriately designed the compensation program to align the long-term interests of the Executives with that of shareholders to maximize shareholder value. Our Board has a long-standing commitment to good corporate governance and recognizes the interests that shareholders have inour Named Executive compensation. The Company encourages shareholders to review closely the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the other narrative executive compensation disclosures contained in this proxy statement. The Company organized this information to explain each element of its Executive compensation program and to provide certain compensation-related information for the Executives for the past three years as required by SEC rules.Officers.

Highlights of the Company’s Executive compensation program, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, include:

pay opportunities that are appropriate to the size of the Company when compared to other companies in the utility industry;

a pay program that is heavily performance-based, using multiple performance measures;

full disclosure of the financial performance drivers used in our incentives, in numeric terms;

a long-term incentives program that is entirely performance-based and aligned with shareholder interests through a link to stock price and measurement of stock performance versus peer companies;

no backdating or repricing of stock options (none of the Executives hold any options to purchase shares of Company stock);

stock ownership requirements for Executives, which align the interests of the Executives and shareholders;

few perquisites;

no employment contracts;

relatively conservative change-in-control severance, and no excise tax gross-ups for new change of control plan participants;

annual incentive plan and long-term incentive plan performance grants are subject to a provision in the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan that requires a “clawback” of such incentive compensation in certain circumstances; and

retention of an independent compensation consultant engaged by, and who reports directly to, the Human Resources Committee.

In light of the foregoing,the Board of Directors unanimously recommends votingFOR ITEM (2). As an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding on the Company. However, the Board of Directors values the opinions expressed by shareholders in their vote on this proposal, and will consider the outcome of this vote when developing future compensation programs for Executives.Named Executive Officers. It is currently expected that shareholders will be

43


given an opportunity to cast a non-binding advisory vote on this topic annually, with the next opportunity occurring in connection with the Company’s annual meeting in 2016.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE NON-BINDING ADVISORY APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE EXECUTIVESNAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT.

ITEM (3): RATIFICATIONOFTHE APPOINTMENTOF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPAS INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMFORTHE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 20122015

The Company is asking its shareholders to ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”)PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012.2015. PwC was appointed by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Although ratification by the shareholders is not required by law, the Board of Directors has determined that it is desirable to request approval of this selectionappointment by the shareholders. In the event the shareholders fail to ratify the appointment, the Audit and Risk Committee will consider this factor when making any determination regarding PwC. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit and Risk Committee in its discretion may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

Passage of the proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares entitled to vote on the proposal and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting at which a quorum is present.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF PWC AS INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012.2015.

ITEM (4): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATINGEGARDING HAVINGTOAN RIEPORTNDEPENDENT BONOARD COALHAIRMAN COMBUSTION WASTE

Proponents of the shareholder proposal described below notified the Company of their intention to attend the Annual Meeting to present the proposal for consideration and action. The names and addresses of the proponents and the number of shares they hold will be furnished by the Secretary of the Company upon receipt of any telephonic or written request for such information. The proposal contains assertions that we believe are incorrect. The Company is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the proposal and supporting statement presented below which, following SEC rules, are reproduced as received from the proponents.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSES THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS STATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL.

REPORT ON COAL COMBUSTION WASTE

Coal combustion waste (CCW) is a by-product of burning coal and contains high concentrations of arsenic, mercury, lead, and other heavy metals and toxins.

Coal ash disposed of in ponds and landfills has contaminated surface and groundwater at dozens of sites across the country. EPA’s 2009 human and ecological risk assessment of CCW found “very high potential risks from unlined surface impoundments.” In June 2010, the EPA proposed regulations to set minimum federal standards for CCW disposal.

Ameren relies heavily upon coal-based electricity generation, and operates numerous lined and unlined coal ash ponds and landfills.

In 2011, 46.7% of shareholders supported a resolution requesting a report on Ameren’s efforts to identify and reduce environmental and health hazards associated with CCW. In October 2011, Ameren provided a Response: six pages on coal ash and additional information on the internet. Neither adequately addresses legal, reputational, and other risks as requested by the 2011 resolution.

For example:

The Response states that EPA inspected Ameren’s active coal ash ponds and “concluded that the structural integrity of all of our ponds is sound.” To the contrary, of the 24 Missouri and Illinois ponds rated by EPA, 7 were “Poor,” 15 were “Fair,” and only 2 were “Satisfactory.”

The Response notes community concerns regarding leaks at the unlined Labadie ash pond, and responds that “USEPA observed the seeps and concluded that the structural integrity of Labadie’s ponds is satisfactory.” Yet EPA rated the Labadie ponds as “Fair.” Moreover, “structural integrity” does not address whether the 19 years of significant leakage from Labadie’s unlined pond has contaminated groundwater, and how extensive such contamination may be. The Response fails to mention additional leaks or that everyone in the area uses groundwater for drinking water and agriculture.

The Response states that Ameren is “increasing the monitoring of groundwater at our ponds.” The Response then mentions “routine monitoring” at its ponds,

neglecting to note that Ameren conducts NO groundwater monitoring at its Missouri ponds and making no commitment to do so. The “routine monitoring” covers only surface water discharge and does not include metals or toxins.

Except for two plants, the Response fails to address future costs of cleaning up, and legal liability for, contamination at ash ponds, including where neighbors rely on groundwater for drinking water.

The Response indicates that both of the ash EPA-proposed regulations will affect our Company’s operation. While stating some costs “could be material,” the Response provides no financial estimates.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board prepare acomplete report on the company’s efforts, above and beyond current compliance, to identify and reduce environmental and health hazards associated with past and present handling of coal combustion waste, and how those efforts may reduce legal, reputational and other risks to the company’s finances and operations. This report should be available to shareholders within 6 months of the 2012 annual meeting, be prepared at reasonable cost, and omit confidential information such as proprietary data or legal strategy.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (4).

Summary Board Recommendation

The Board of Directors has carefully considered this shareholder proposal regarding the issuance of the above-referenced report and unanimously recommends that you vote“AGAINST” the proposal. As discussed further below, the Board believes that the requested report is not necessary or cost-effective because the Company’s comprehensive 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report (the “2011 CSR”) and new website disclosures, in addition to other publicly available documents and filings (including those with certain regulatory authorities, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)), currently provide shareholders with extensive information on the Company’s actions and assessments concerning coal combustion byproducts (“CCBs”) and as a result, such information effectively addresses the proponents’ proposal. The 2011 CSR, which was published in December 2011, is the Company’s first social responsibility report and includes disclosures to specifically respond to the proponents’ proposal. Consequently, the Board does not believe that the expenditure of the additional human and financial resources that would be required to produce the requested additional report would be a necessary or prudent use of shareholder assets and as such, the additional report is not in the best interests of the Company or its shareholders.

Background

The proposal is substantially the same as the proposal submitted by these proponents at our 2011 annual meeting of shareholders. While that proposal was not approved by shareholders, we agreed, consistent with the Company’s commitments to protecting the health and safety of the public and our employees, generating sufficient electricity to meet demand at the lowest cost, as well as enhancing shareholder value, to provide substantial information in 2011 on the Company’s CCBs.

To that end, representatives of the Company, including members of senior management, had a number of meetings and telephone and written communications with representatives of the proponents over a period of months

to discuss the proponents’ requests for additional disclosure of our management of CCBs and the risks relating thereto. In response to the proponents’ request, we provided the proponents with drafts of our proposed new Company website disclosure as well as pertinent portions of the 2011 CSR while in draft form, which included a section relating to the Company’s management and beneficial use of CCBs. We then revised our proposed Company website disclosure and the draft 2011 CSR to address many of the proponents’ comments and requests.

After revising our Company website disclosure and the 2011 CSR (and upon publication thereof), senior management again contacted representatives of the proponents and discussed these actions and the additional CCB-related disclosures. The Company is disappointed that such new disclosures are not sufficient for the proponents. We do not believe that continued engagement with the proponents would produce a report that would be acceptable in substance to both the Company and the proponents given the proponents’ publicly expressed views on certain national and local environmental issues, which significantly differ from our views as to what is best for all of our stakeholders. Briefly, the proponents submitted a comment letter to the EPA in 2010 advocating that CCBs be regulated as a hazardous waste rather than as a solid waste. The Company strongly opposes that view for the reasons set forth in the 2011 CSR. In addition, in 2010 and 2011 certain representatives of the proponents testified at public hearings against the Company’s request for a zoning amendment related to Ameren Missouri’s proposed coal ash landfill near our Labadie energy center. In brief, the Company believes these proponents are utilizing the shareholder proposal process as a platform for their environmental views, as they did for a number of years with nuclear energy-related proposals concerning the Company’s Callaway energy center, none of which were approved by shareholders.

Management and the Board believe that the information included in the 2011 CSR, together with information on the Company’s website and in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and other regulatory agencies, provide shareholders with extensive detailed disclosure of our actions to identify and manage the potential risks of CCBs.

Company Provides 2011 CSR and Updated Website Disclosure and Other Public Disclosures Relating to its CCBs; Company Management and Board Risk Oversight Relating Thereto

The 2011 CSR was released in December 2011 and provides substantial information on our environmental compliance procedures relating to our management of CCBs, including:

the Company’s CCB disposal practices;

how the Company manages our CCB disposal facilities;

details regarding the Company’s additional voluntary groundwater monitoring efforts;

examples of further potential risk mitigation activities (such as our active dam safety program that covers ash impoundments); and

the potential impact of pending government regulation on CCB disposal, including the estimated asset retirement obligations for costs associated with closing the Company’s CCB storage sites.

These environmental compliance procedures are a key element of the Company’s management of legal, reputational and other risks related to CCBs. As detailed in the 2011 CSR and in our new website disclosure, Ameren’s subsidiaries have a comprehensive system in place to meet or exceed all regulations governing CCB management, including disposal. The Company’s actions, which are highlighted in the 2011 CSR, are part of our plan to improve management and operations to minimize both environmental and financial risks from our CCB disposal facilities. The 2011 CSR and all other reports and documents referenced in this Company response are available through our website at www.ameren.com or by contacting the office of the Company’s Secretary and requesting a copy.

In 2011, the Company published on its website a summary of the design features associated with Ameren Missouri’s coal ash ponds as compared to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston coal-fired power plant ash disposal site. In 2008, a major failure occurred at the Kingston site during which an estimated 5.4 million cubic yards of CCBs were released as a result of failures of containment dikes. That summary, prepared by an independent engineering firm, concludes that Ameren Missouri’s coal ash ponds do not have the characteristics of the Kingston ash disposal site and that Ameren Missouri has taken proactive measures to investigate the stability of its coal ash ponds and to maintain stable, environmentally safe sites in the future through a strong Dam Safety Group that is specifically responsible for CCBs and other dam sites. In addition, the Company engaged a toxicologist to prepare a risk assessment of coal ash disposal facility constituents and engaged an independent environmental consultant to prepare hydrogeological assessments associated with our Hutsonville and Venice coal ash ponds, which are now closed pursuant to regulatory requirements. Those reports and information relating to our Hutsonville and Venice coal ash ponds are discussed in the 2011 CSR and are available on the Company’s website.

Ameren’s subsidiaries have also filed various reports which provide extensive, detailed information about such subsidiaries’ management of CCBs with the EPA. These reports include relevant information on the operations of Ameren Missouri, AEG, AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company and Electrical Energy Inc. related to CCBs, as well as the broad range of steps taken by such Ameren subsidiaries to ensure that public safety priorities at these facilities are met. This information has been released to the public on the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm) and a link to this information is included in the 2011 CSR.

The 2011 CSR also includes information on the proposed EPA rules regarding CCBs, our point of view thereon and an estimated cost for asset retirement obligation of CCB storage sites at our energy centers in the event that under the final regulations we are required to close our ash ponds. In addition to the disclosures referenced above, Ameren has already disclosed in certain of its regular periodic filings with the SEC that it is currently evaluating all of the proposed state and federal regulations which may affect its coal ash management to determine whether current management of CCBs, including beneficial reuse, and the use of the ash ponds should be altered. Furthermore, Ameren has disclosed in these filings certain risks related to coal ash management as well as certain risk mitigation measures, including plans to install caps and covers at certain existing ponds. The proposed EPA regulations are not expected to be

finalized until late 2012 at the earliest. The proposed regulations contain various alternative approaches and therefore developing more specific financial projections would be highly speculative.

The Board’s Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee is responsible for providing oversight of Ameren’s policies, practices and performance relating to environmental affairs, including compliance with applicable law and regulations pertaining to environmental affairs and the promotion of efficiency in the generation, distribution and end use of energy. This Committee coordinates its oversight with the Board’s Audit and Risk Committee which has been delegated oversight responsibility of the Company’s overall business risk management process, including the identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of risks on a Company-wide basis. As part of its oversight responsibility, the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee reviewed the 2011 CSR prior to its distribution.

Board Recommendation Against Proposal

In light of the foregoing,the Board unanimously recommends voting AGAINST ITEM (4).

Vote Required

Passage of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares entitled to vote on the proposal and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting at which a quorum is present.

ITEM (5): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATINGTO REPORTON COAL-RELATED COSTSAND RISKS

The proponent of the shareholder proposal described below notified the Company of its intention to attend the Annual Meeting to present the proposal for consideration and action. The name and address of the proponent and the number of shares it holds will be furnished by the Secretary of the Company upon receipt of any telephonic or written request for such information. The proposal contains assertions that we believe are incorrect. The Company is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the proposal and supporting statement presented below which, following SEC rules, are reproduced as received from the proponent.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSES THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS STATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL.

Set Goals to Reduce Coal Risk

Whereas:

Coal-dependent electric utilities face numerous challenges and uncertainty from coal price volatility, competition from alternative generating sources, and costs for environmental compliance and carbon capture and storage. Ameren’s electricity generation capacity is 85% coal; 77% in its regulated fleet and 98% in its merchant fleet.

Industry analysts predict increasing coal prices with more erratic price swings. Ameren sources 97% of its coal from Powder River Basin. Between December 2009 and October 2011, PRB coal prices increased 78%. PRB coal demand is projected to rise, placing further pressure on prices.

Deutsche Bank calculates that it is more economical to burn natural gas than coal to generate electricity when natural gas costs $4-6/mmBtu. The Henry Hub price for natural gas is projected to be $6 in 2025. Lazard Ltd. calculated the levelized cost of electricity from wind, in most cases, is less than that for coal, and thin-film solar, biomass, and geothermal costs are often less than that for coal.

Coal dependent utilities face increased capital cost for coal plant emissions controls. While EPA has agreed to ease or delay some of the new regulations for power plant pollution, it is moving, pursuant to court order, to adopt new rules that will reduce mercury emissions from coal by 91%. Analysts estimate that compliance costs for mercury regulations could cause the retirement of 61-75 GW of US coal-fired generation capacity.

Analysts agree that older, smaller, plants without control technology are uneconomical. The average age of Ameren’s 14 unit utility fleet is 44 years; average age of its 19 unit merchant fleet is 50 years. All units at Ameren’s Joppa Steam are older than 55 years, generate less than 200 MW, and lack sulfur dioxide controls.

Ameren expects to invest up to $3.6 billion by 2020 to retrofit its coal fleet to comply with environmental laws and regulations. Ameren announced retirement of two plants in lieu of complying with the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. According to Bernstein Research, Ameren’s fleet is still among those most at risk due to its age and necessary retrofits.

Carbon Capture and Storage puts Ameren at further financial risk. Through FutureGen 2.0, Ameren is retrofitting one unit at its Meredosia plant with CCS technology. The General Accounting Office found that CCS technology within the US is 10-15 years from wide scale commercial deployment and will increase coal-fired electricity costs by 30% to 80% above current levels.

RESOLVED

Shareowners request that Ameren Board of Directors report to shareholders by November 2012, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, on plans to reduce our company’s exposure to coal-related costs and risks, including progress toward achieving specific goals to minimize commodity risks, emissions other than greenhouse gases, costs of environmental compliance, and construction risks.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (5).

Summary Board Recommendation

The Board of Directors has carefully considered this shareholder proposal regarding the issuance of the above-referenced report and unanimously recommends that you vote“AGAINST” the proposal. As discussed further below, the Board believes that the requested report is not necessary or cost-effective because the Company’s comprehensive 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report (the “2011 CSR”), publicly available filings with certain regulatory authorities (including the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Missouri Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”)) and disclosures on the Company’s website, currently provide shareholders with extensive information on the Company’s actions and plans to minimize its exposure to coal-related costs and risks, including minimizing commodity risks, emissions and costs of environmental compliance and construction risks and as a result, such information effectively addresses the proponent’s proposal. The 2011 CSR, published in December 2011, is the Company’s first social responsibility report and includes disclosures which address the proponent’s proposal. Consequently, the Board believes that the

preparation of the proponent’s requested additional report would be duplicative and an unnecessary use of Company resources and as such, is not in the best interests of the Company or its shareholders.

Background

The Company was not contacted by the shareholder proponent regarding the proponent’s interest in the preparation of a report on the Company’s plans to reduce its exposure to coal-related costs and risks prior to our receipt of the proposal. Since receiving the proposal, representatives of the Company, including a member of senior management, had a number of written and telephone communications, including a teleconference, with representatives of the proponent (over a several week period in early 2012) to discuss the proponent’s request for such report. We also provided the proponent with a copy of the 2011 CSR and detailed cross-references to pertinent coal-related costs and risks disclosures contained in the 2011 CSR, in other publicly available documents and on our website. Those disclosures specifically address, among other topics, the Company’s actions taken to reduce its exposure to coal-related costs and risks, including minimizing commodity, emissions and environmental risks, and we believe are responsive to the proponent’s request for additional information, as presented in the proposal.

The Company’s SEC filings, the 2011 CSR and Ameren Missouri’s 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (the “2011 IRP”), filed with the MPSC describe the factors we consider in analyzing the risks relating to our energy generation portfolio, namely: portfolio diversity (including the transition to sources other than coal, including potentially cleaner coal), environmental regulation (current and proposed), costs to customers, ability to finance future energy sources (construction and financing risks), economic development impact and regulatory and legislative matters. Management and the Board regularly analyze and publicly report on the Company’s generation portfolio and the risks relating thereto.

The Company’s SEC filings, publicly available filings with other regulatory authorities, including the MPSC and the FERC, the 2011 CSR and disclosure on the Company’s website, discuss in detail the challenges the Company faces, including the Company’s actions and plans to reduce our exposure to coal-related costs and risks, including progress toward achieving goals to minimize commodity risks, emissions, costs of environmental compliance and construction risks. We believe such publicly available information effectively addresses the issues raised in the proponent’s proposal. All reports and documents referenced in this Company response are available through our website at www.ameren.com or by contacting the office of the Company’s Secretary and requesting a copy.

Company Disclosure of Actions Taken to Reduce Exposure to Coal-Related Costs and Risks

As disclosed in the 2011 IRP, the levelized cost of energy produced by Ameren Missouri’s existing generation fleet (mainly electricity generated by coal and nuclear facilities) is significantly lower than any new generation resource that Ameren Missouri might add in future years to meet customers’ increasing need for power. In addition, detailed information provided in certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC as well as in filings with FERC demonstrate that the fuel cost of coal for both Ameren Missouri and our merchant generation segment has been considerably lower than the fuel cost of natural gas.

Company Disclosure of Actions Taken to Minimize Commodity Risks

The Company has risk management policies in place, subject to Board oversight as described below, which govern the procurement of coal, gas and other generation commodities. Certain of the Company’s regular periodic filings with the SEC have included

disclosure of our coal supply agreements as well as our hedging activities which are designed to reduce our exposure to market volatility to fuel prices. Certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC have also disclosed that our exposure to risks associated with changing prices for fuel for generation are reduced and managed using a variety of techniques as well as in the case of Ameren Missouri, a fuel adjustment clause which allows recovery of certain fuel cost increases. In furtherance of our goals to reduce coal-related risks and costs as well as to reduce the costs of environmental compliance, as disclosed in certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC and in the 2011 CSR, in August 2011, Ameren Missouri entered into a six-year contract for the purchase of 91 million tons of ultra-low sulfur coal. This coal purchase will allow Ameren Missouri to comply with recently issued federal government regulations at significantly lower costs for its customers as well as to eliminate or postpone past 2020, $1 billion of Ameren Missouri’s capital expenditures for pollution control equipment while still meeting environmental requirements.

As set forth in the 2011 IRP, projections for fuel costs show that natural gas will continue to cost more than coal for the foreseeable future. While natural gas-fired generation is generally less expensive to build and produces lower greenhouse gas emissions, gas generation has greater production costs and price uncertainty because natural gas costs have historically been very volatile (and more volatile than coal costs). New technologies have opened new domestic sources of natural gas, driving down prices, however, environmental concerns about the use of these new gas drilling technologies could impact negatively natural gas prices in the future.

Ameren Missouri’s 2011 IRP includes tabular disclosure demonstrating that projected Southern Wyoming Powder River Basin coal prices are projected to be significantly less than Henry Hub natural gas prices on a $/MMBtu basis well into the foreseeable future.

Company Disclosure of Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions and Environmental Risks

Ameren’s overall emissions are trending down as disclosed in the 2011 CSR and in the Company’s filing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Since 1990, Ameren Missouri’s coal-fired energy centers and Ameren’s merchant coal-fired energy centers have reduced emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 77 percent and emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) by about 70 percent, while generation at these energy centers increased by almost 85 percent.

Certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC and the 2011 CSR detail the recent as well as projected environmental capital expenditures of both Ameren Missouri and our merchant generation segment. The estimates include all of the known capital costs to comply with existing environmental regulations and our preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the EPA’s proposed regulation of coal combustion byproducts (assuming regulation as a nonhazardous waste), the proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard for the control of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the revised national ambient air quality standards for NOx and SO2 emissions as of September 30, 2011.

Moreover, as disclosed in certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC and the 2011 CSR, we have been proactive in minimizing the cost of environmental compliance. These risk mitigation measures include:

Ameren Missouri signed a six-year contract for the purchase of 91 million tons of ultra-low sulfur coal through 2017. As noted above, this change in fuel mix is estimated to eliminate, or postpone past 2020, $1 billion of Ameren Missouri’s capital expenditures for pollution control equipment while still meeting requirements.

The merchant generation segment has significantly reduced 2011 to 2015 planned environmental capital expenditures by previously installing emissions control technologies and optimizing our environmental compliance plans.

The closure of Ameren Energy Resources’ coal-fired Meredosia and Hutsonville Energy Centers. This action will enhance Ameren Energy Resources’ ability to comply with emission regulations. Due to the small capacity of these energy centers, large expenditures for control equipment are not justified in current or projected power markets.

Company Disclosure of Actions Taken to Minimize Construction Risks

The Company has no plans to construct additional coal-fired energy centers. The construction risks for environmental controls at our existing coal-fired energy centers do not pose significant risk to the Company. The proposed construction projects for environmental compliance at our currently operating energy centers involve proven technology and construction methods already used in projects that the Company has successfully completed in the past. Wet flue gas desulfurization equipment for SO2 control, or scrubbers, are currently operational at our Coffeen, Duck Creek and Sioux Energy Centers. Carbon injection for mercury control is currently operational at our Newton, Edwards and Electric Energy Energy Centers. In addition, construction has already begun on scrubbers at both units of Ameren Energy Resources’ Newton Energy Center. NOx control in various forms is operational at all Ameren coal-fired energy centers.

Construction risk is also addressed by Company project risk management policies with supervision by senior management and oversight by the Board, as described below.

Board Oversight of Company’s Risk Management Processes

The Board’s Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee (comprised entirely of independent directors) is responsible for providing oversight of Ameren’s policies, practices and performance relating to environmental affairs, including compliance with applicable law and regulations pertaining to environmental affairs and the promotion of efficiency in the generation, distribution and end use of energy. In addition, the Board’s Finance Committee (also comprised entirely of independent directors) oversees the Company’s commodity risk assessment process, possesses approval authority for all capital projects with estimated capital expenditures in excess of $50 million and monitors any project cost variances greater than 5 percent for such projects. These Committees coordinate their oversight with the Board’s Audit and Risk Committee which has been delegated oversight responsibility of the Company’s overall business risk management process, including the identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of risks on a Company-wide basis. The Board’s oversight of these risks and costs further strengthens the Company’s risk management processes.

Board Recommendation Against Proposal

In sum, the information already contained in the 2011 CSR as well as information contained in the regulatory filings discussed above and on our website, reflects our view that delivering safe reliable energy, acting in an environmentally responsible manner and improving shareholder value are closely linked and that we are committed to balancing these priorities. The Company’s strategy, as outlined in the disclosures referenced above, is designed to provide our customers with reliable and competitively priced electricity and to improve returns to our shareholders, while considering the risks from volatile fuel and energy market prices, current and potential future environmental regulations and technological developments. In light of the foregoing,the Board unanimously recommends voting AGAINST ITEM (5).

Vote Required

Passage of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares entitled to vote on the proposal and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting at which a quorum is present.

ITEM (6): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATINGTO ASSESSMENTAND REPORTON GREENHOUSE GASAND OTHER AIR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THROUGH CUSTOMER ENERGY EFFICIENCYAND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

The proponent of the shareholder proposal described below notified the Company of his intention to attend the Annual Meeting to present the proposal for consideration and action.action at the Annual Meeting. The name and address of the proponent and the number of shares he holds will be furnished by the Secretary of the Company upon receipt of any telephonic or written request for such information. The Company is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the proposal and supporting statement presented below which, following SEC rules, are reproduced as received from the proponent.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSES THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS STATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL.

Expansion of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyProposal 4 — Independent Board Chairman

WHEREAS:

In May 2011, a National Academy of Sciences report warnedRESOLVED: Shareholders request that the riskBoard of dangerous climate change impactsDirectors adopt a policy that the Chair of the Board of Directors shall be an independent director who is growingnot a current or former employee of the company, and whose only nontrivial professional, familial or financial connection to the company or its CEO is the directorship. The policy should be implemented so as not to violate existing agreements and should allow for departure under extraordinary circumstances such as the unexpected resignation of the chairman.

When our CEO is our board chairman, this arrangement can hinder our board’s ability to monitor our CEO’s performance. Many companies already have an independent Chairman.

44


An independent Chairman is the prevailing practice in the United Kingdom and many international markets. This proposal topic won 50%-plus support at 5 major U.S. companies in 2013 including 73%-support at Netflix.

Shareholders are best served by an independent Board Chair who can provide a balance of power between the CEO and the Board. The primary duty of the Board of Directors is to oversee the management of a company on behalf of shareholders. Our company’s combined CEO / Chair creates a potential conflict of interest, resulting in excessive management influence on the Board and weak oversight of management.

Numerous institutional investors recommend separation of these two roles. For example, California’s Retirement System CalPERS’ Principles & Guidelines encourage separation, even with every tona lead director in place. Chairing and overseeing the Board is a time intensive responsibility. A separate Chair also frees the CEO to manage the company and build effective business strategies.

Please vote to protect shareholder value:

Independent Board Chairman – Proposal 4

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (4).

The Board has carefully considered this proposal and unanimously recommends that you vote “AGAINST” the proposal. Although there are certain assertions in the proponent’s supporting statement that the Board believes are potentially misleading or inaccurate, the Board will limit its response here to the core governance question raised by the proposal. As discussed further below, the Board believes that the Company and its shareholders are best served if the Board has the flexibility to decide how to allocate the responsibilities of greenhouse gases emitted,the offices of Chairman of the Board (“Chairman”) and reiteratedChief Executive Officer (“CEO”), taking into consideration the pressing need for substantial actioncircumstances of the Company at any given point in time. The proposal seeks to impose a fixed organizational structure on the Board by requiring the Chairman to be independent and would effectively limit the magnitudeBoard’s ability to select the most qualified and appropriate individual to lead the Board.

The Board believes that the selection of climate changeChairman and CEO, and how the responsibilities of those offices should be allocated, should be the responsibility of the Board. In selecting a Chairman, the Board considers the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, in light of then-current and anticipated future circumstances and taking into consideration succession planning, skills and experience of the individual, among other factors. In some circumstances, the best candidate will be a current or former CEO, and in others, the interests of the Company will best be served if the offices are separately allocated or allocated so that the Company has an independent Chairman. For instance, the Company separated the roles of Chairman and CEO last year when the Company’s previous CEO, Thomas R. Voss, remained in the role of Chairman while he transitioned out of his role as the Company’s President and CEO. Similarly, in 2009, then-CEO Gary L. Rainwater remained in the role of Chairman while he transitioned out of his role as the Company’s President and CEO. In both instances, the Board subsequently decided that given the CEO’s background, skills and experience it was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to appoint the CEO as the Chairman in addition to his role as CEO. This illustrates the importance in having the Board retain flexibility in allocating the responsibilities of Chairman and CEO in order to adapt to the changing needs of the Company.

45


The Board also believes that the Company has robust corporate governance practices and policies in place that provide the Board with strong independent leadership and allow for effective oversight of management. For example, the Corporate Governance Guidelines, available at http://www.ameren.com/Investors, provide that when the Chairman is the CEO or an employee of the Company, the Company must have a designated independent Lead Director, selected by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and ratified by the independent directors for a minimum of a one-year term, with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties and responsibilities including: (i) to preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors; (ii) to convene and chair meetings of the independent directors in executive session at each Board meeting; (iii) to solicit the non-management directors for advice on agenda items for meetings of the Board; (iv) to serve as a liaison between the Chairman and CEO and the independent directors; (v) to call meetings of the independent directors; (vi) to collaborate with the Chairman and CEO in developing the agenda for meetings of the Board and approve such agendas; (vii) to consult with the Chairman and CEO on and approve information that is sent to the Board; (viii) to collaborate with the Chairman and CEO and the Chairs of the standing committees in developing and managing the schedule of meetings of the Board and approve such schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items; and (ix) if requested by major shareholders, to ensure that he or she is available for consultation and direct communication.

Furthermore, all of the directors on the Board are independent, with the exception of Mr. Baxter, and only independent directors serve on standing Board committees. Accordingly, fully independent Board committees are responsible for oversight of critical matters, such as the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, its impacts. independent auditor, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, evaluating senior executive (including the CEO) performance and compensation, nominating members of the Board, and determining the Board leadership structure, including an annual review of whether the Company and its shareholders are best served by combining or separating the Chairman and CEO roles.

The Board believes that the Company’s existing strong governance framework ensures Board independence and provides effective oversight of management. The Company’s governance practices include the annual election of directors, majority voting for the election of directors, the absence of a poison pill, and a robust policy for facilitating shareholder and third party communication with the Company’s directors. The independent directors also regularly hold executive sessions of the Board, which are led by the independent Lead Director, outside the presence of the Chairman and CEO or any other Company employee.

In considering this proposal, the Board has taken into consideration the shareholder vote on a substantially similar proposal last year, as well as views expressed during conversations with certain of the Company’s major shareholders. That proposal did not pass, indicating that a significant majority of our shareholders supported maintaining flexibility for the Board to determine the appropriate leadership structure. Similar to last year’s proposal, this proposal replaces the Board’s judgment by mandating a particular leadership structure and hinders the Board’s ability to select the most qualified and appropriate individual to lead the Board at any given time. In order to best serve the Company and its shareholders, it is critical for the Board to retain flexibility in allocating the responsibilities of the Chairman and CEO.

46


VOTE REQUIREDFOR APPROVAL

Under Missouri law, approval of the proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares outstanding as of the record date and represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting at which a quorum must be present. In addition, under Missouri law, an abstention from voting on this matter will be treated as “present” for quorum purposes and will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION AGAINST PROPOSAL

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (4).

ITEM (5): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDINGA REPORTON LOBBYING

The proponent of the shareholder proposal described below notified the Company of his intention to present the proposal for consideration and action at the Annual Meeting. The name and address of the proponent and the number of shares he holds will be furnished by the Secretary of the Company upon receipt of any telephonic or written request for such information. The Company is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the proposal and supporting statement presented below which, following SEC rules, are reproduced as received from the proponent.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSES THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS STATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL.

WHEREAS, Ameren’s Political Contributions Policy (PCP) requires “contributions only if consistent with corporate values,” and Ameren’s sustainability policy describes a triple bottom line of profits, people, and planet. Shareholders believe all three values should be considered both for political spending and lobbying.Ameren [sic] has excellent Political Contributions and Sustainability policies (SP). The Board Audit Committee insures compliance.

WHEREAS, Ameren’s reporting on lobbying expenditures meets legal requirements but is inadequate for determining if Ameren is complying with its PCP or the corporate values expressed in its SP. Corporate lobbying can expose our company to risks and comprehensive reporting helps assess if the company’s lobbying is consistent with its stated goals;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the shareholders of Ameren Corporation (“Ameren”) request that the Board authorize the preparation of an annual report disclosing the following:

1.Payments by Ameren used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, including the amount of the payment, the recipient, the outcome sought, and the extent the outcome was achieved.

2.Ameren’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt or non-tax-exempt organization — including such trade associations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — that writes and/or endorses model legislation. The amount of the payments used for expenses that aren’t tax deductible, such as lobbying, will be included.

The report shall be prepared by the Audit Committee, at reasonable expense and omitting confidential information, and posted on the company’s website.

47


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

This resolution received 30% voting support in 2014.

Ameren is a member of the United States Chamber of Commerce, which is noted as “by far the most muscular business lobby group in Washington” (“Chamber of Secrets,”Economist, April 21, 2012). Since 1998, the Chamber has spent approximately $1 billion on lobbying. The Chamber actively opposes many environmental regulations and sued the EPA when it moved to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions. $40,000 of Ameren’s dues and payments to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) go towards lobbying for coal use and against EPA regulations. These actions raise questions of consistency and integrity.

As shareholders, we insist on transparency and accountability of staff time and corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation both directly and indirectly. Absent a system of accountability and disclosure, company assets could be used for objectives contrary to Ameren’s long-term interests.

Ameren may be making political and lobbying expenditures that are not consistent with its PCP and SP. Its largest political contribution is to a self-proclaimed climate change denying US Senator. Ameren also emphasizedindirectly supports ALEC, which writes and promotes anti-environmental legislation. Ameren paid for Missouri legislators and family members to attend an ALEC-sponsored event. All the Missouri legislators who attended the ALEC-sponsored event subsequently voted for legislation to weaken Missouri’s renewable energy requirements and to weaken the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Approximately 90 companies have publicly left ALEC, many because of ALEC’s positions on climate change.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (5).

The Board has carefully considered this proposal. Although there are certain assertions in the proponent’s supporting statement that “the soonerthe Board believes are misleading or inaccurate, the Board will limit its response here to the core governance question raised by the proposal. Because the Company is already required to make public disclosures regarding lobbying activities under federal and state law and already makes additional voluntary disclosures, the Board believes that seriousthe adoption of the proposal is unnecessary and would not provide any meaningful benefit to shareholders. Accordingly, the Board unanimously recommends that you vote “AGAINST” the proposal.

The Company and its industry are affected by legislative and regulatory processes at the federal, state and local levels of government. The Company believes that it is in the best interests of its shareholders for it to be an effective participant in the regulatory and policy process. In addition, the Company believes its shareholders are benefited by the Company’s active engagement with policymakers in order to ensure that key decision makers are aware of its views on important issues.

For these reasons, the Company has in place a Political Contributions Policy that applies to all employees. The Political Contributions Policy requires all corporate political contributions (including, but not limited to, contributions to state or local political groups which may engage in lobbying and ballot initiatives) to be made for the benefit of the Company and without regard to the personal political preferences of Company’s officers and executives. In addition, the Political Contributions Policy prohibits corporate contributions to candidates whose views are inconsistent with the Company’s values.

Furthermore, the Political Contributions Policy provides for Board and management oversight of the Company’s political contributions (including contributions to state or local

48


political groups which may engage in lobbying and ballot initiatives), requires the Board to set a limit on the amount of political contributions to be made by the Company each year and requires the Company’s Audit and Risk Committee to oversee an annual audit of such political contributions. A copy of the Political Contributions Policy can be found on the Company’s website at https://www.ameren.com/-/media/corporate-site/Files/Investors/PoliticalContributionsPolicy.pdf.

The Company already fully complies with all laws governing its lobbying activities, including the Lobbying Disclosure Act and Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which require reporting on lobbying activities and certifying compliance with Congressional gift and travel rules. At the federal level, the Company files public quarterly reports disclosing its lobbying expenditures and detailing its lobbying activities, including a description of the specific subject matter of lobbying as well as the identity of individuals who lobbied on behalf of the Company. These reports are available at http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov. In addition, the Company files extensive lobbying disclosure reports to the Illinois State Boards of Elections and the Missouri Ethics Commission as required by state law, and these reports are made publicly available through state websites.

The Board also believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to belong to and participate in business and trade associations and other industry groups. These organizations work to represent the utility industry and advocate on major policy issues that are important to the Company and the communities that it serves. The Company also benefits from the general business, technical and industry standard-setting expertise provided by these organizations. These organizations operate independently of their members, and, as a result, the Company does not necessarily support all of the political goals or other activities of the trade groups to which it makes contributions. The Company produces an annual report on its website disclosing its participation in various trade associations and the portion of its dues used for lobbying activities at https://www.ameren.com/investors/political-contributions. Contrary to an assertion made in the proposal, the Company is not a member of the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Company is also not a member of ALEC, and it does not currently plan to support ALEC in the future.

The Board believes that the information already disclosed by the Company exceeds that required by law and provides an appropriate level of transparency to our shareholders, striking the right balance between transparency and excessive burden and cost. This proposal’s requirements, particularly the requirement to disclose the outcome sought and the extent that the outcome was achieved for each payment made, would tip this balance, resulting in the use of valuable time and corporate resources to track lobbying activity without materially improving the publicly available disclosure that currently exists.

The Company’s shareholders were presented with a substantially similar proposal submitted by the same proponent at the 2014 Annual Meeting. The lobbying proposal submitted at the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting did not pass, indicating that a significant majority of the Company’s shareholders did not see the value in providing the additional information requested. In the shareholder supporting statement for this year’s Annual Meeting, the proponent provides no new compelling arguments in support of the proposal. The Board has carefully considered this proposal again in light of the voting on the similar proposal received at the 2014 Annual Meeting but has determined that adoption of the proposal would not be in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders.

The Board believes that ample disclosure requirements exist under federal and state law regarding the Company’s lobbying activities, and that those requirements, coupled with the Company’s voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions proceed…provide transparency, address the less pressure thereconcerns cited in this proposal. For the reasons set forth above, including the mandatory disclosures and the

49


additional voluntary disclosures provided by the Company on its website, the Board believes that the requested report is unnecessary and would require expenditures and the use of Company resources without providing any meaningful benefit to shareholders.

VOTE REQUIREDFOR APPROVAL

Under Missouri law, approval of the proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares outstanding as of the record date and represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting at which a quorum must be present. In addition, under Missouri law, an abstention from voting on this matter will be treated as “present” for quorum purposes and will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION AGAINST PROPOSAL

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (5).

ITEM (6): SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING ADOPTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION INCENTIVESFOR CARBON REDUCTION

The proponent of the shareholder proposal described below notified the Company of his intention to make larger, more rapid,present the proposal for consideration and action at the Annual Meeting. The name and address of the proponent and the number of shares he holds will be furnished by the Secretary of the Company upon receipt of any telephonic or written request for such information. The Company is not responsible for the accuracy or content of the proposal and supporting statement presented below which, following SEC rules, are reproduced as received from the proponent.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSES THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS STATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL.

2015 Shareholder Resolution

Ameren

Request: Executive Incentives for Carbon Reduction

RESOLVED:Ameren shareholders request that the Board’s Compensation Committee, when setting senior executive compensation, include metrics for reduction of Ameren’s carbon output as one of the annual performance metrics for senior executives under the Company’s “Executive Incentive Plan” (“EIP”).

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:We believe that the long-term interests of Ameren shareholders is best served by encouraging a focus on long-term value creation and risk management.

Ameren says that it “has long recognized the need to address the climate change challenge” (Ameren website) yet no environmental performance is or has been linked with senior executive compensation. Under the current Executive Incentives Plan, Performance Metrics are weighted 90% based on earnings per share and 10% based on safety (lost work days away) performance. No consideration is given to whether or how much the company has reduced its carbon emissions during the preceding year.

The effect of failing to provide such incentives is obvious in Ameren’s ongoing commitment to fossil fuels. Ameren’s power mix is approximately 77% coal (Ameren 2014 COP); indeed Ameren burns the 7th most coal and generates the 6th most carbon emissions of the top 100 electric power producers in the United States. (Ceres, 2012)

50


This puts our company in conflict with international findings on climate change that in order to maintain a livable climate below 2 degrees Celsius of warming “fossil fuel power generation . is phased out almost entirely by 2100.” (UN IPCC Synthesis Report, November 2014). Ameren’s ongoing plans to invest billions of shareholder dollars in maintaining and potentially more expensive reductions later.”

In October 2009, a National Academy of Sciences report stated that the burning of coal to generate electricity in the U.S. causes about $62 billion a year in “hidden costs” for environmental damage, not including the damage associated with GHG emissions. In a joint statement, 285 investors representing more than $20 trillion in assets stressed the urgent need for policy action which stimulates private sector investment into climate change solutions, creates jobs, and is essential for ensuring the long-term stability of the world economic system.

The electric generating industry accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than any other sector, including the transportation and industrial sectors. U.S.growing fossil fueled power plants account for nearly 40% of domestic and 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Many utilities, including Xcel Energy, Calpine Corporation, and Progress Energy are planning to replace some of their coal-fired power plants, determining that alternatives such as natural gas, efficiency and renewable energy (including wind, solar, biomass, and others) are more cost-effective than retrofitting the coal plants to reduce air pollution.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has announced plans to, over the next five years, idle 1000 MW of coal generating capacity, and add 1000 MWthereby sustaining carbon emissions, appears misaligned with management of gas and 1140 MW of nuclear generating capacity along with 1900 MW of energy efficiency and distributed renewable resources.

In October 2011, analysis by Bank of America stated, “Rapidly decliningthese long term risks relating to climate change. Moreover, the focus on coal operations leaves the company vulnerable to environmental compliance costs are bringing solar much closer to parity with average power prices, especially in sunny regions. By 2015, the economics of utility-scale photovoltaic energy in sunny areas and residential rooftop in high-costs regions should no longer require government subsidies.”

In October 2011, the America Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) indicated that “Total budgets for electricity efficiency programs increased to $4.5Ameren estimates at approximately $5.9 billion in 2010, up from $3.4 billion in 2009.”coming years (Ameren 2014 IRP).

Several electric power companies have set absolute GHG emissions reduction targets including: American Electric Power, Entergy, Duke Energy, Exelon, National Grid and Consolidated Edison. Others have set GHG intensity targets, including PSEG, NiSource and Pinnacle West.

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that a committee of independent directorsWhile determining specific metrics for executive compensation rests within the discretion of the Board assess actionsboard and its compensation committee, a senior executive compensation policy incorporating progress on carbon emission reduction would help better align Ameren’s values with its operations, and position the company is taking or could take to build shareholder value and reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissionsthrive in a future impacted by providing comprehensive energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to its customers; and that the Company report to shareholders by September 1, 2012 on its plans to achieve this goal. Such a report may omit proprietary information and be prepared at reasonable cost.climate change.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (6).

Summary Board Recommendation

The Board of Directors has carefully considered this shareholder proposal regardingproposal. Although there are certain assertions in the above-referenced assessment and report and unanimously recommendsproponent’s supporting statement that you vote“AGAINST”the Board believes are incorrect (as demonstrated by the facts in the Board’s following response), the Board is basing its response here on the core governance question raised by the proposal. As discussed further below,The Board agrees that the interests of Company shareholders are best served by maintaining an executive compensation program designed to motivate executives to pursue the goals of long-term value creation and risk management. However, the Board does not agree that the adoption of specific carbon reduction metrics as performance measures used to calculate senior executive compensation under the Company’s Executive Incentive Plan is necessary to achieve this purpose and is concerned that the adoption of such metrics would fundamentally shift the Company’s executive compensation plan away from its paramount goal — encouraging the creation of shareholder value. In addition, the Board believes that the requested assessment and report are not necessary or cost-effective becauseCompany’s existing executive compensation program, including its Executive Incentive Plan, effectively addresses the proponent’s concern that executive officers should be incentivized to operate the Company’s numerous publicly available documents (includingbusiness in a sustainable manner focused on long-term value creation.

Compensation Plan Design

The Board believes that the comprehensive 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report (the “2011 CSR”)design of executive compensation, including the factors to be included in its determination, must be the responsibility of the Board, which is obligated to retain the ability to take into account dynamic industry, policy and publicly available filingsbusiness conditions in order to most enhance long-term shareholder value. The Board believes that the Human Resources Committee is best positioned to determine which performance metrics should be included in the Company’s executive compensation program in order to achieve those objectives. The Human Resources Committee makes such determinations in compliance with the rules of the NYSE for listed companies. The Company’s executive compensation programs, including the Executive Incentive Plan, currently take into account a wide variety of factors in setting total executive compensation.

The Executive Incentive Plan provides for short-term cash incentive pay based on certain regulatory authorities,performance metrics and is only one component of the Company’s executive compensation program. As described further under “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” an executive’s base award under the Executive Incentive Plan is calculated based 90% on EPS targets and 10% based on safety

51


performance. The base award is then adjusted upward or downward by up to 50% through an Individual Performance Modifier, which measures an executive’s individual performance on key performance variables to be determined by the Committee.

The Company’s Executive Incentive Plan governs only the short-term component of executive compensation, and as such, consists solely of performance metrics that can be effectively measured within a single year, such as EPS results and safety goals. By contrast, the SecuritiesCompany approaches its efforts to reduce its carbon emissions as a long-term initiative, as evidenced by Ameren Missouri’s 20-year Integrated Resources Plan (“IRP”). Since reducing carbon emissions requires significant upfront capital investment and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)long-term planning, the Company believes that including annual carbon reduction metrics among the factors considered under the short-term Executive Incentive Plan, as suggested by the proposal, is not consistent with incentivizing the cost-efficient carbon reduction measures that would most significantly reduce total carbon emissions levels over the long-term.

Company managers who are directly responsible for managing carbon emissions and climate initiatives have specific activity-related performance goals defined in their individual Management Incentive Compensation Plans. Annual compensation for these employees is based in part on their ability to realize and achieve these individual performance goals, which include targets for energy efficient programs and plant energy efficiency programs.

The Company seeks to conduct its business operations in an efficient and sustainable manner over the extended term and believes that its strong commitment to initiatives to reduce its carbon emissions is a critical component of creating long-term shareholder value. In recent years, the Company has substantially reduced its carbon emissions and has announced significant investments in further carbon reduction and sustainability initiatives. In light of the Company’s demonstrated commitment to reducing its carbon emissions (as outlined below), the Board believes that the adoption of the proposal is unnecessary and would not be in the best interests of shareholders. Accordingly, the Board unanimously recommends that you vote “AGAINST” the proposal.

Commitment to Reducing Greenhouse Gases

The Company has been and will continue to be focused on environmental stewardship. Examples of the Company’s commitment to reducing its emissions include:

Ameren Missouri has considered carbon dioxide emissions in its IRP since 2005. Ameren Missouri further expanded its consideration of carbon emissions in its 2011 IRP by including carbon dioxide emissions as one of the few performance measures of generation portfolio selection. In its 2014 IRP, Ameren Missouri included among its chief objectives a transition to a cleaner and more fuel diverse portfolio over the next 20 years.

As part of its focus and commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Company has implemented various energy efficiency programs for its customers and across its facilities and operations.

The retirement of the Hutsonville and Meredosia Energy Centers at the end of 2011 also helped the Company reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 2 million tons.

In 2013, the Company divested its merchant power generation business, which included the sale of five coal power plants. The sale helped the Company achieve an over 40% drop in overall carbon dioxide emissions.

In October 2014, Ameren Missouri, which includes the Company’s electric generation assets, filed its IRP with the Missouri Public Service Commission (“MPSC”))Commission. The IRP,

52


available athttps://www.ameren.com/missouri/environment/renewables/ameren-missouri-irp, outlines Ameren Missouri’s plans to transition to a cleaner and more fuel-diverse portfolio of energy-producing assets in a responsible fashion over the next two decades. Major components of the IRP include:

achieving a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2035, based on 2005 levels;

retiring one-third (1,800 MW) of Ameren Missouri’s current coal-fired generating capacity;

significantly expanding renewable generation by adding 400 MW of wind, 45 MW of solar, 28 MW of hydroelectric and 5 MW of landfill gas power; and

offering cost-effective customer energy efficiency programs that can be used to reduce the amount of energy needed to provide the same level of service.

Finally, the Company’s many website disclosures, currently provide shareholders with extensive information regardingstrong commitment to continual reductions in carbon emissions is evidenced in its detailed and voluntary public disclosure, including in its 2013 Corporate Social Responsibility report, available athttps://www.ameren.com/sustainability, which details the Company’s actionsefforts to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”)emissions as well as its 2014 report to CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project). Since 2008, the Company has completed an annual questionnaire from CDP, available athttps://www.ameren.com/-/media/corporate-site/Files/Sustainability/ClimateCDPfiling.pdf, to disclose its efforts in measuring and other airreducing its carbon output.

The Company is committed to the reduction of carbon emissions including reducing such emissions throughand the sustainable development and use of energy in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of its customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and as a result, such information effectively addresses the proponent’s proposal. The 2011 CSR, published in December 2011, is the Company’s first social responsibility report and includes disclosures which address the proponent’s proposal. Consequently,shareholders. However, the Board considers this an ongoing long-term goal and does not believe that including performance metrics relating to carbon reduction in its short-term Executive Incentive Plan is an appropriate or effective means of accomplishing this goal and driving long-term shareholder value. Accordingly, the expenditure of the additional human and financial resourcesBoard believes that would be required to conduct an additional assessment and produce another report on this subject matter would be a necessary or prudent use of shareholder assets and as such, the requested additional assessment and report areproposal is not in the best interests of the Company or itsCompany’s shareholders.

VOTE REQUIREDFOR APPROVAL

Background

The Company was not contacted by the shareholder proponent regarding the proponent’s interest in an assessment and report on the Company’s actions to reduce GHG and other air emissions prior to our receiptUnder Missouri law, approval of the proposal. Since receiving the proposal, representatives of the Company, including a member of senior management, have been unsuccessful in their attempts (by way of telephone and written communications over a several week period in early 2012) to speak with the proponent to discuss his request for such assessment and report. The Company did, however, send the proponent a copy of the 2011 CSR and detailed cross-references to pertinent GHG and other air emissions

disclosures contained in the 2011 CSR, in other publicly available documents and on our website. Those disclosures specifically address, among other topics, the Company’s carbon metrics and actions to reduce GHG and other air emissions, including reducing such emissions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and we believe, are responsive to the proponent’s request for additional information, as presented in the proposal.

The Company publicly discloses a significant amount of information relating to reducing its GHG and other air emissions, including reducing such emissions through existing customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Such information, some of which is highlighted below, is disclosed in various reports, related documents and other Company website disclosures. We believe such publicly available information effectively addresses the issues raised in the proponent’s proposal. All reports and documents referenced in this Company response are available through our website at www.ameren.com or by contacting the office of the Company’s Secretary and requesting a copy.

The Company has a corporate process for identifying risks and/or opportunities that result from initiatives to address climate change and reduce GHG and other air emissions. In 2008, the Company created the Strategic Initiatives Department to primarily focus on climate change issues. The Strategic Initiatives Department provides detailed analyses of technology, legal and regulatory issues; physical risk evaluation; business plan strategy development; and outreach activities to help educate internal and external audiences, including customers, about the impact of GHG emissions and proposed climate change regulation and legislation.

The Company has provided wide-ranging energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for both residential and business customers, as discussed further below, for a number of years.

Company Provides Significant Disclosure Relating to Reducing its GHG and Other Air Emissions, Including Reducing Such Emissions Through Customer Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs; Board Oversight Relating Thereto

The 2011 CSR was released in December 2011 and contains a significant amount of information relating to reducing our GHG and other air emissions, including reducing such emissions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. With respect to issues raised in the proponent’s proposal, the 2011 CSR provides information on, among other topics:

our efforts to reduce GHG and other air emissions, including through certain innovative environmental initiatives;

the Company’s response to climate change issues and reducing our carbon footprint;

the Company’s energy efficiency programs, including those for our customers (several of which are highlighted below);

the Company’s renewable energy programs, including those for our customers (several of which are highlighted below); and

our efforts to explore renewable energy sources.

In its proposal, the proponent specifically notes that several electric power companies have set absolute GHG emissions reduction targets or GHG intensity targets. In the Company’s 2011 Investor Response filed with the Carbon Disclosure Project (the “2011 CDP Response”), we provided such targets through 2014. The 2011 CDP Response also includes a significant amount of data and information measuring and disclosing the Company’s GHG emissions, water management and climate change strategies.

In 2010, Ameren Missouri engaged a third-party consultant to perform a Demand Side Management Market Potential Study (the “2010 DSM Study”) to assess the various categories of electrical energy efficiency and demand response potential in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for the Ameren Missouri service area from 2009 to 2030. The 2010 DSM Study includes information concerning customer energy efficiency programs and the realistic achievable potential from such programs and was used in the preparation of Ameren Missouri’s 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (the “2011 IRP”).

In 2011, Ameren Missouri filed its 2011 IRP with the MPSC. The 2011 IRP includes (1) information relating to Ameren Missouri’s projected need for additional electric generation in the next 20 years and resource options to meet consumer needs while also balancing reliability, energy efficiency, affordable cost and environmental pressures, (2) an evaluation of Ameren Missouri’s various types of generation including: coal-fired plants, nuclear energy, natural gas combustion turbines, solar, wind, hydroelectric, landfill gas-to-energy and biomass to determine which resources might best meet future demand and (3) information on Ameren Missouri’s energy efficiency programs.

Certain publicly available filings on the Company’s website and certain of our regular periodic filings with the SEC also contain Company disclosures concerning climate change, GHG and other air emissions, and our customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Energy Efficiency Programs

In 2011, the Company spent over $80 million, and in 2012 we expect to spend a comparable amount, to develop and implement energy efficiency programs.

As highlighted in the 2011 CSR and on our website, as the case may be, customer energy efficiency programs provided by the Company include, but are not limited to:

customer education programs, including programs through the Company’s Energy Advisor website launched in 2011 (through this site, customers can get information about energy efficiency, renewable energy, customer-owned solar and wind generation and smart grid technology);

installation of energy efficient heating and air conditioning systems and occupancy sensors in homes, schools and businesses;

home energy audits;

low-income home weatherization improvements assistance;

programmable thermostat programs;

incentives to customers to purchase specific energy efficient gas equipment, such as furnaces, boilers or manufacturing equipment; and

correcting compressed air leaks and installing tanks for improved storage in manufacturing facilities.

In January 2012, Ameren Missouri filed with the MPSC a three-year plan that includes new and expanded energy efficiency programs, the largest such plan in the state of Missouri. The proposed programs include energy efficiency investments of approximately $145 million over three years, beginning early January 2013. These investments are expected to result in approximately $500 million in total customer benefits over the next 20 years. Annual energy savings are expected to be nearly 800 million kilowatthours, which is equal to the energy consumption of more than 60,000 average Missouri homes annually.

Renewable Energy Programs

The Company is committed to exploring renewable energy options that include generation from wind, sunlight, landfill gas, agricultural waste and water. Since 2005, we have developed programs that provide customers with information on renewable energy options and opportunities.

In 2010, the Company spent over $41 million on integrating renewable energy into our generation fleet, including adding wind energy from Horizon Wind Energy’s Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm in Iowa through a 15-year wind power purchase agreement, developing landfill gas generation with operation slated for 2012, installing solar generation at our headquarters and continuing upgrades at existing hydroelectric facilities.

Under construction and expected to be completed in 2012, the Company’s Maryland Heights Renewable Energy Center — also known as the Methane to MegaWatts project — will be the largest landfill gas electric generating facility in Missouri and one of the largest in the nation, generating enough electricity to meet the demands of approximately 10,000 homes.

As highlighted in the 2011 CSR and on our website, as the case may be, customer renewable energy programs provided by the Company include, but are not limited to:

a program, instituted in 2011, to purchase solar renewable energy credits from customers who install solar generation on their homes and/or businesses;

a net metering program (which is a special metering and billing arrangement between the Company and its customers who choose to install small renewable generation systems, like wind turbines or photovoltaic panels, and interconnect them to the Company’s utility system);

Pure Power™ (a voluntary renewable energy credit program for Missouri residential and business customers); and

completed in 2011, the Ameren Energy Learning Center at our St. Louis headquarters provides homeowners, business owners and students access to our energy experts and solar energy project.

Board Oversight

The Board’s Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee (comprised entirely of independent directors) is responsible for reviewing the Company’s policies, practices and performance relating to environmental affairs, including the monitoring of environmental trends; activities on climate change; compliance with applicable federal and state governmental requirements relating to the environment (e.g., reducing emissions); and the promotion of efficiency in the generation, distribution and end use of energy. As part of its oversight responsibility, the Nuclear Oversight and Environmental Committee reviewed the 2011 CSR prior to its distribution.

Board Recommendation Against Proposal

In light of the foregoing,the Board unanimously recommends voting AGAINST ITEM (6).

Vote Required

Passage of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares entitled to vote onoutstanding as of the proposalrecord date and represented in person or by proxy at the meetingAnnual Meeting at which a quorum ismust be present. In addition, under Missouri law, an abstention from voting on this matter will be treated as “present” for quorum purposes and will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION AGAINST PROPOSAL

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” ITEM (6).

OTHER MATTERS

The Board of Directors does not know of any matter which may be presented at the Annual Meeting other than the election of Directors, the non-binding advisory approval of the compensation of our executivesNamed Executive Officers disclosed in this proxy statement, the ratification of the appointment of PwC as independent registered public accounting firm, and the shareholder proposalproposals set forth above. However, if any other matters should properly come before the meeting, it is the intention of the persons named in the enclosed proxy to vote thereon in accordance with their best judgment.

53


SECURITY OWNERSHIP

SECURITY OWNERSHIPOF MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT SHAREHOLDERS

The following table contains information with respect to the ownership of Ameren Common Stock by each person known to the Company who is the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the outstanding Common Stock.

 

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

  Shares of Common Stock
Owned Beneficially at
December 31, 2014
SharesPercent of Common Stock
Owned Beneficially at
December 31, 2011
Percent of
Common Stock2014 (%)

BlackRock, Inc.

40 East 52nd Street

New York, New York 10022

15,746,584(1)6.50

The Vanguard Group, Inc.

100 Vanguard Blvd.

Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355

  13,882,07819,910,570(2)(1) 5.738.2

BlackRock, Inc.

55 East 52nd Street

New York, New York 10022

13,826,832(2)5.7

State Street Corporation

State Street Financial Center

One Lincoln Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02111

  12,840,66313,082,106(3)(3) 5.305.4

 

(1)The number of shares and percentage owned as of December 31, 20112014 according to the Amendment No. 15 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 13, 2012. BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) is a parent holding company in accordance with SEC Rule 13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(G). The amendment to the Schedule 13G reports that BlackRock is the beneficial owner of all 15,746,584 shares of Common Stock and has sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to all shares.

(2)The number of shares and percentage owned as of December 31, 2011 according to the Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 7, 2012.11, 2015. The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Vanguard Group”) is an investment adviser in accordance with SEC Rule 13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(E). The amendment to the Schedule 13G reports that Vanguard Group has sole voting power with respect to 437,287 shares of Common Stock, sole dispositive power with respect to 19,514,585 shares of Common Stock and shared dispositive power with respect to 333,397 shares of Common Stock and sole dispositive power with respect to 13,548,681395,985 shares of Common Stock. Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, (“VFTC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard Group, is the beneficial owner of 333,397326,985 shares of Common Stock as a result of it serving as investment manager of collective trust accounts. VFTC directsVanguard Investments Australia, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard Group, is the votingbeneficial owner of those shares.179,302 shares of Common Stock as a result of its serving as investment manager of Australian investment offerings.

 

(3)(2)The number of shares and percentage owned as of December 31, 20112014 according to the Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 9, 2015. BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) is a parent holding company in accordance with SEC Rule 13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(G). The amendment to the Schedule 13G reports that BlackRock is the beneficial owner of all 13,826,832 shares of Common Stock, has sole voting power with respect to 11,729,042 shares of Common Stock and sole dispositive power with respect to 13,826,832 shares of Common Stock.

(3)The number of shares and percentage owned as of December 31, 2014 according to the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 9, 2012.11, 2015. State Street Corporation (“State Street”) is a parent holding company in accordance with SECRule 13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(G). The Schedule 13G reports that State Street has sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to 0 shares of Common Stock and shared voting power and shared dispositive power with respect to all 12,840,66313,082,106 shares of Common Stock, and no sole voting power nor sole dispositive power with respect to any Common Stock.

54


SECURITY OWNERSHIPOF DIRECTORSAND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth certain information known to the Company with respect to beneficial ownership of Ameren Common Stock and Stock Units as of February 1, 2012January 31, 2015 for (i) each director and nominee for director of the Company, (ii) each individual serving as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer during 2011,2014 and the three most highly compensated executive officers of the Company (and/or its subsidiaries) (other than individuals serving as the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer during 2011)2014) who were serving as executive officers at the end of 2011,2014, each as named in the Summary Compensation Table below (collectively, the “Executives”“Named Executive Officers”), and (iii) all executive officers, directors and nominees for director as a group.

 

Name

 Number of Shares of
Common Stock
Beneficially

Owned(1)(2)
 Percent
Owned(3)

Warner L. Baxter

   37,262*

Stephen F. Brauer

  15,64679,852 *

Catherine S. Brune

   5,14213,907*

J. Edward Coleman

            0*

Fadi M. Diya

  14,717 *

Ellen M. Fitzsimmons

   12,56022,404 *

Walter J. Galvin

   22,86147,209 *

Adam C. HeflinRichard J. Harshman

     5,1357,730 *

Gayle P. W. Jackson

   13,62821,834 *

James C. Johnson

   17,14027,637 *

Steven H. Lipstein

   9,00818,345 *

Martin J. Lyons, Jr.

   9,27434,900*

Michael L. Moehn

  23,839*

Charles D. Naslund

  48,591 *

Patrick T. Stokes

   18,62129,328 *

Thomas R. Voss(4)

   51,899*

Steven R. Sullivan

  16,549132,624 *

Stephen R. Wilson

   11,67719,378 *

Jack D. Woodard

   15,64626,229 *

All directors, nominees for director and executive officers as a group (23(17 persons)

 384,305568,524 *

 

*Less than one percent.

 

(1)Except as noted in footnote (2), this column lists voting securities, including restricted stock held by current and former executive officers over which the individuals have voting power but no investment power.securities. None of the named individuals held shares issuable within 60 days upon the exercise of stock options. Reported shares include those for which a director, nominee for director or executive officer has voting or investment power because of joint or fiduciary ownership of the shares or a relationship with the record owner, most commonly a spouse, even if such director, nominee for director or executive officer does not claim beneficial ownership.

 

(2)This column also includes ownership of 9,04721,434 Stock Units held by each of Directors Galvin, Stokes and Woodard, 18,912 Stock Units held by Director Galvin, and 5,043 Stock Units held by Director Johnson, each pursuant to the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. See “ITEMS YOU MAY VOTE ON — DIRECTOR COMPENSATION — Directors Deferred Compensation Plan Participation.” As of February 1, 2012,2015, the aggregate number of Stock Units outstanding under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan for such directors was 27,141.66,823.

55


(3)For each individual and group included in the table, percentage ownership is calculated by dividing the number of shares beneficially owned by such person or group as described above by the sum of the 242,634,742242,634,798 shares of Common Stock outstanding on February 1, 2012January 31, 2015 and the number of shares of Common Stock that such person or group had the right to acquire on or within 60 days of January 31, 2015.

(4)Mr. Voss retired from his position as President of the Company on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and as Chairman of the Board and member of the Board on July 1, 2012.2014.

Since 2003, the Company has had a policy which prohibits directors and executive officers from engaging in pledges of Company securities or short sales, margin accounts and hedging or derivative transactions with respect to Company securities. In addition, since 2013, the Company has had a policy which prohibits directors and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries from entering into any transaction which hedges (or offsets) any decrease in the value of Company equity securities that are (1) granted by the Company to the director or employee as part of compensation or (2) held, directly or indirectly, by the director or employee.

The address of all persons listed above is c/o Ameren Corporation, 1901 Chouteau Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

STOCK OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

Stock Ownership Requirement for Directors

The stock ownership requirement applicable to directors is described above under “ITEMS YOU MAY VOTE ON — DIRECTOR COMPENSATIONDIRECTOR COMPENSATION — Director Stock Ownership Requirement.”

Stock Ownership Requirement for Members of the Ameren Leadership TeamNamed Executive Officers and Section 16 Officers

The stock ownership requirements applicable to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers are described below under “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION — COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS — Common Stock Ownership Requirement.” The Company also has stock ownership requirements applicable to other members of the Ameren Leadership Team.Section 16 Officers. These requirements are included in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines which are available on the Company’s website or upon request to the Company, as described herein.

SECTION 16(a)16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers and persons who own more than 10ten percent of the Company’s Common Stock to file reports of their ownership in the equity securities of the Company and its subsidiaries and of changes in that ownership with the SEC and the NYSE.SEC. SEC regulations also require the Company to identify in this proxy statement any person subject to this requirement who failed to file any such report on a timely basis. BasedTo our knowledge, based solely on a review of the filed reports and written representations that no other reports are required, except for one late Form 4 filing on behalf of Director Woodard, we believe that each of the Company’s directors and executive officers complied with all such filing requirements during 2011.2014.

56


EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forthThe information contained in any of the Company’s filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate other filings with the SEC, including this proxy statement, in whole or in part, the following Human Resources Committee Report shall not be deemed to be incorporated“soliciting material” or “filed” or “incorporated by reference” in future filings with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference into any such filings.a document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE REPORT

The Human Resources Committee (the “Committee”) discharges the Board’s responsibilities relating to compensation of the Company’s executive officers and for all Company subsidiaries which are registered companies pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Committee approves and evaluates all compensation of executive officers, including salaries, bonuses and compensation plans, policies and programs of the Company.

The Committee also fulfills its duties with respect to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and Human Resources Committee Report portions of the proxy statement, as described in the Committee’s Charter.

The Compensation Discussion and Analysis has been prepared by management of the Company. The Company is responsible for the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and for the disclosure controls relating to executive compensation.

The Human Resources Committee met with management of the Company and the Committee’s independent consultant to review and discuss the Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based on the foregoing review and discussions, the Human Resources Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement, and the Company’s 2011 Form 10-K, and the Board approved that recommendation.

Human Resources Committee:

Patrick T. Stokes, Chairman

Richard J. Harshman

James C. Johnson

Steven H. Lipstein

Jack D. Woodard

COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS

20112014 In Brief

For a discussion of fiscal 2014 Company business highlights, see “PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY” on page 1.

In 2014, the Company changed its leadership structure. Mr. Voss retired from his position as President of the Company on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and as Chairman of the Board on July 1, 2014, and Mr. Baxter became a member of the Board and was promoted to President the Company on February 14, 2014, to Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and to Chairman of the Board on July 1, 2014. In connection with this transition, the Committee considered Mr. Baxter’s compensation. The Committee established the components of Mr. Baxter’s compensation as CEO so as to place his total compensation at 10% below the size-adjusted median of pay opportunities provided by similar utility companies for the CEO position. We further discuss below Mr. Baxter’s 2014 base salary and short- and long-term incentive awards.

57


Our compensation philosophy and related governance features are executed by several specific policies and practices that are designed to align our executive compensation with long-term shareholder interests, including:

What we do:

We develop pay opportunities at the size-adjusted median of those provided by similar utility companies, with actual payouts dependent on our corporate short- and long-term performance and the individual’s performance.

We design our short-term incentives program so that it is entirely performance-based with the primary focus on our EPS and additional focus on safety metrics and individual performance.

We design our long-term incentives program so that it is entirely performance-based with the primary focus on our total shareholder return versus that of a utility peer group and with an additional link to our EPS.

We include in our short-term and long-term incentive awards “clawback” provisions that are triggered if the Company makes certain financial restatements. In addition, beginning with short-term and long-term incentive awards granted in 2015, if the award holder engages in conduct or activity that is detrimental to the Company or violates the confidentiality or customer or employee non-solicitation provisions included in the award, generally, the award holder will be required to repay the award to the Company after receiving a demand from the Company for the repayment.

We maintain stock ownership requirements for our executive officers and directors.

We provide only limited perquisites, such as financial and tax planning.

Our change of control cash severance and equity vesting are both fully “double-trigger.”

We eliminated excise tax “gross-up” payments under our Change of Control Severance Plan for all officers who first become eligible to participate in the plan on or after October 1, 2009.

An independent compensation consultant is engaged by and reports directly to the Committee.

We intend payouts under our short-term and long-term incentives programs to meet the definition of qualified performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the IRC and be eligible for tax deduction.

What we don’t do:

We do not have employment agreements.

We do not allow employees, officers or directors to hedge Ameren securities.

We do not allow executive officers or directors to pledge Ameren securities.

We do not provide tax “gross-up” payments on perquisites.

We do not grant time-vesting long-term incentive awards; we only grant performance vesting subject to continued employment.

We do not pay dividends or dividend equivalents on unearned incentive awards.

58


We do not re-price stock options (and none of our executives are awarded stock options).

We do not include the value of long-term incentive awards in our pension calculations.

During 2011,2014, the Company’s pay-for-performance program led to the following actions and actual 20112014 compensation being earned:

 

20112014 annual short-term incentive base awards based on EPS and safety were earned at 123.5103.5 percent of target; this payout reflected strong financial and operational performance by the Company in 20112014 that was attributed, in part, to continued disciplined cost management, strong energy center performance and regulated utility rate relief;the successful execution of the Company’s strategy as described on page 1; and

 

only 3087.5 percent of the target three-year long-term incentive awards made in 20092012 were earned (plus accrued dividends of approximately 5.514.3 percent) based on our total shareholder return relative to the defineda utility peer group over the three-year (2009-2011) measurement period.period (2012–2014). At the December 31, 20112014 vesting date, the PSUs (as defined below) were valued at $33.13worth $46.13 per share rather than the $22.20$33.13 value at which such PSUsthey were granted; as a result, the actual earned amounts equaled 53139 percent of the original target awards.

In addition, ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers are required to own our Common Stock through stock ownership requirements (see “— Common Stock Ownership Requirement” below) and the two-year hold requirement on performance share unit awards granted prior to 2009.. The value of those shares rose and fell in the same way and with the same impact that share value rose and fell for other shareholders.

InOur “Named Executive Officers” are listed in the remainder of thisfollowing table and the Summary Compensation Table on page 76.

Named Executive Officers

Named Executive Officer

Title

Warner L. BaxterChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren
Martin J. Lyons, JrEVP and Chief Financial Officer, Ameren, Ameren Services, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois
Charles D. NaslundEVP, Corporate Operations Oversight, Ameren Missouri(1)
Fadi M. DiyaSVP, Chief Nuclear Officer, Ameren Missouri
Michael L. MoehnChairman and President, Ameren Missouri
Thomas R. VossRetired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren(2)

(1)Mr. Naslund retired from the Company on March 1, 2015, and, in connection with his retirement, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Naslund effective as of April 1, 2015.

(2)Mr. Voss retired from his position as President of the Company on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and as Chairman of the Board and member of the Board on July 1, 2014.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (or “CD(“CD&A”), references describes the compensation decisions made for 2014 with respect to “the Committee” are to the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors. We use the term “Executives” to refer to the employees listed in the Summary Compensation Table.our Named Executive Officers.

59


Guiding Principles and PoliciesObjectives

Our philosophyobjective for compensation of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers is to provide a competitive total compensation program that is based on the size-adjusted median of the range of compensation paid by similar utility industry companies, adjusted for our short- and long-term performance and the individual’s performance. The adjustment for our performance aligns the long-term interests of management with that of our shareholders to maximize shareholder value.

Overview of Executive Compensation Program Components

In 2011,To accomplish this objective in 2014, our compensation program for the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers consisted of several compensation elements, each of which is discussed in more detail below. At the Company, although all pay components are totaled for comparisons to the Market Data (the size-adjusted median of the compensation paid by similar utility industry peer companies), decisions with respect to one element of pay (e.g., long-term incentives) tend not to impact other elements of pay.pay (e.g., base salary). The following are the material elements of our compensation program for the Executives:Named Executive Officers:

 

base salary;

 

short-term incentives;

 

long-term incentives, specifically our Performance Share UnitsUnit Program;

 

retirement benefits;

limited perquisites; and

 

“double-trigger” change of control protection.

Our Common Stock ownership requirements applicable to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers are discussed in this CD&A.

We also provide various welfare benefits to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers on substantially the same basis as we provide to all salaried employees. We provide modest perquisites and other personal benefits to the Executives.

Each element is reviewed individually and considered collectively with other elements of our compensation program to ensure that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of that particular element of compensation as well as our overall compensation program.

Market Data and Compensation Peer Group

In October 2010, for use in 2011,2013, to help inform compensation determinations with respect to 2014, the Committee’s independent consultant collected and analyzed comprehensive market data, including base salary, target short-term incentives (non-equity incentive plan compensation) and long-term incentive opportunities. The market data was obtained from a proprietary database maintained by Aon Hewitt.

The elements of pay were benchmarked both individually and in total to the same comparator group.

To develop market figures,the Market Data, compensation opportunities for the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers were compared to the compensation opportunities for comparable positions at companies similar to us, defined as regulated utility industry companies in a revenue size range approximately one-half to double our size.size, with a few exceptions (our “compensation peers”). The Committee’s independent consultant used statistical techniques to adjust the market data to be appropriate for our revenue size.size and produce the Market Data. Certain of our

60


compensation peers have revenues that are more than double our revenue, but because of use of regression analysis, this did not necessarily impact the Market Data upward. The compensation peers’ market capitalizations had no bearing on the Market Data because market capitalization is not used as a size adjustment variable.

We provide compensation opportunities at levels indicated by the size-adjusted median of the above-described market data,Market Data, and design our incentive plans to pay significantly more or less than the target amount when performance is above or below target performance levels, respectively. Thus, our plans are designed to result in payouts that are market-appropriate given our performance for that year or period.

The companies identified as the peer group“compensation peers” used to develop 20112014 compensation opportunities from the above-described data are listed below. The list is subject to change each year depending on mergers and acquisitions activity, the availability of the companies’ data through Aon Hewitt’s database and the continued appropriateness of the companies in terms of size and industry in relationship to the Company.

 

   
AGL Resources  Dominion Resources, Inc.Duke Energy  PPL Corporation
AlleghenyAlliant Energy (merged with FirstEnergyCorporation  Duke EnergyFirstEnergy Corp.  Progress Energy, Inc.

Corp. on February 25, 2011)

Edison InternationalReliant Energy,PSEG, Inc.
American Electric Power Co.  FirstEnergy Corp.Integrys Energy Group, Inc.  SCANA Corporation
CenterPoint Energy  Integrys Energy Group,NiSource Inc.  Sempra Energy
CMS Energy  NiSource Inc.OGE Energy  Southern CompanyWGL Holdings
Constellation EnergyDominion Resources, Inc.  PG&E Corporation  WGL HoldingsXcel Energy, Inc.

DTE Energy Company

 

  Pinnacle West Capital Corp.   

Mix of Pay

We believe that both cash compensation and non-cashnoncash compensation are appropriate elements of a total rewards program. Cash compensation is currentshort-term compensation (i.e., base salary and annual incentive awards), while non-cashnoncash compensation is generally long-term compensation (i.e., equity-based incentive compensation).

A significant percentage of total compensation is allocated to short-term and long-term incentives as a result of the philosophy mentioned above. During 2011,2014, there was no pre-established policy or target for the allocation between either cash and non-cashnoncash or short-term and long-term compensation. Rather, the Committee reviewed the market dataMarket Data provided by its consultant to determine the appropriate level and mix of incentive compensation. The allocation between current and long-term compensation was based primarily on competitive market practices relative to base salaries, annual incentive awards and long-term incentive award values. By following this process, the impact to Executive compensation was to increase the proportion of pay that is at risk as an individual’s responsibility within the Company increases and to create long-term incentive opportunities that exceed short-term opportunities for Executives.

Named Executive Officers.

20112014 FIXED VVERSUSERSUS PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION

The following table shows the allocation of each Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s base salary and short-term and long-term incentive compensation opportunities between fixed and performance-based compensation (atat the target levels).levels. In the case of Mr. Baxter, Mr. Diya and Mr. Moehn, these allocations reflect the target levels in effect following these individuals’ respective promotions. These allocations do not include Mr. Baxter’s grant of 32,703 PSUs on April 24, 2014 (valued at $1,344,746), Mr. Moehn’s grant of 5,856 PSUs on April 1, 2014

 

Name

  Fixed
Compensation
 Performance-
Based
Compensation

Voss

  19% 81%

Lyons

  29% 71%

Baxter

  29% 71%

Heflin

  24% 76%

Sullivan

  31% 69%

61


(valued at $238,700) or Mr. Diya’s performance stock bonus award granted on March 1, 2014 (valued at $400,000 at target), which are discussed in more detail below.

Name

  Fixed
Compensation
(base salary)
 Performance-
Based
Compensation
(short-term and long-
term incentive
compensation)

Baxter

  19% 81%

Lyons

  29% 71%

Naslund

  32% 68%

Diya

  34% 66%

Moehn

  31% 69%

Voss

  19% 81%

20112014 SHORT-TERM VVERSUSERSUS LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table shows the allocation between each Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s target short-term and long-term incentive compensation opportunities (each at the target level) as a percentage of each Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s base salary.salary (each at the target level). In the case of Mr. Baxter, Mr. Moehn and Mr. Diya, these percentages reflect the target levels in effect following these individuals’ respective promotions. Such award opportunities were determined primarily considering the Market Data mentioned above, and secondarily considering internal pay equity, i.e., the relationship of target award opportunities of the Named Executive Officers with those of other officers at the same level in the Company. These percentages do not include Mr. Baxter’s grant of 32,703 PSUs on April 24, 2014 (valued at $1,344,746), Mr. Moehn’s grant of 5,856 PSUs on April 1, 2014 (valued at $238,700) or Mr. Diya’s performance stock bonus award granted on March 1, 2014 (valued at $400,000 at target), which are discussed in more detail below.

 

Name

  Short-Term
Incentive
Opportunity
 Long-Term
Incentive
Opportunity
  Short-Term
Incentive
Opportunity
 Long-Term
Incentive
Opportunity
Baxter  100% 325%
Lyons    70% 175%
Naslund    60% 150%
Diya    60% 135%
Moehn    65% 155%
Voss  100% 315%  100% 325%
Lyons    65% 175%
Baxter    65% 175%
Heflin    60% 150%
Sullivan    65% 160%

Base Salary

Base salary compensates foris designed to reward competence and sustained performance in the executive role, and isrole. We choose to pay base salary as a standard pay element. Our base salary program is designed to provide the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers with market competitive salaries based upon role, experience, competence and performance.

The market data referenced above assisted in definingWe determine the pay parametersamount for each Executive.base salary by referencing the Market Data discussed above. Based on this data and the scope of each Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s role, a base salary range was established for each position at +/- 20 percent of the established market rate for the position. The base salary of each Named Executive Officer is typically managed within this pay range.

In 2013, Mr. T.R. Voss (our then Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) recommended a 20112014 base salary increase for each of the other Executives Named Executive Officers

62


considering their then-current salary in relation to the market median,Market Data, experience and sustained individual performance and results, and that due to the business and economic environment affecting the Company, the Committee had maintained the annual base salary payable to several of the Executives in 2010 at the same levels as in effect as of the end of 2009.results. These recommendations, which took into account the market dataMarket Data provided by the Committee’s compensation consultant, were presented to the Committee for discussion and approval at the December 20102013 Committee meeting. Increases were approved based on the market dataMarket Data and base salary range, as well as internal pay equity, experience, individual performance and the need to retain an experienced team. Performance takes into account competence, initiative and contribution to achievement of our goals and leadership.

In December 2010,2013, the Committee also approved and the Board ratified an increase to the 20112014 base salary of Mr. Voss from $1.03 million to $1.062 million in connection with Mr. Voss’ annual performance review. The Committee’s decision to adjust Mr. Voss’ base salary was based on a number of factors, including but not limited to his performance as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Committee’s review of base salary market datathe Market Data for the chief executive officer position at similar regulated utility industry companies.position.

In February 2011,April 2014, the Committee approved and the Board ratified a further increase to theincreased Mr. Baxter’s base salary of Mr. Sullivan from $438,000$642,000 to $458,000 per annum, effective as of March 2, 2011,$950,000 in connection with the election of Mr. Sullivanhis appointment as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC and Chairman and Presidentthe Company. A salary level of AEG. The Committee’s decision to adjust Mr. Sullivan’s$950,000 is 10% below the base salary was based on a numberMarket Data for the CEO position. The other components of factors, including but not limitedMr. Baxter’s pay were likewise set so as to market dataplace his total compensation at 10% below the Market Data for these positions, Mr. Sullivan’s specific responsibilities and his experience relevant to the new positions.CEOs.

Short-Term Incentive Compensation: Executive Incentive Plan

20112014 Ameren Executive Incentive Plan

How the Plan Works

Our short-term incentive compensation program element is entitled the Ameren Executive Incentive Plan (“EIP”). The EIP is designed to reward the achievement of Ameren EPS targets, safety performance as measured by lost workday away (“LWA”), and individual performance. We choose to pay it to encourage higher annual corporate and individual performance.

How the EIP Works

For 2011,2014, the EIP (the “2011“2014 EIP”) was comprised of the following components in rewarding ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers for annual achievement:

 

Ameren earnings per share (“EPS”) targets;EPS targets, weighted at 90%;

safety LWA performance, weighted at 10%; and

 

an individual performance modifier.

 

LOGOLOGO

63


2014 EPS Targetsand Safety Goals and Weightings

Ameren EPS, calculated in accordance with general accounting principles, was the primary metric used to establish award opportunities under the 2011 EIP and was used to determine the Executive’s base award, as EPS was determined by the Committee to have a significant impact on shareholder value.

The Committee established three levels of Ameren EPS and safety LWA achievement under the 2011 EIP to reward Executives2014 EIP. Payouts for results achieved in Ameren EPS performance. Achievement of Ameren EPSand safety LWA results falling between the established levels was interpolated.were interpolated on a straight-line basis. The three levels are defined as follows:

 

  

Threshold:Threshold: the minimum level of Ameren EPS and safety LWA achievement necessary for short-term incentive payment to Executives.Named Executive Officers. The 2014 Ameren EPS Threshold was set at 90% of Target. The 2014 LWAs Threshold reflects 24% more LWAs than Target.

 

  

Target:Target: the targeted level of Ameren EPS and safety LWA achievement. The 2014 Ameren EPS Target was tied to the 2014 budget approved by the Board of Directors. The 2014 LWA Target was one LWA less than Ameren’s best performance ever in that metric (i.e., represents a level never before achieved by Ameren).

 

  

Maximum: the maximum level of Ameren EPS and safety LWA achievement established to award ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers with short-term incentive payment. The 2014 Ameren EPS Maximum was set at 110% of Target. The 2014 LWAs Maximum represents 24% fewer LWAs than Target (i.e., considerably fewer LWAs than ever before achieved).

The rangeranges of Ameren EPS and safety LWA achievement levels for the 20112014 EIP, as established by the Committee in February 2011, is2014, are shown below. Achievement levelsAmeren EPS was calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and could be adjusted to include or exclude specified items of an unusual or non-recurring nature as determined by the Committee atin its sole discretion and as permitted by the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.Plan and the 2014 Plan, as applicable.

 

Level of Performance

  Ameren EPS   Payout as a
Percent of  Target
Maximum   $2.70    150%
Target   $2.36    100%
Threshold   $2.20      50%
Below threshold   Less than $2.20        0%

2011 EIP Target Opportunities

Target 2011 EIP award opportunities were determined primarily considering the market data mentioned above, and secondarily considering internal pay equity, i.e., the relationship of target award opportunities of the Executives with those of other officers at the same level in the Company. The amounts listed in columns (c), (d) and (e) of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table following this CD&A represent the potential range of cash awards for the 2011 EIP and are based on a percentage of each Executive’s base salary at December 31, 2011, as follows:

2011 EIP TARGET OPPORTUNITY

Executive

Target Short-Term
Incentive Compensation
as Percent of Base Salary
Voss100%
Lyons  65%
Baxter  65%
Heflin  60%
Sullivan  65%

The minimum payout amount for each Executive was 0 percent of these target opportunities and the maximum base award is 150 percent of these target opportunities.

Level of Performance

  Ameren EPS   Safety LWA   Payout as a
Percent of Target
 
Maximum   $2.59     16     150
Target   $2.35     21     100
Threshold   $2.11     26     50
Below threshold   Less than $2.11     More than 26     0

Individual Performance Modifier

The 20112014 EIP base award for each Named Executive Officer was subject to upward or downward adjustment by up to 50 percent in the Committee’s discretion, with a potential maximum total award at 200 percent of each Executive’s target opportunity. Awards were subject to upward or downward adjustment due to the Executives’for individual performance on key performance variables, including but not limited tovariables. These included leadership, business results, customer satisfaction, reliability, plant availability safety and/or other performance metrics, as applicable and as determined by the Committee. Awards were

Historically, the Individual Performance Modifier has been used to differentiate performance that is considerably above or below that expected. Such differentiations do not lend themselves to formulas and are applied at the Committee’s discretion.

Individual Performance Modifier reductions could be up to -50 percent, with the ability to pay zero for poor or non-performance. Increases could be up to +50 percent, with a potential maximum total award at 200 percent of each Named Executive Officer’s target opportunity. With respect to each Named Executive Officer, adjustments to the base award are in all cases subject to reductionthe maximum permitted amount pre-established by more than 50 percent in casesthe Committee (See “— Section 162(m) of marginal or poor performance.the IRC” below).

2011 EIP Payouts

64


2014 Performance

Base Award, Earned through Ameren EPS and Safety LWA Achievement

Performance goals for 2011 EIP purposes were set in terms of Ameren EPS. At the February 20122015 Committee meeting, the forecasted 20112014 EIP Ameren EPS, actual safety LWA achievement levels, and

recommended EIP payouts for the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers (other than Mr. Voss)Baxter) were presented by Mr. VossBaxter to the Committee for review. Consistent with its actions in prior years and as permitted under the terms of the 2011 EIP and the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan,relevant underlying plans, the Committee determined it was appropriatemay make adjustments. The Committee put forth an adjustment to adjust 2011 EPS for 1) a non-cash charge related to a regulatory disallowance, 2) plant closure charges that related to multi-year changes in value and regulatory decisions that cannot be accurately budgeted, 3) net unrealized mark-to-market adjustments due principally to extremely volatile power and fuel markets, and 4) unusual charges2014 for a voluntary separation plan that reduces future years’ costs.mark-to-market variance.

This adjustment resulted in a reduction of $0.01 to Ameren’s EPS under GAAP of $2.40, for an aggregate adjustment toadjusted EPS of $2.39 and payout for the EPS metric of 108.3% of Target. Actual safety LWA cases were 25 in 2014, for a payout for the safety metric of 60% of Target. The weighted and combined EPS and LWA metrics resulted in a combined payout of 103.5% of Target. The resulting Ameren EPS of plus $0.37, and an adjusted base award of 123.5% of target.safety LWA for the 2014 EIP, as approved by the Committee in February 2015, are shown below.

Performance Metric

  % Weight  Threshold
Performance
(50% Payout
as a % of
Target)
   Target
Performance
(100% Payout
as a % of
Target)
   Maximum
Performance
(150% Payout
as a % of
Target)
   Payout for
Each Metric
  Weighted:
Base Award
% of Target
 
Ameren EPS   90 $2.11    $2.35    $2.59     108.3  97.5
Ameren LWA   10  26     21     16     60.0  6.0
  

 

 

         

 

 

 
Total   100         103.5

Earned through Individual Performance Modifier

As discussed above, the 20112014 EIP base award wasawards were subject to upward or downward adjustment by up to 50 percent based upon the Executive’sa Named Executive Officer’s individual contributions and performance during the year. For 2011,2014, the Committee, after consultation with Mr. Voss,Baxter, modified the 20112014 EIP base awardsaward for Messrs. Baxter, Heflin and Lyons in a range from 95 percent to 102Mr. Moehn by plus five percent of the 20112014 base award, and the Committee modified the 2014 EIP base award (i.e., a net change of minus fivefor Mr. Baxter by plus one percent, to plus two percent), as a result of the Executive’stheir performance on the variables described above.

Actual 2011Resulting 2014 EIP Payouts

Actual 20112014 EIP payouts are shown below as a percent of target. Payouts were made in February 20122015, and are set forth under column (g) entitled Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation in the Summary Compensation Table.

 

Name

  Final Payout as
Percent of Target
VossBaxter  123.5%104.5%
Lyons  126.0%103.5%
BaxterNaslund  119.8%103.5%
HeflinDiya  117.3%103.5%
SullivanMoehn  123.5%108.7%
Voss103.5%

Calculation of Mr. Baxter’s 2014 EIP

In connection with his promotion to the role of our Chief Executive Officer, effective April 24, 2014, Mr. Baxter’s short-term incentive target opportunity (as a percentage of base salary) under the 2014 EIP was increased from 70% to 100%. The payout under Mr. Baxter’s

65


2014 EIP was prorated such that, from January 1, 2014 to April 23, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his base salary and target opportunity prior to his promotion, and from April 24, 2014 to December 31, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his increased base salary and target opportunity.

Calculation of Mr. Diya’s 2014 EIP

In connection with his promotion to the role of Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, effective January 16, 2014, Mr. Diya’s short-term incentive target opportunity (as a percentage of base salary) under the 2014 EIP was increased from 45% to 60%. The payout under Mr. Diya’s 2014 EIP was prorated such that, from January 1, 2014 to January 15, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his base salary and target opportunity prior to his promotion, and from January 16, 2014 to December 31, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his increased base salary and target opportunity.

Calculation of Mr. Moehn’s 2014 EIP

In connection with his promotion to the role of Chairman and President, Ameren Missouri, effective April 1, 2014, Mr. Moehn’s short-term incentive target opportunity (as a percentage of base salary) under the 2014 EIP was increased from 50% to 65%. The payout under Mr. Moehn’s 2014 EIP was prorated such that, from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his base salary and target opportunity prior to his promotion, and from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his increased base salary and target opportunity.

Calculation of Mr. Voss’ 2014 EIP

In connection with his retirement from his position as President of the Company on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and as Chairman of the Board and member of the Board on July 1, 2014, the payout under Mr. Voss’ 2014 EIP was prorated such that, from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014, such payout was calculated based on his base salary and target opportunity prior to his retirement.

Section 162(m) of the IRC

In order to help ensure that amounts are fullyintended to be deductible for tax purposes satisfy the requirement for tax deduction, the Committee set a limitation on 20112014 short-term incentive payouts for each Named Executive Officer of 0.5 percent of our 20112014 net income. The Committee then used negative discretion as provided under Section 162(m) of the IRC to arrive at actual, lower 20112014 payouts based on our performance for the year, which are shown in column (g) of the Summary Compensation Table. By setting the limitation on payouts, the Committee ensured thatintended such payouts metto meet the definition of qualified performance-based paycompensation under Section 162(m) of the IRC and be eligible for tax deduction.

2015 Ameren Executive Incentive Plan

In December of 2014, the Committee decided that for purposes of the EIP that relates to the 2015 performance year (the “2015 EIP”), in addition to determining annual performance based on Ameren EPS targets, safety performance measured by LWA and thus were fully deductible.individual performance, the Committee would also consider customer measures relating to reliability and affordability. Accordingly, for 2015, the EIP will be comprised of the following components in rewarding Named Executive Officers for annual achievement:

Ameren EPS targets, weighted at 80%;

Safety LWA performance, weighted at 10%;

66


Customer measures relating to reliability and affordability, weighted at 10%; and

an individual performance modifier.

Long-Term Incentives: Performance Share Unit Program (“PSUP”)

We began granting performance share units and have done so annually since 2006. For the five years prior to 2006, we granted performance-based restricted stock, which continued to vest, or not vest, over a seven-year period ending March 1, 2012 according to the terms of the prior grants. Both are discussed below.

In General

A performance share unit (“PSU” or “share unit”) is the right to receive a share of our Common Stock if certain long-term performance criteria are achieved and the Named Executive Officer remains, or retires as, an Ameren employee.

Role of the PSUP

The 20112014 PSU grants, which are governed by the shareholder-approved 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan playand 2014 Plan, as applicable, were designed to serve the following role in the compensation program:

 

provide compensation dependent on our three-year total shareholder return (“TSR”) (calculated as described below under “— 20112014 Grants”) versus a utility industry peers,peer group (a “PSUP Peer Group”), as identified below;

 

provide some payout (below target) if three-year relative TSR is below the 30th percentile but the three-year average Ameren EPS reaches or exceeds the average of the EIP EPS threshold levels in 2011, 20122014, 2015 and 2013;2016;

 

accrue dividends during the performance period on shares ultimately earned, in order to further align executives’ interests with those of shareholders;

 

promote retention of executives during a three-year performance period; and

 

share our Common Stock price increases and decreases over a three-year period.

PSUP Design

We designed thechoose to award PSUP grants to accomplish the following:

 

  

align executives’executives interests with shareholder interests: awards are denominated in our Common Stock units and paid out in Common Stock. Payouts are dependent on our Common Stock’s performance, and are limited to target if TSR is negative;

 

  

be competitive with market practice:  practice: the majority of regulated utility companies use plans similar to this program, and with this performance measure;

 

  

promote Common Stock ownership:  ownership: payout of earned awards is made 100 percent in Common Stock, with dividends on Common Stock, as declared and paid, reinvested into additional share units throughout the performance period. For PSU awards granted prior to 2009, share units are restricted from sale for two years once earned;period;

 

  

allow executives to share in the returns created for shareholders:  shareholders: returns for shareholders include dividends as declared and paid and this is reflected in the plan performance measure and rewards; and

 

  

be retentive:  retentive: annual competitive grants with a three-year performance period provide incentive for executives to stay with the Company and manage the Company in the long-term interests of the Company and its shareholders.

Accounting treatment was taken into account in designing the PSUP. PSUs are also intended to qualifybe eligible for the “performance-based“qualified performance-based compensation” exception from the $1 million caplimit on deductibility of executive compensation imposed by Section 162(m) of the IRC.

2011

67


2014 Grants

For 2011,2014, a target number of PSUs was granted to each Named Executive Officer pursuant to the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan and the 2014 Plan, as applicable, as reflected in column (g) of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.

Grant sizes were calculated primarily considering the market dataMarket Data mentioned above, and secondarily considering internal pay equity, in other words, the relative differences in grant sizes of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers and other officers at the same level in the Company. The specific number of PSUs granted to each Named Executive Officer was equal to the target award for such Named Executive Officer determined by the Committee, based upon a specified percentage of such Named Executive Officer’s base salary and expressed as a dollar amount, and divided by the average closing price of our Common Stock for each trading day in December 2013.

The actual number of 20112014 PSUs earned will vary from 0 percent to 200 percent of the target number of PSUs granted to each Named Executive Officer, based primarily on our 2011-20132014–2016 TSR relative to a utility industry peer groupPSUP Peer Group and contingent on continued employment during the same period. The threshold and maximum amounts of 20112014 PSU awards are reflected in columns (f) and (h) of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. The ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers cannot vote share unit awards granted under the PSUP or transfer them until they are paid out.

In addition, as described below under “PSUP Performance/Payout Relationship,” for awards under the PSUP beginning with the 2010 PSU grants, if relative TSR for the performance period (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012 with respect to the 2010 PSU grants and January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013 with respect to the 2011 PSU grants) is below the 30th percentile, in order to receive a 30 percent payout, the average annual Ameren EPS for such three-year period must be greater than or equal to the average of the Ameren EPS thresholds under each EIP during such period. This change was made by the Committee because our dividend was no longer set at the $2.54 level used for threshold payouts under the PSUP in prior plan years. The Committee determined that this change would have a neutral effect on the difficulty of earning an award.

The following graphic illustrates how the 20112014 PSUP works.

LOGO

The 20112014 PSUP performance measure is TSR. For purposes of calculating PSUP award payouts, TSR is calculated generally as the change in the 30-day trading average of the stock price prior to the beginning of the award period and the 30-day trading average of the stock price prior to the end of the award period, plus dividends paid (and assuming quarterly reinvestment), divided by such beginning average stock price.

LOGO

68


Mr. Baxter received an additional 2014 PSU grant on April 24, 2014 of 32,703 PSUs valued at $1,344,746. Mr. Michael Moehn, President of Ameren Missouri, received an additional 2014 PSU grant on April 1, 2014 of 5,856 PSUs valued at $238,700.

PSUP Peer Group

The analysis to determine the 2014 PSUP peer groupPeer Group was made as of December 20102013 using the criteria below.below measured as of November 30, 2013 unless otherwise noted.

 

Classified as a “NYSE Investor Owned Utility,” within SNL Financial LC’s Companies Data Set for Energy, excluding companies classified as only “Transmission and Distribution”gas or only gas.those with greater than 10% unregulated business.

 

Market capitalization greater than $2 billion (as of December 31, 2010)September 30, 2013).

Minimum S&P credit rating of BBB- (investment grade).

 

Dividends flat or growing over the last twelve-month period.

Beta (a measureperiod (as of a stock’s volatility in comparison to the market as a whole) within .25 of our Beta over the last five years.September 30, 2013).

 

Not an announced acquisition target.

 

Not undergoing a major restructuring including, but not limited to, a major spin-off or sale of a significant asset.

The 2220 companies included in the 20112014 PSUP peer groupPeer Group are listed below. The 2011-2013These PSUP peer group is not identical to the 2010-2012 PSUP peer group as a result of the ability or inability of certain companies to meet the criteria set forth above and the Committee’s judgment as to the appropriateness of certain companies for inclusion in the group. The Committee retains discretion to make exceptions for inclusion or exclusion of companies in the PSUP peer group, based upon the criteria established above, in order to ensure the most appropriate and relevant comparator peer group. These peer groupPeer Group companies are not entirely the same as the peer companiescompensation peers used for market pay comparisons, however, because inclusion in this group was not dependent on a company’s sizerevenues relative to us or its participation in an executive pay database. In order to be counted in the final calculations, a company must still be in existence and have a ticker symbol at the end of the performance period. The Committee retains discretion to make exceptions for inclusion or exclusion of companies in the PSUP Peer Group during the performance period, based upon the criteria established above, in order to ensure the most appropriate and relevant peer group.

 

   
Alliant Energy Corporation  FirstEnergy Corp.PSEG, Inc.
American Electric Power Co.Great PlainsIntegrys Energy Group, Inc.    SCANA Corporation
CMS EnergyCleco Corporation  

Integrys Energy Group,NiSource, Inc.

    Southern Company
Dominion Resources,CMS Energy

Northeast Utilities

UIL Holdings Corporation
Consolidated Edison, Inc.  NextEra Energy, Inc.Pacific Gas and Electric Company    Westar Energy, Inc.
DPL Inc.DTE Energy Company  OGE EnergyPepco Holdings, Inc.    Wisconsin Energy
DTE Energy CompanyEdison International  Pinnacle West Capital Corporation    Xcel Energy, Inc.
DukeGreat Plains Energy Inc.  PPL Corporation
Edison InternationalProgress Energy, Inc.Portland General Electric    

 

 

69


PSUP Performance/Payout Relationship

Once our 2011-20132014—2016 TSR is calculated and compared to peers,the utility peer group, the scale below determines the percent of a target PSU award that is paid. Payout for performance between points is interpolated on a straight-line basis.

 

TSR Performance or, as applicable, EPS
Performance

  

Payout (% of Share
Units Granted)

     
90th90th percentile +                  200%             ) ¬  If TSR is negative over the three-year period, the plan is capped at 100% of target regardless of performance vs. peersthe PSUP Peer Group
70th70th percentile                  150%             ) ï  
50th50th percentile                  100%             )   
30th30th percentile                  50%                
Less than 30thBelow 30th percentile but three-year average Ameren EPS reaches or exceeds the average of the EIP EPS threshold levels in 2011, 20122014, 2015 and 20132016                  30%                
Less than 30thBelow 30th percentile and three-year average Ameren EPS does not reach the average of the EIP EPS threshold levels in 2011, 20122014, 2015 and 20132016  0% (No payout)   

The Committee selected Ameren EPS as the financial measure under the PSUP for determining whether there will be payout in the event TSR is less than the 30th percentile, consistent with the performance measurement component utilized for the annual awards under the EIP.

In order to help ensure thatmaximize the tax deductibility of their amounts, are fully deductible for tax purposes, the Committee set a limitation on payouts of 20112014 PSUP grants that are made based upon EPS (i.e., when 2011-2013 TSR performance is under the 30th percentile of the PSUP peer group) for each Named Executive Officer of 1.201.2 percent of our cumulative 2011, 20122014, 2015 and 20132016 GAAP net income, as adjusted for specified items. The Committee willmay use negative discretion as provided under Section 162(m) of the IRC to arrive at actual lower payouts based on our performance for the period. By setting the limitation on payouts, the Committee ensures thatintends for such payouts to meet the definition of “performance-based“qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the IRC and be eligible for tax purposes and are fully deductible.deduction.

20092012 PSU Awards Vesting

The PSUP performance period for the 20092012 grants ended December 31, 2011.2014. Our 2009-20112012–2014 TSR performance was determined to be less thanat the 30th45th percentile of the 20092012 PSUP peer group and our core EPS for each year in the PSUP performance period was greater than $2.54.Peer Group. The following table shows the 20092012 PSU awards, their original value at grant, the number earned (which equals the target number plus accrued dividends, times 3087.5 percent), and their value at the vesting date (December 31, 2011)2014). The resulting earned amounts were 53139 percent of the original target value of the awards.awards, which reflects both TSR performance against the utility peer group and the actual TSR generated during the three-year period. At the Committee’s December 2014 meeting, the Committee approved the removal of Integrys Energy Group, Inc., which was publicly announced as an acquisition target, from the 2012 PSUP Peer Group.

 

Name

  Target 2009
PSU Awards
  Target Value
at
Stock Price
on
Date of Grant(1)
  2009 PSU
Awards  Earned(2)
  Value at
Year-End
Stock Price(3)
  Earned
Value
as Percent of
Original
Target Value(3)
  Target 2012
PSU  Awards
   Target Value
at
Stock Price
on
Date of Grant(1)
   2012 PSU
Awards  Earned(2)
   Value at
Year-End
Stock Price(3)
   Earned
Value
as Percent of
Original
Target Value(3)
Baxter   32,772     $1,085,736     32,766     $1,511,496    139
Lyons   27,535     $912,235     27,530     $1,269,959    139
Naslund   20,825     $689,932     20,821     $960,473    139
Diya   8,330     $275,973     8,328     $384,171    139
Moehn   11,829     $391,895     11,827     $545,580    139
Voss  26,584  $590,165    9,447    $312,979  53%   100,267     $3,321,846     100,247     $4,624,394    139
Lyons  11,249  $249,728    3,998    $132,454  53%
Baxter  30,781  $683,338    10,938    $362,376  53%
Heflin  19,997  $443,933    7,106    $235,422  53%
Sullivan  23,226  $515,617    8,254    $273,455  53%

 

70


 

(1)Valuations are based on the closing price of $22.20$33.13 per share of Ameren’s Common Stock on the NYSE on March 2, 2009,January 1, 2012, the date the 20092012 PSU awards were granted.

 

(2)The number of 20092012 PSU awards vested includes dividend equivalents, equal to approximately an additional 14.3 percent of the shares earned under the awards, which accrued and were reinvested throughout the three-year performance period. See the Option Exercises and Stock Vested Table below for additional details regarding PSUs vested in 2011.2014.

 

(3)Valuations are based on the closing price of $33.13$46.13 per share of Ameren’s Common Stock on the NYSE on December 30, 2011, the last business day of 2011 and31, 2014, the date the 20092012 PSU awards vested.

20102013 and 20112014 PSU Awards

The PSUP performance periods for the 20102013 and 20112014 grants will not end until December 31, 20122015 and December 31, 2013,2016, respectively. The figures in column (e) of the Summary Compensation Table of this proxy statement for the years 20102013 and 20112014 represent the aggregate grant date fair values for the PSUP performance grants, computed as described in footnote (3) to the Summary Compensation Table. There is no guarantee that such amounts will ultimately be earned by participants.

Performance-Based Restricted Stock

How It Works

Performance-based restricted stock was awardedOn April 23, 2013 the Committee approved a retention award for Mr. Diya with a performance period of March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2017. The award provides Mr. Diya with a target award opportunity equal to his base salary as in effect on March 1, 2014, payable in Ameren Common Stock. The Committee has discretion to adjust the payout level from 2001 through 2005 under0% to 150% of the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Planoriginal target value based on the performance of 1998 (“Performance Restricted Stock”). The awards hadthe Callaway Energy Center. If, on March 1, 2017, there are major events in progress that have the potential to vest over a seven-year period fromimpact the date of grant (approximately one seventh on each anniversary date) with the remaining Performance Restricted Stock awarded in 2005 vesting on March 1, 2012. Vesting occurred only if we achieved certain Ameren EPS performance levels which corresponded to the levels established for the 2011 EIP, with no annual vesting if the Ameren EPS performance did not reach a minimum level established annually. The vesting period could have been reduced from seven years to three years if Ameren’s EPS had achieved a prescribed growth rate over the three-year period, which it did not. The Executives could not receive more than the original Performance Restricted Stock grants, plus dividend accruals.

Dividends paid on Performance Restricted Stock were reinvested in additional shares of Ameren Common Stock, which vested concurrently with the Performance Restricted Stock. The Executives were entitled to voting privileges associated with the Performance Restricted Stock to the extent the Performance Restricted Stock had not been forfeited.

Prior to February 2006, Performance Restricted Stock vesting was also conditioned upon the Executive’s achievement of required stock ownership levels based on position and salary. In February 2006, the Committee recommended and the Board of Directors approved the eliminationCommittee’s assessment of the stock ownership requirement as a conditionCallaway Energy Center’s performance, final decisions regarding performance and payout level may be deferred, but to vesting inno later than June 30, 2017.

Perquisites

We provide limited perquisites to provide competitive value and promote retention of the Performance Restricted Stock awards granted under the Long-Term Incentive PlanNamed Executive Officers and others.

Retirement Benefits

The objective of 1998retirement benefits is to facilitate the transition from that plan to the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan approved by shareholders in May 2006. No new Performance Restricted Stock awards were made to the Executives after 2005 and the last Performance Restricted Stock awards vested on March 1, 2012.

Vesting of Performance Restricted Stock Based on 2011 Results

As a result of Ameren 2011 EPS performance as determined by the Committee, all remaining unvested Performance Restricted Stock awards vested.

Retirement Benefits

Retirement benefits provide post-employment security to our employees. employees, and such benefits are designed to reward continued service. We choose to provide these benefits as an essential part of a total compensation package to remain competitive with those packages offered by other companies, particularly utilities.

There are three primary retirement benefit programs applicable to the Executives:Named Executive Officers:

 

employee benefit plans that are available to all of our employees, including 401(k) savings and tax-qualified retirement plans;

 

Supplemental Retirement Plans (together, the “SRP”) that provide the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers a benefit equal to the difference between the benefit that would have been paid if IRC limitations were not in effect and the reduced benefit payable as a result of such IRC limitations; and

 

71


a deferred compensation plan that provides the opportunity to defer part of base salary and all or a portion of non-equity incentive compensation, as well as earnings thereon to future years taxability.thereon. Beginning with plan years commencing on and after January 1, 2010, this includes deferrals of cash compensation above IRC limitations, together with Company matching credits on these deferrals.

A more detailed explanation of retirement benefits applicable to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers is provided in this proxy statement under the captions “— PENSION BENEFITS” and “— NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION” below.

Severance

All salaried full-time employees, including our Named Executive Officers, participate in the Ameren Corporation Severance Plan for Ameren Employees, which provides for severance based on years of service and weeks of pay in the event of a qualifying termination. The plan provides market-level payments in the event of an involuntary termination.

Change of Control Protections

“Change of Control” protections under Ameren’s Second Amended and Restated Change of Control Severance Plan, as amended, is designed to reward Named Executive Officers for remaining employed with us when their prospects for continued employment following a transaction may be uncertain. The objectives of this plan are to maintain a stable executive team during the process and to assist us in attracting highly qualified executives into the Company.

Change of Control protections provide severance pay and, in some situations, vesting or payment of long-term incentive awards, upon a Change of Control of the Company. The arrangements provide market-level payments in the event of an involuntary termination not for “Cause” or a voluntary termination for “Good Reason.” Definitions of “Change of Control,” “Cause” and “Good Reason,” as well as more complete descriptions of Change of Control protections, are found below under the caption “— OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTSOTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS — Change of Control Protection — In General —Change of Control Severance Plan.Plan.

We believe that providing limited protections to the Executives upon a change of control is in shareholders’ best interests because doing so serves to maintain a stable executive team during the process and is helpful in hiring executives into the Company. The applicable triggers are structured so that payment and vesting occur only upon the occurrence of both a change of control and lossa qualifying termination of the Executive’s position.employment.

We consider it likely that it will take more time for higher-level employees to find new employment than for other employees, and therefore senior management, including the Executives,Named Executive Officers, generally are paid severance upon a termination for a longer period following a Change of Control. The Committee considered this as well as the factors described in the preceding paragraph in structuring the cash payments described under “— OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS — Change of Control Protection”Control” below, which ana Named Executive Officer would receive if terminated within two years following a Change of Control.

Common Stock Ownership Requirement

The Company has a stock ownership requirement for the Ameren Leadership TeamSection 16 Officers (which includes the Executives)Named Executive Officers) in accordance with the positions listed below, that fosters long-term Common Stock ownership and aligns the interests of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers and shareholders. The stock ownership requirement applicable to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers is included in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. The requirement provides that each Named Executive Officer is required to own shares of our Common Stock valued as a percentage of base salary as follows:

 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company: 3 times base salary;

 

72


PresidentChief Financial Officer of the Company and Chief Executive OfficerPresident of Ameren Services and of each Company business segment: 2 times base salary; and

 

Other members of the Ameren Leadership Team:Section 16 Officers: 1 times base salary.

AtIf at any time an Executive hasa Section 16 Officer does not satisfiedsatisfy the applicable stock ownership requirement, such officerSection 16 Officer must retain at least 75 percent of the netafter-tax shares deliveredacquired upon the vesting and settlement of (i) the Section 16 Officer’s awards that are then outstanding under the Company’s equity compensation programs and (ii) any future awards granted to him or her pursuant to awards grantedthe Section 16 Officer under the Company’s equity compensation programs, until the applicable stock ownership requirement is satisfied.

Anti-Pledging and Anti-Hedging Policy

We maintain policies that prohibit executive officers and directors from engaging in pledges of Company securities or short sales, margin accounts and hedging or derivative transactions with respect to Company securities. In addition, our policies prohibit directors and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries from entering into any transaction which hedges (or offsets) any decrease in the value of Company equity securities as discussed under “SECURITY OWNERSHIP — SECURITY OWNERSHIPOF DIRECTORSAND MANAGEMENT” above.

Clawback

Awards granted under the 2006 Plan or the 2014 Plan, including EIP and PSU awards, are subject to a “clawback” in certain circumstances. If the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, and if an award holder knowingly or with gross negligence engaged in or failed to prevent the misconduct, or if the award holder is one of the individuals subject to automatic forfeiture under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the award holder will be required to reimburse the Company the amount of any payment in settlement of an award earned or accrued during the 12-month period following the first public issuance or filing of the financial document embodying the financial reporting requirement.

In addition, beginning with the 2015 EIP awards and PSU awards granted in 2015, if the award holder engages in conduct or activity that is detrimental to the Company or violates the non-confidentiality or customer or employee non-solicitation provisions included in the award, generally, the award holder will be required to repay the award to the Company after receiving a demand from the Company for the repayment.

Timing of Compensation Decisions and Awards

The Board and the Committee establish meeting schedules annually, well in advance of each meeting, to ensure a thorough and thoughtful decision process. Incentive compensation awards wereare made at regularly scheduled meetings.

Following is a discussion of the timing of certain compensation decisions for 2011 at the Company:2014:

 

the Executives’Named Executive Officers’ base salaries for 20112014 were reviewed and a 2014 base salary increase for each of the Named Executive Officers was approved at the December 20102013 Committee meeting, and as discussed under “— Base Salary” above in February 2011, the Committee revised upward theabove; a base salary payable tochange in connection with Mr. Sullivan effectiveBaxter’s promotion was approved at the February 13, 2014 meeting, a base salary change in connection with Mr. Moehn’s promotion was approved at a special March 2, 2011;5, 2014 meeting,

73


and a base salary change in connection with Mr. Diya’s promotion was approved at a special January 14, 2014 meeting;

 

20112014 EIP target opportunities (as a percentage of base salary) were established for the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers and the range of 20112014 EIP EPS and safety LWA goals for 20112014 was set at the December 20102013 and February 20112014 Committee meetings, respectively;respectively. An EIP target opportunity in connection with Mr. Baxter’s promotion was approved at the February 13, 2014 meeting, an EIP target opportunity in connection with Mr. Diya’s promotion was approved at a special January 14, 2015 meeting and an EIP target opportunity in connection with Mr. Moehn’s promotion was approved at a special March 5, 2015 meeting;

 

20112014 PSU grants to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers were approved at the December 20102013 Committee meeting, and in connection with Mr. Baxter’s promotion, a grant to Mr. Baxter was approved at the February 13, 2014 meeting, and in connection with Mr. Moehn’s promotion, a grant to Mr. Moehn was approved at a special March 5, 2014 meeting; and

 

the final determination of the 20112014 EIP and 20092012 PSU awardspayouts were made at the February 20122015 Committee meeting.

Decisions relating to material elements of compensation are fully deliberated by the Committee at each Committee meeting and, when appropriate, over the course of several Committee meetings. This allows for any follow-up to questions from Committee members in advance of the final decision. In the past, theThe Committee typically mademakes long-term incentive grants at its February meeting. In 2009, the Committee made long-term incentive grants in March due to Ameren Common Stock price volatility associated with Ameren’s dividend reduction and general economic conditions. The Committee changed the timing of long-term incentive approval from February of the year the grants were made to December meeting of the year prior to the year the grants are made beginning in 2010 and for future years for accounting reasons.made. The Committee expects to continue to establish base salaries at its December meeting each year with such base salaries to be effective in the following January.

Impact of Prior Compensation and Consideration of Company’s 20112014 “Say-on-Pay” Vote

Amounts realizable from prior compensation did not serve to increase or decrease 20112014 compensation amounts. The Committee’s primary focus was on achieving market-level compensation opportunities.

The Committee considers the results of the annual shareholder non-binding advisory “say-on-pay” vote along with other factors in connection with discharging its responsibilities relating to the Company’s executive compensation program, although no factor is assigned a quantitative weighting. Through the Company’s shareholder outreach program, the Committee discusses its executive compensation program with certain of the Company’s major shareholders. As a result of last year’sthe 2014 non-binding advisory “say-on-pay” vote, which saw a substantial majority (of approximately 9294 percent) of the Company’s shareholders who cast voteswere entitled to vote and represented approve the compensation program described in the proxy statement in connection with our annual meeting held on April 21, 2011,24, 2014, the Committee continued to apply the same principles in determining the amounts and types of executive compensation for fiscal year 20122015 (as fiscal year 20112014 executive compensation-related decisions were primarily made by the Committee in December 20102013 and February 2011,2014, prior to the 20112014 non-binding advisory vote, and fiscal year 20122015 executive compensation-related decisions were primarily made by the Committee in December 20112014 and February 2012,2015, subsequent to the 20112014 non-binding advisory vote).

Other Considerations for Changes in Compensation Opportunities

Market data,Data, retention needs, general economic conditions and internal pay equity have been the primary factors considered in decisions to increase or decrease compensation

74


opportunities materially. Corporate and individual performance are the primary factors in determining the ultimate value of those compensation opportunities.

Role of Executive Officers

For 2011,2014, the Chief Executive Officer (Mr. Voss)at the time, Mr. Voss, with the assistance of the Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer of Ameren Services, (MarkMark C. Lindgren)Lindgren, recommended to the Committee compensation amounts for the other Executives. Mr. Voss was not involvedNamed Executive Officers. The Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations to the Committee with respect to the compensation of the Named Executive Officers (other than himself) and other senior executives. The Chief Executive Officer possesses insight regarding individual performance levels, degree of experience and future promotion potential. In all cases, the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations are presented to the Committee for review based on the Market Data provided by the Committee’s independent consultant. The Committee independently determines each Named Executive Officer’s compensation, as discussed in determiningthis CD&A.

Neither the Chief Executive Officer nor any other Named Executive Officer makes recommendations for setting his own compensation. Mr. Lindgren also assistedThe recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation to be presented to the Board is determined in Committee meetings during an executive session with only the Committee members and the Committee’s independent consultant present.

The Chief Executive Officer, the other Named Executive Officers, and our other senior executives play a role in its decisionthe early stages of design and evaluation of our compensation programs and policies. Because of their extensive familiarity with our business and corporate culture, these executives are in the best position to approve Mr. Sullivan’s base salary adjustment in 2011. (See discussion under “— Base Salary” above.)suggest programs and policies to the Committee and the independent consultant that will engage employees and provide effective incentives to produce outstanding financial and operating results for the Company and our shareholders.

Company Policy Regarding the Economic Risk of Company Securities Ownership

Our Section 16 Trading Reporting Program prohibits executive officers and directors from engaging in pledges of Company securities or short sales, margin accounts and hedging or derivative transactions with respect to Company securities.

Other Compensation Matters

In February 2011, due to the expected increase in the demand for high-level personnel in the nuclear power industry, Ameren entered into a retention agreement with Mr. Heflin to help ensure that Ameren would continue to have his services at Ameren Missouri’s nuclear energy center (the “Retention Agreement”). The Retention Agreement provides for a one-time performance-based stock award based on Mr. Heflin’s base salary, as of the effective date of the agreement (March 1, 2011), after a three-year performance period. At the end of the three-year performance period (March 1, 2014) (the “Determination Date”), provided that Mr. Heflin remains an employee on such date, except as provided below, Mr. Heflin will be paid in shares of Common Stock (the “Retention Award”). The value of the Retention Award will depend on an assessment of the overall performance level of Ameren Missouri’s nuclear energy center for the performance period. If nuclear energy center performance during the performance period remains at a level consistent with its performance on March 1, 2011 the Retention Award will be 100 percent of the target value (Mr. Heflin’s base salary on March 1, 2011). If nuclear energy center performance during the performance period increases or decreases compared to its performance on March 1, 2011, the Committee will have discretion to adjust the payout level from 0 percent to 150 percent of the target value. In the event of termination of employment following a Change of Control (as hereinafter defined) under circumstances which would entitle Mr. Heflin to receive certain benefits under the Change of Control Plan (as hereinafter defined), Mr. Heflin is entitled to receive the Retention Award and corresponding shares of Common Stock had he remained employed until the Determination Date. In the event of death, disability or involuntary termination without Cause (as hereinafter defined) prior to the Determination Date, Mr. Heflin is entitled to receive the Retention Award and corresponding shares of Common Stock had he remained employed until the Determination Date, but prorated based on Mr. Heflin’s duration of service and paid on the Determination Date.

We do not have any written or unwritten employment agreements with any of our Executives.Named Executive Officers. Each Named Executive Officer is an employee at the will of the Company and/or its subsidiaries, as specified below. Mr. Naslund retired from the Company effective March 1, 2015, and, in connection with his retirement, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Naslund effective as of April 1, 2015.

75


COMPENSATION TABLESAND NARRATIVE DISCLOSURES

The following table sets forth compensation information for our ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers for services rendered in all capacities to the Company and its subsidiaries in fiscal years 2011, 20102014, 2013 and 2009.2012. You should refer to the section entitled “COMPENSATION DISCUSSION“COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS” above for an explanation of the elements used in setting the compensation for our Executives.Named Executive Officers.

As noted above, Mr. Voss’ payments and benefits are disclosed in the tables below even though he retired during 2014.

2014 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

Name and Principal
Position at
December 31, 2011(1)
(a)
 Year
(b)
  Salary(2)
($)
(c)
  Bonus(2)
($)
(d)
 Stock
Awards(3)
($)
(e)
  Option
Awards(4)
($)
(f)
 Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation(2)(5)
($)
(g)
 Change in
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Def. Comp.
Earnings(6)
($)
(h)
 All Other
Compensation(7)
($)
(i)
 Total
($)
(j)
 
T.R. Voss  2011    900,000     –    3,126,269     –    1,111,500 432,207 125,083  5,695,059  

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren

  2010    784,027     –    2,458,739     –     1,093,325 305,639   80,917  4,722,647  
  2009    660,733     –    412,584     –       484,604 224,481   25,183  1,807,585  
M.J. Lyons, Jr.  2011    485,000     –    935,955     –       397,120 124,709   42,830  1,985,614  

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Ameren

  2010    428,164     –    649,432     –       410,136   67,493   32,219  1,587,444  
  2009    364,867     –    174,584     –       191,754   40,604   12,589  784,398  
W.L. Baxter  2011    590,000     –    1,138,581     –       459,414 233,019   66,527  2,487,541  

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren Missouri

  2010    575,000     –    1,077,181     –       512,670 150,125   44,831  2,359,807  
  2009    569,600     –    477,724     –       256,623 112,912   14,310  1,431,169  
A.C. Heflin  2011    400,000     –    1,061,652     –       281,580   99,384   34,117  1,876,733  

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Ameren Missouri

  2010    357,300     –    669,338     –       302,640   60,970   24,726  1,414,974  
  2009    357,300     –    310,353     –       146,529   44,734   12,900  871,816  
S.R. Sullivan  2011    454,712     –    772,812     –       365,020 232,533   41,360  1,866,437  

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC and Chairman and President, AEG

  2010    415,000     –    777,443     –       370,014 163,880   35,354  1,761,691  
  2009    417,133     –    360,468     –       215,883 117,133   13,986  1,124,603  
         
Name and Principal
Position (1)
(a)
 Year
(b)
  Salary(2)
($)
(c)
  Bonus(2)
($)
(d)
 Stock
Awards(3)
($)
(e)
  Option
Awards(4)
($)
(f)
 Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation(2)(5)
($)
(g)
 Change in
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Def. Comp.
Earnings(6)
($)
(h)
 All Other
Compensation(2)(7)
($)
(i)
 Total
($)
(j)
 
Warner L. Baxter(8)  2014    854,647     2,857,179       831,200 336,978 78,393  4,958,397  

Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Ameren

  2013    624,000     1,130,170       425,010 139,454 67,038  2,385,672  
  2012    607,000     1,169,305       423,392 243,690 64,671  2,508,058  
Martin J. Lyons, Jr.  2014    566,500     1,077,141       410,430 210,304 52,627  2,317,002  

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Ameren, Ameren Services, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois

  

 

2013

2012

  

  

  

 

540,000

510,000

  

  

 

  

 

978,025

982,449

  

  

 

    514,920

   389,612

   92,115

140,048

 45,210

43,746

  

 

2,170,270

2,065,855

  

  

Charles D. Naslund  2014    476,000     775,783       295,600 339,175 47,239  1,933,797  

Executive Vice President, Corporate Operations Oversight, Ameren Missouri

  2013    462,000     717,214       310,180 161,375 44,345  1,695,114  
  2012    450,000     743,036       289,737 268,563 43,526  1,794,862  
Fadi M. Diya  2014    397,358     986,729       244,620 101,363 27,999  1,758,069  

Senior Vice President, Chief Nuclear Officer, Ameren Missouri

         
Michael L. Moehn(8)  2014    458,370     775,767       308,630 144,946 45,160  1,732,873  

Chairman and President, Ameren Missouri

         
Thomas R. Voss(8)  2014    526,636     3,750,155       545,100 419,817 95,063  5,336,771  

Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,Ameren

  2013    1,030,000     3,464,460    1,102,500 318,355 122,967  6,038,282  
  2012    1,000,000     3,577,527    1,073,100 451,354 120,980  6,222,961  

 

(1)Includes compensation received as an officer of Ameren and its subsidiaries, except that Mr. Voss servesserved as an officer of Ameren only and not of its subsidiaries, Mr. Baxter servesserved as an officer of Ameren only and not of its subsidiaries (except that prior to March 31, 2014, he served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri), and Mr. Naslund served as an officer of Ameren Missouri and Ameren Services only and not of Ameren or its other subsidiaries (except that prior to March 1, 2013, he served as an officer of Ameren Missouri only and not of Ameren or its other subsidiaries (except that prior to May 1, 2009, he served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ameren and its subsidiaries), Mr. Heflin serves as an officer of Ameren Missouri only and not of Ameren or its other subsidiaries, and Mr. Sullivan serves as an officer of Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC and AEG only (effective March 2, 2011) and not of Ameren or its other subsidiaries (except that prior to March 2, 2011, he served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Ameren and its subsidiaries). Information in this table relating to Mr. Lyons prior to May 1, 2009 relates to his compensation as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Ameren and its subsidiaries.

 

(2)Cash compensation received by each Named Executive Officer for fiscal years 2011, 20102014, 2013 and 20092012 is found in either the Salary or Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of this Table.table. Because Mr. Diya and Mr. Moehn were not Named Executive Officers prior to this year’s proxy statement, only their compensation with respect to 2014 is shown. The amounts that would generally be considered “bonus” awards are found under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation in column (g). See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Base Salary” for information relating to a certain base salary adjustment pertaining to Mr. Sullivan in 2011.

 

76


(3)

For each Executive, theThe amounts in column (e) represent the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance of PSU awards

under our 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan or 2014 Plan, as applicable, without regard to estimated forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions. For 2011the January 1, 2014 PSU grants to each Executive, the calculations reflect an accounting value of 111.4107.6 percent of the target value,value; for 20102013 grants, 114.5101.5 percent of the target value,value; and for 20092012 grants, 69.91107.7 percent of the target value. For the April 1, 2014 PSU grant to Mr. Moehn, the calculations reflect an accounting value of 127.7 percent of the target value. For the April 24, 2014 PSU grant to Mr. Baxter, the calculations reflect an accounting value of 121.7 percent of the target value. Assumptions used in the calculation of the amounts in column (e) are described in Note 12 to our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 included in our 2014 Form 10-K. The maximum value of the 2014 PSU awards, excluding dividends, is as follows: Mr. Baxter — $5,912,390; Mr. Voss — $8,894,325; Mr. Lyons — $2,554,679; Mr. Naslund — $1,839,941; Mr. Diya — $1,391,558; and Mr. Moehn — $1,657,543. This value is based on the closing price of $46.13 per share of our Common Stock on the NYSE on December 31, 2014.

In addition, for Mr. Heflin,Diya, the amount in column (e) includes the aggregate grant date fair value, computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, of the Retention AwardMarch 2014 retention award granted under the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, without regard to estimated forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions. Assumptions used in the calculation of the amounts in column (e) are described in Note 12 to our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 20112014 included in our 20112014 Form 10-K.

The amounts reported for PSU award grants in column (e) do not reflect actual compensation realized by the Executives and are not a guarantee of the amount that the Executive will actually receive from the grant of the respective PSU awards and Retention Award, as applicable. The actual compensation realized by the Executives will be based upon the share price of Ameren’s Common Stock at payout. The PSUP performance periods for the 2010 and 2011 grants will not end until December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and, as such, the actual value, if any, of the PSU awards will generally depend on the Company’s achievement of certain market performance measures during these periods. Mr. Heflin’s Retention Agreement performance period will not end until March 1, 2014 and, as such, the actual value, if any, of the Retention Award will generally depend on overall performance level of Ameren Missouri’s nuclear energy center during the three-year performance period. For information regarding the terms of the awards, the description of vesting conditions, and the criteria for determining the amounts payable, including 2009 PSU awards granted, see “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS.”

The amounts reported for PSU award grants in column (e) do not reflect actual compensation realized by the Named Executive Officers and are not a guarantee of the amount that the Named Executive Officer will actually receive from the grant of the PSU awards. The actual compensation realized by the Named Executive Officers will be based upon the share price of Ameren’s Common Stock at payout. The PSUP performance periods for the 2013 and 2014 grants will not end until December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, respectively, and, as such, the actual value, if any, of the PSU awards will generally depend on the Company’s achievement of certain market performance measures during these periods. Mr. Diya’s retention agreement performance period will not end until February 28, 2017, and, as such, the actual value, if any, of the retention award will generally depend on the overall performance level of Ameren Missouri’s nuclear energy center during the three-year performance period. For information regarding the terms of the awards, the description of vesting conditions, and the criteria for determining the amounts payable, including 2012 PSU awards granted for each Named Executive Officer, see “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.”

 

(4)None of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers received any option awards in 2011, 20102014, 2013 or 2009.2012.

 

(5)Represents payouts for performance under the applicable year’s EIP. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS” for a discussion of how amounts were determined for 2011.2014.

 

(6)

Amounts shown in column (h) are the sum of (1) the increase in the actuarial present value of each Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s accumulated benefit under all defined benefit and actuarial pension plans (including the SRP) from December 31 of the prior fiscal year to December 31 of the applicable fiscal year and (2) the above-market

77


portion of interest determined in accordance with SEC disclosure rules as the difference between the interest credited at the rate in the Company’s deferred compensation plan and interest that would be credited at 120 percent of the AFR published by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and calculated as of January 1, 20122015 for the year ended December 31, 2011,2014, as of January 1, 20112014 for the year ended December 31, 20102013 and as of January 1, 20102013 for the year ended December 31, 2009.2012. The table below shows the allocation of these amounts for each Executive.Named Executive Officer. For 2011,2014, the applicable interest rate for the deferred compensation plan was 7.446.23 percent for amounts deferred prior to January 1, 2010 and 4.243.99 percent for amounts deferred on or after January 1, 2010. The above-market earnings are calculated using those applicable interest rates minus 120 percent of the AFR of 5.023.21 percent published by the IRS and calculated as of January 2012.2015. For 2010,2013, the applicable interest rate for the deferred compensation plan was 7.975.55 percent for amounts deferred prior to January 1, 2010 and 5.022.89 percent for amounts deferred on or after January 1, 2010. The above-market earnings are calculated using those applicable interest rates minus 120 percent of the AFR of 4.664.19 percent published by the IRS and calculated as of January 2011.2014. For 2009,2012, the

applicable interest rate for the deferred compensation plan was 8.45 percent.7.10 percent for amounts deferred prior to January 1, 2010 and 3.37 percent for amounts deferred on or after January 1, 2010. The above-market earnings are calculated using that amountthose applicable interest rates minus 120 percent of the AFR of 4.942.78 percent published by the IRS and calculated as of January 2010.2013.

 

Name

  Year   Pension Plan
Increase
($)
   Deferred Compensation Plan
Above-Market Interest

($)
  Year   Pension Plan
Increase

($)
   Deferred Compensation
Plan Above-Market
Interest
 
Baxter   2014     301,646     35,331  
   2013     124,381     15,073  
   2012     198,980     44,710  
Lyons   2014     210,304       
   2013     92,115       
   2012     140,048       
Naslund   2014     271,180     67,995  
   2013     132,367     29,008  
   2012     182,519     86,044  
Diya   2014     97,749     3,614  
Moehn   2014     135,905     9,041  
Voss   2011     351,499    80,708   2014     419,817       
 2010     247,943    57,696
 2009     170,990    53,491
Lyons   2011     124,709            –  
 2010     67,493            –  
 2009     40,604            –  
Baxter   2011     191,690    41,329
 2010     120,580    29,545
 2009     85,712    27,200
Heflin   2011     89,867      9,517
 2010     54,166      6,804
 2009     38,576      6,158
Sullivan   2011     166,692    65,841
 2010     116,812    47,068
 2009     73,712    43,421
   2013     288,920     29,435  
   2012     364,044     87,310  

For assumptions and methodology regarding the determination of pension values, please refer to the footnotes under the Pension Benefits Table.

For assumptions and methodology regarding the determination of pension values, please refer to the footnotes under the Pension Benefits Table.

 

(7)

The amounts in column (i) reflect for each Named Executive Officer matching contributions allocated by the Company to each Named Executive Officer pursuant to the Company’s 401(k) savings plan, which is available to all salaried employees, and the cost of insurance premiums paid by the Company with respect to term life insurance, which amount each Named Executive Officer is responsible for paying income tax. In 2011,2014, the Company’s 401(k) matching contributions, including the 401(k) Restoration Benefit as described in “— NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATIONNONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION — Executive Deferred Compensation Plan Participation” below, for each of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers were as follows: Mr. Baxter — $57,524; Mr. Voss — $89,700;$80,237; Mr. Lyons — $40,281;$48,664; Mr. BaxterNaslund$49,620;$35,378; Mr. HeflinDiya$31,619 and$24,283; Mr. SullivanMoehn$37,107.$28,601. In 2011,2014, the Company’s cost of insurance premiums

78


for Mr. Voss was $23,599. In 2011, the amount in column (i)$14,827 and for Mr. Voss also includes the costs for personal use of Company-provided telephone, tax planning services, spouse business travel, personal use of Company-provided tickets for entertainment events and two-week use of electric automobile for test purposes andNaslund was $11,861. In 2014, the amount in column (i) for Mr. Baxter also includes the costs for personal use of Company-provided telephone, tax and financial planning services, spouse business travel, personal useCompany matching charitable contributions, and entertainment expenses during 2014. In 2014, the amount in column (i) for Mr. Moehn also includes the costs for tax and financial planning services and entertainment expenses during 2014.

(8)Mr. Voss retired from his position as President of Company-provided tickets for entertainment eventsthe Company on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014 and personal useas Chairman of athe Board and member of the Board on July 1, 2014. Mr. Baxter succeeded Mr. Voss as President of the Company facility during 2011.on February 14, 2014, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company on April 24, 2014, and as Chairman of the Board on July 1, 2014. Mr. Baxter resigned from his position as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameren Missouri on March 31, 2014. Mr. Moehn became Chairman and President of Ameren Missouri on April 1, 2014.

The following table provides additional information with respect to stock-based awards granted in 2011,2014, the value of which was provided in the Stock Awards column of the Summary Compensation Table with respect to 20112014 grants, and the potential range of payouts associated with the 20112014 EIP.

GRANTSOF PLAN-BASED AWARDS TABLE

 

 Committee
Approval
Date(1)
         All Other
Stock Awards:
Number of
Shares of Stock
or Units
(#)
 All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options(4)
(#)
 Exercise or
Base Price  of
Option
Awards(4)
($/Sh)
 

Grant Date

Fair Value

of Stock
and Option
Awards(5)
($)

 

Name

(a)

 

Grant Date(1)

 

Committee

Approval
Date(1)

 Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Awards(2)
  Estimated Future Payouts
Under Equity Incentive Plan
Awards(3)
  All Other
Stock Awards:
Number of
Shares of Stock
or Units
(#)

(i)
 All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying

Options(4)
(#)

(j)
 Exercise or
Base Price of
Option

Awards(4)
($/Sh)

(k)
 Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and Option

Awards(5)
($)

(l)
  Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Awards(2)
 Estimated Future Payouts
Under Equity Incentive Plan
Awards(3)
 
  Grant Date(1) Committee
Approval
Date(1)
Threshold
($)
 Target
($)
 Maximum
($)
 Threshold
($) (#)
 Target
($) (#)
 Maximum
($) (#)
 All Other
Stock Awards:
Number of
Shares of Stock
or Units
(#)
All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options(4)
(#)
Exercise or
Base Price  of
Option
Awards(4)
($/Sh)
  (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)(j)(k)(l) 
 
 
 
 
 Threshold
($)
 Target
($)
 Maximum
($)
 Threshold
($)(#)
 Target
($)(#)
 Maximum
($)(#)
 

(b)

 (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 

Voss

    450,000    900,000    1,800,000                     

Baxter

    397,550    795,100    1,590,200                  
 1/1/14 12/12/13             9,414  31,381    62,762       1,220,721  
 

PSUP: 1/1/11

 12/9/10              29,859    99,531    199,062       3,126,269   4/24/14 2/14/14             9,811  32,703    65,406       1,636,458  

Lyons

    157,625    315,250    630,500                         198,275    396,550    793,100                  
 

PSUP: 1/1/11

 12/9/10              8,939    29,798    59,596       935,955   1/1/14 12/12/13             8,307  27,690    55,380       1,077,141  

Baxter

    191,750    383,500    767,000                     

Naslund

    142,800    285,600    571,200                  
 

PSUP: 1/1/11

 12/9/10              10,875    36,249    72,498       1,138,581   1/1/14 12/12/13             5,983  19,943    39,886       775,783  

Heflin

    120,000    240,000    480,000                     

Diya

    118,173    236,345    472,690                  
 

PSUP: 1/1/11

 12/9/10              6,320    21,065    42,130       661,652   1/1/14 12/12/13             4,525  15,083    30,166       586,729  
 

Retention

Award: 3/1/11

   2/8/11              0    400,000    600,000       400,000   3/1/14 4/23/13             0  8,671    13,007       400,000  

Sullivan

    148,850    297,700    595,400                     

Moehn

    141,997    283,993    567,986               
 

PSUP: 1/1/11

 12/9/10              7,381    24,604    49,208       772,812   1/1/14 12/12/13             3,633  12,110    24,220       471,079  
 4/1/14 2/14/14             1,757  5,856    11,712       304,688  

Voss(6)

    531,000    1,062,000    2,124,000                  
 1/1/14 12/12/13             28,922  96,405    192,810       3,750,155  

 

(1)The 20112014 PSU target awards were approved by the Committee on December 9, 201012, 2013 and, in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, granted on January 1, 2011.2014. Mr. Heflin’s Retention AwardDiya’s retention award was approved by the Committee on February 8, 2011April 23, 2013, and, in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, granted on March 1, 2011.2014. In connection with their respective promotions, Mr. Moehn received an additional grant on April 1, 2014 and Mr. Baxter received an additional grant on April 24, 2014. See
“— “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS” for a discussion of the timing of various pay decisions.

 

(2)

The amounts shown in column (c) reflect the threshold payment level under the 20112014 EIP which is 50 percent of the target amount shown in column (d). The amount shown

79


in column (e) is 200 percent of such target amount. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS” for information regarding the description of performance-based conditions.

 

(3)For each Named Executive Officer, the amounts shown (denominated in shares of Company Common Stock) in column (f) reflect the threshold 20112014 PSU award grant which is 30 percent of the target amount shown in column (g). The amount shown in column (h) is 200 percent of such target amount. In addition, for Mr. Heflin,Diya, a separate amount shown (denominated in dollars)shares of our Common Stock based on the closing price of $46.13 per share of our Common Stock on the NYSE on December 31, 2014) in column (f) reflects the threshold Retention Awardretention award grant which is 0 percent of the corresponding target amount shown in column (g). The corresponding amount shown in column (h) is 150 percent of such target amount. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS” for information regarding the terms of the awards, the description of performance-based vesting conditions and the criteria for determining the amounts payable.

 

(4)None of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers received any option awards in 2011.2014.

 

(5)

For each Named Executive Officer, represents the grant date fair value of the 20112014 PSU awards determined in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance (including FASB ASC Topic 718), excluding the effect of estimated forfeiture. For Mr. Heflin,Diya, additionally represents the grant date fair value

of the Retention Award in 2011his March 2014 retention award determined in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance, excluding the effect of estimated forfeiture. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are referenced in footnote (3) to the Summary Compensation Table. There is no guarantee that, if and when the 20112014 PSU awards or Retention Awardthe retention award vest, as applicable, they will have this value.

(6)In connection with Mr. Voss’ retirement, the payment under his 2014 EIP was prorated. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Calculation of Mr. Voss’ 2014 EIP.”

NARRATIVE DISCLOSURETO SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLEAND GRANTSOF PLAN-BASED AWARDS TABLE

See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS” for further information relating to each Named Executive Officer regarding the terms of awards reported in the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table and for discussions regarding officer stock ownership requirements, dividends paid on equity awards, and allocations between short-term and long-term compensation.

80


The following table provides information regarding the outstanding equity awards held by each of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers as of December 31, 2011.2014.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDSAT FISCAL YEAR-END TABLE

 

 Option Awards(1) Stock Awards Option Awards(1) Stock Awards 

Name
(a)

 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
(#)

(b)
 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable
(#)

(c)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options

(#)
(d)
 Option
Exercise
Price
($)

(e)
 Option
Expiration
Date

(f)
 Number of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have
Not Vested
(#)

(g)
 Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have

Not Vested
($)

(h)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares, Units,
or Other Rights
That Have Not
Vested(2)

(#)
(i)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or Payout
Value of
Unearned Shares,
Units, or Other
Rights That Have
Not Vested(2)(3)
($)

(j)
 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
(#)
(b)
 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable
(#)
(c)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options
(#)
(d)
 Option
Exercise
Price
($)
(e)
 Option
Expiration
Date
(f)
 Number of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have
Not Vested
(#)
(g)
 Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have

Not Vested
($)
(h)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares, Units,
or Other Rights
That Have Not
Vested(2)
(#)
(i)
 Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or Payout
Value of
Unearned Shares,
Units, or Other
Rights That Have
Not Vested(2)(3)
($)
(j)
 
Baxter         145,089    6,692,956  
Lyons         96,983    4,473,826  
Naslund         70,743    3,263,375  
Diya         49,794    2,296,984  
Moehn         48,908    2,256,126  
Voss        57,997 1,921,441         341,794    15,766,957  
Lyons        16,485    546,148
Baxter        23,712    785,579
Heflin        25,725    852,258
Sullivan        16,495    546,479

 

(1)None of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers hold any options to purchase shares of the Company’sour Common Stock.

 

(2)For each Named Executive Officer, represents 20102013 and 20112014 PSU award grants at maximum and target performance, respectively. The 2013 and 2014 PSU awards for such Named Executive Officers vest, subject to Ameren achieving the required performance threshold and continued employment of the Named Executive Officer, as of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for such Named Executive Officers. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Long-Term Incentives: Performance Restricted Stock awardsShare Unit Program (“PSUP”).” In addition, for Mr. Diya, the amount includes the March 2014 retention award grant at target, based on historical payout levels.maximum performance. The retention award will vest, subject to achieving the required performance threshold and to Mr. Diya’s continued employment, as of February 28, 2017.

Although shares of Performance Restricted Stock were not vested as of December 31, 2011, all remaining shares of Performance Restricted Stock vested March 1, 2012, as follows:

Name

# of Shares Vested
at March 1, 2012
Voss   855
Lyons   284
Baxter1,002
Heflin    —  
Sullivan  596

The 2010 and 2011 PSU awards vest, subject to Ameren achieving the required performance threshold and continued employment of the Executive, as of

December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, respectively, for all Executives. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Long-Term Incentives: Performance Share Unit Program (“PSUP”).”

For Mr. Heflin, additionally represents Retention Award grant at target. The Retention Award vests, subject to performance level of Ameren Missouri’s nuclear energy center and the continued employment of Mr. Heflin, as of March 1, 2014. See “— COMPENSATION DISCUSSIONAND ANALYSIS — Other Compensation Matters.”

 

(3)The dollar value of the payment of the 20102013 and 20112014 PSU awards is based on achieving the threshold (minimum) performance goals for such awards. The dollar value of the payout of outstanding Performance Restricted Stock awards is based on achievingmaximum and target performance goals for such awards.awards, respectively. The dollar value of the payment of Mr. Heflin’s Retention AwardDiya’s retention award is based on achieving the targetmaximum performance levelgoal for such award. Valuations for the 2013 and 2014 PSU awards reflected in column (i) are based on the closing price of $33.13$46.13 per share of Ameren’s Common Stock on the NYSE on December 30, 2011, the last business day of 2011.31, 2014. There is no guarantee that, if and when the 20102013 and 20112014 PSU awards or the Retention AwardMr. Diya’s retention award vest, they will have this value. The actual dollar value of the payout of outstanding Performance Restricted Stock on the March 1, 2012 vesting date based on achieving 123.5 percent of target performance in 2011 is set forth in the Option Exercises and Stock Vested Table below.

81


The following table provides the amounts received upon exercise of options or similar instruments or the vesting of stock or similar instruments during the most recent fiscal year.

OPTION EXERCISESAND STOCK VESTED TABLE

 

Option Awards(1)Stock Awards

Name

(a)

Number of Shares
Acquired on

Exercise
(#)
(b)
Value Realized
on Exercise

($)
(c)
Number of Shares
Acquired on
Vesting

(#)
(d)
Value
Realized  on
Vesting(4)
($)

(e)
Voss—  —  855(2)27,420
9,447(3)312,979
Lyons—  —  284(2)9,108
3,998(3)132,454
Baxter—  —  1,002(2)32,134
10,938(3)362,376
Heflin—  —  —  —  
7,106(3)235,422
Sullivan—  —  596(2)19,114
8,254(3)273,455
   Option Awards(1)  Stock Awards 

Name
(a)

  Number of Shares
Acquired on
Exercise

(#)
(b)
  Value Realized
on Exercise
($)

(c)
  Number of Shares
Acquired on
Vesting(2)
(#)

(d)
   Value
Realized  on
Vesting(3)
($)

(e)
 
Baxter  —    —     32,766     1,511,496  
Lyons  —    —     27,530     1,269,959  
Naslund  —    —     20,821     960,473  
Diya  —    —     15,689     681,281  
Moehn  —    —     11,827     545,580  
Voss  —    —     100,247     4,624,394  

 

(1)None of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers hold any options to purchase shares of our Common Stock.

 

(2)Shares earned and vested under the Performance Restricted Stock awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan of 1998 due to achievement of specified Ameren EPS hurdles for restricted shares awarded during 2001-2005. The restricted shares were released on March 1, 2012.

(3)

Represents 2009For each Named Executive Officer, represents 2012 PSU award grants earned as of December 31, 2011.2014. In addition, for Mr. Diya, represents 7,361 shares received with respect to a retention award whose three-year performance period ended in March 2014. During the performance period for the 20092012 PSU awards ending December 31, 2011, Executives2014, such Named Executive Officers were credited with dividend equivalents on 20092012 PSU award grants, which represented the right to receive shares of Ameren Common Stock measured by the dividend

payable with respect to the corresponding number of 20092012 PSU awards. Dividend equivalents on 20092012 PSU awards accrued at target levels and were reinvested into additional 20092012 PSU awards throughout the three-year performance period. For each Named Executive Officer, the actual dividend equivalents paid out on PSU awards varies from 0 percent to 200 percent of the target number of PSUs granted to each Named Executive Officer and is based on the performance of the Company during each respective PSU award performance period. Dividend equivalents are only earned to the extent that the underlying PSU award is earned. The number of 2012 PSUs ultimately earned by each Named Executive Officer through dividend reinvestment, at 14.3 percent of the original target levels accrued, was as follows: Mr. Baxter — 4,091 units; Mr. Voss 1,472—12,513 units; Mr. Lyons 623— 3,437 units; Mr. Baxter 1,704Naslund — 2,599 units; Mr. Heflin 1,107 units andDiya — 1,039 units; Mr. Sullivan 1,286Moehn — 1,477 units.

 

(4)(3)The value of the vested Performance Restricted Stock is based on the closing price of $32.07 per share of our Common Stock on the NYSE on February 29, 2012. The value of the vested 20092012 PSUs is based on the closing price of $33.13$46.13 per share of our Common Stock on the NYSE on December 30, 2011, the last business day of 2011.31, 2014.

82


PENSION BENEFITS

The table below provides the actuarial present value of the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s accumulated benefits under the Company’s retirement plans and the number of years of service credited to each Named Executive Officer under these plans.

PENSION BENEFITS TABLE

 

Name

(a)

  

Plan Name

(b)

  Number of

Years Credited

Service

(#)

(c)

 Present Value of

Accumulated

Benefit(1)(2)

($)

(d)

  Payments During

Last Fiscal

Year(3)

($)

(e)

  

Plan Name

(b)

  Number of
Years  Credited
Service(1)
(#)

(c)

 Present Value of
Accumulated
Benefit(2)(3)
($)

(d)

  Payments During
Last Fiscal
Year(4)
($)

(e)

Voss

  1) Retirement Plan  42 1,307,438    –  

Baxter

  1) Retirement Plan  19    433,579    –  
  

2) SRP

  42    920,726    –    

2) SRP

  19 1,205,726    –  

Lyons

  1) Retirement Plan  10    217,912    –    1) Retirement Plan  13    364,651    –  
  

2) SRP

  10    238,625    –    

2) SRP

  13    575,665    –  

Baxter

  1) Retirement Plan  16    273,180    –  

Naslund

  1) Retirement Plan  40 1,345,003    –  
  

2) SRP

  16    683,531    –    

2) SRP

  40    786,581    –  

Heflin

  1) Retirement Plan    6    155,676    –  

Diya

  1) Retirement Plan  9    254,453    –  
  

2) SRP

    6    138,526    –    

2) SRP

  9    141,870    –  

Sullivan

  1) Retirement Plan  22    504,517    –  

Moehn

  1) Retirement Plan  14    360,633    –  
  

2) SRP

  22    531,472    –    

2) SRP

  14    288,979    –  

Voss

  1) Retirement Plan  45 1,644,730    –  
  

2) SRP

  45 1,761,561    –  

 

(1)Years of credited service are not used for purposes of calculating the Named Executive Officers’ balances under these plans.

(2)Represents the actuarial present value of the accumulated benefits relating to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers under the Retirement Plan (defined below) and the SRP as of December 31, 2011.2014. See Note 11 to our audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 20112014 included in our 20112014 Form 10-K for an explanation of the valuation method and all material assumptions applied in quantifying the present value of the accumulated benefit. The calculations were based on retirement at the plan normal retirement age of 65, included no pre-retirement decrements in determining the present value, used an 80 percent lump sum/sum / 20 percent annuity payment form assumption, and used the plan valuation mortality assumptions after age 65 in the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table. Cash balance accounts were projected to age 65 using the 20112014 plan interest crediting rate of 5.05 percent.

83


(2)(3)The following table provides the Cash Balance Account Lump Sum Value for accumulated benefits relating to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers under the cash balance account under the Retirement Plan and the SRP at December 31, 20112014 as an alternative to the presentation of the actuarial present value of the accumulated benefits relating to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers under the Retirement Plan and the SRP as of December 31, 2011.2014.

 

Name

  

Plan Name

   


Cash Balance Account

Lump Sum Value


($)

  


VossBaxter

  1) Retirement Plan   1,229,064347,785          
  2) SRP   865,533967,145          

Lyons

  1) Retirement Plan   184,319276,520          
  2) SRP   201,839436,535          

BaxterNaslund

  1) Retirement Plan   238,9421,176,084          
  2) SRP   597,864687,795          

HeflinDiya

  1) Retirement Plan   133,818200,600          
  2) SRP   119,076111,844          

SullivanMoehn

  1) Retirement Plan   441,977267,137          
  2) SRP   465,591214,060        

Voss

1) Retirement Plan1,502,011        
2) SRP1,608,704          

 

(3)(4)All ExecutivesWith the exception of Mr. Voss, all Named Executive Officers are active and were not eligible for payments prior to December 31, 2011.

2014. In connection with his retirement, Mr. Voss became entitled to payment under the Ameren Retirement Plan and the Ameren Supplemental Retirement Plan (each plan described below) pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan.

Ameren Retirement Plan

Retirement benefits for the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers fall under the Benefits for Salaried Employees (the “Cash Balance Account”). Most salaried employees of Ameren and its subsidiaries, including the Executives,Named Executive Officers, earn benefits in the Cash Balance Account under the Ameren Retirement Plan (the “Retirement Plan”) immediately upon employment. Benefits become vested after three years of service.

On an annual basis a bookkeeping account in a participant’s name is credited with an amount equal to a percentage of the participant’s pensionable earnings for the year. Pensionable earnings include base salary and annual EIP compensation, which are equivalent to amounts shown in columns (c) and (g) in the Summary Compensation Table. The applicable percentage is based on the participant’s age as of December 31 of that year.

 

Participant’s Age

on December 31

  Regular Credit for Pensionable
Earnings*
Less than 30  3%
30 to 34  4%
35 to 39  4%
40 to 44  5%
45 to 49  6%
50 to 54  7%
55 and over  8%

 

 *An additional regular credit of three percent is received for pensionable earnings above the Social Security wage base. 

84


These accounts also receive interest credits based on the average yield for one-year U.S. Treasury constant maturity for the previous October, plus one percent. The minimum interest credit is five percent.

Effective January 1, 2001, an enhancement account was added that provides a $500 additional credit at the end of each year.

The normal retirement age under the Cash Balance Account structure and the SRP is 65. Neither the Cash Balance Account structure nor the SRP containcontains provisions for crediting extra years of service or for early retirement. When a participant terminates employment (including as a result of retirement), the amount credited to the participant’s account is converted to an annuity or paid to the participant in a lump sum. The participant can also choose to defer distribution, in which case the account balance is credited with interest at the applicable rate until the future date of distribution.

Ameren Supplemental Retirement Plan

In certain cases, pension benefits under the Retirement Plan are reduced to comply with maximum limitations imposed by the IRC. The SRP is maintained by Ameren to provide for a supplemental benefit equal to the difference between the benefit that would have been paid if such IRC limitations were not in effect and the reduced benefit payable as a result of such IRC limitations. Any Named Executive Officer whose pension benefits under the Retirement Plan would exceed IRC limitations or who participates in the deferred compensation plan described below is eligible to participate in the SRP. The SRP is unfunded and is not a qualified plan under the IRC.

There is no offset under either the Retirement Plan or the SRP for Social Security benefits or other offset amounts.

NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

The following table discloses contributions, earnings and balances under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan for each Executive.Named Executive Officer.

NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

 

Name

(a)

  Executive
Contributions
in 2011(1)
($)

(b)
   Company
Contributions
in 2011(2)
($)

(c)
  Aggregate
Earnings  in
2011(3)
($)

(d)
 Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
($)

(e)
  Aggregate
Balance at
12/31/11(4)
($)

(f)
   Executive
Contributions
in 2014(1)
($)
(b)
   Company
Contributions
in 2014(2)
($)
(c)
  Aggregate
Earnings  in
2014(3)
($)
(d)
   Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
($)
(e)
  Aggregate
Balance at
12/31/14(4)
($)
(f)
 

Baxter

   61,099    45,824   82,052      –     1,886,260  

Lyons

   49,285    36,964   16,388      –     401,716  

Naslund

   362,100    23,678   205,808      –     4,095,059  

Diya

   158,353    12,583   27,361      –     690,015  

Moehn

   48,377    16,901   30,699      –     595,423  

Voss

   316,400    78,675   169,849     –     2,734,948     91,382    68,536   178,084      –     4,350,780  

Lyons

   39,008    29,256   (2,789   –     107,693  

Baxter

   118,012    38,595   79,595     –     1,324,792  

Heflin

   58,553    20,594   15,060     –     362,203  

Sullivan

   184,360    26,082   119,033     –     2,041,566  

 

(1)A portion of these amounts is also included in amounts reported for 20112014 as “Salary” in column (c) of the Summary Compensation Table. These amounts also include a portion of amounts reported as “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” in our 20112014 proxy statement representing compensation paid in 20112014 for performance during 2010.2013.

 

85


(2)All of the Company matching contributions reported for each Named Executive Officer are included in the amounts reported in column (i) of the Summary Compensation Table.

 

(3)

The dollar amount of aggregate interest earnings accrued during 2011.2014. The above-market interest component of these amounts earned on deferrals made prior to January 1, 2010 with respect to plan years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010 and for deferrals made prior to January 1, 2010 with respect to plan years beginning on

or after January 1, 2011 is included in amounts reported in column (h) of the Summary Compensation Table. See
footnote (6) to the Summary Compensation Table for the amounts of above-market interest. There are no above-market or preferential earnings on compensation deferred with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 for deferrals made on and after January 1, 2010.

 

(4)The dollar amount of the total balance of the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s account as of December 31, 20112014 consists of the following elements:

 

Name

  Executive
Contributions
($)
   Company
Matching
Contributions

($)
   Interest
Earnings
($)
   Total
($)
   Amount Previously
Reported as
Compensation in Prior
Years(1)

($)
   Executive
Contributions
($)
   Company
Matching
Contributions
($)
   Interest
Earnings
($)
   Total
($)
   Amount Previously
Reported as
Compensation in Prior
Years(1)
($)
 

Baxter

   954,032     183,213     749,015     1,886,260     1,118,888  

Lyons

   190,677     143,008     68,031     401,716     247,436  

Naslund

   2,639,006     112,319     1,343,733     4,095,059     2,454,566  

Diya

   556,953     42,745     90,316     690,015     —    

Moehn

   321,710     65,419     208,294     595,423     —    

Voss

   1,656,941     124,726     953,281     2,734,948     1,353,274     2,543,360     360,194     1,447,226     4,350,780     2,907,770  

Lyons

   61,488     46,116     89     107,693     39,340  

Baxter

   796,404     64,993     463,394     1,324,792     692,244  

Heflin

   268,480     32,241     61,482     362,203     106,765  

Sullivan

   1,317,027     43,447     681,092     2,041,566     1,044,524  

 

 (1)Represents amounts previously reported as compensation to the Named Executive Officer in Ameren’sthe Summary Compensation Table of Ameren or its subsidiaries in previous years.

Executive Deferred Compensation Plan Participation

Pursuant to an optional deferred compensation plan available to executive officers and certain key employees, Executivesmembers of the Company’s management, Named Executive Officers may annually choose to defer up to 50 percent (in one percent increments) of their salary and up to 100 percent (in one percent increments or amounts in excess of a threshold) of cash incentive awards. There are no minimum dollar thresholds for deferrals. At the request of a participant, the Company may, in its discretion, waive the 50 percent limitation.

The Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated, effective January 1, 2010 (the “Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan”), changed the interest crediting rates for deferrals made with respect to plan years commencing on and after January 1, 2010 and added a 401(k) restoration benefit for eligible officers of Ameren whose total salary and short-term incentive award exceeds the limit on compensation in effect under the IRC. In October 2010, the Company adopted an amendment to the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2011 to, among other things, change the measurement period for the applicable interest rates to amounts deferred under such plan prior to January 1, 2010 and to clarify that matching contributions made under the plan are based upon all of a participant’s deferrals under the plan during a plan year. Pursuant to the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan, amounts deferred (and interest attributable thereto), other than the 401(k) Restoration Benefit (as defined below), accrue interest at the rate to be

86


applied to the participant’s account balance depending on (1) the plan year for which the rate is being calculated and (2) the year in which the deferral was made, as follows:

 

Calculation for Plan Year

  

Deferral Date

  

Rate

Plan Years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010  Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010  150 percent of the average of the monthly Mergent’s Seasoned AAA Corporate Bond Yield Index rate (the “Officers Deferred Plan Index Rate”) for the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 7.44 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2011Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010Officers Deferred Plan Index Rate for the 12-month period ending on November 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 2011 such interest crediting rate was 7.446.23 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010  Deferrals on and after January 1, 2010  120 percent of the AFR for the December immediately preceding such plan year (the “Officers Deferred Plan Interest Rate”) — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 4.243.99 percent

Under the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan, upon a participant’s termination of employment with the Company and/or its subsidiaries prior to age 55 and after the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined under “— OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS — Change of Control Protection — In General —Change of Control Severance Plan” below) the balance in such participant’s deferral account, with interest as described in the table above, shall be distributed in a lump sum within 30 days after the date the participant terminates employment.

The 401(k) Restoration Benefit allows eligible officers of Ameren, including the Executives,Named Executive Officers, to also defer a percentage of salary and/or EIP awards in excess of the limit on compensation then in effect under the IRC (currently $245,000)$265,000), in one percent increments, up to a maximum of six percent of total salary and EIP awards (a “401(k) Restoration Deferral,” together with Ameren’s 401(k) matching credit described below, the “401(k) Restoration Benefit”). Under the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan, Ameren credits each participating officer’s deferral account with a matching credit equal to 100 percent of the first

three percent of salary and EIP awards and 50 percent of the remaining salary and EIP awards deferred by the participant, including a 401(k) Restoration Deferral. In general, eligible participants, including the Executives,Named Executive Officers, may direct the deemed investment of the
401(k) Restoration Benefit in accordance with the investment options that are generally available under Ameren’s 401(k) savings investment plan, except for the Ameren stock fund.

As a result of the changes described in this section, no preferential or above-market earnings are paid pursuant to the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 for deferrals made on and after January 1, 2010.

87


The investment returns for the funds elected by Executivesavailable to Named Executive Officers under the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan in 20112014 were as follows:

 

Name of Fund

  Percentage
Rate of
Return
 

Allianz NFJ Dividend Value Fund-Institutional Class

Target 2020 Fund
   3.39%5.42% 

American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund-Class R5

Target 2025 Fund
   (13.35)%5.64% 

American Funds GrowthTarget 2030 Fund of America-Class R5

   (4.56)%5.81% 

BlackRock US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Non-Lendable Fund-Class F

Target 2035 Fund
   13.21%5.97% 

Northern Trust Stable AssetTarget 2040 Fund

   3.36%6.14% 

NWQ Small/Mid Cap Value Fund-Class J

Target 2045 Fund
   1.86%6.25% 

Royce Value Plus Fund-Institutional Class

Target 2050 Fund
   (9.69)%6.40% 

Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund-Institutional Class

Target 2055 Fund
   (3.62)%6.46% 

BlackRock LifePath 2025 Portfolio-Class G

Target Retirement Fund
   0.77%5.09% 

BlackRock LifePath 2030 Portfolio-Class G

Large Cap Equity Index
   0.00%13.67
Large Cap Growth Equity9.95
Large Cap Value Equity10.50
Small/Mid Cap Equity Index6.94
Small/Mid Cap Equity3.89
International Equity Index-4.43
International Equity-2.30
Bond Fund4.70
Bond Index Fund6.02
TIPS Bond Index Fund3.42
Stable Interest Income0.78% 

After the participant retires, the deferred amounts (and interest attributable thereto), other than the 401(k) Restoration Benefit, accrue interest as follows:

 

Calculation for Plan Year

  

Deferral Date

  

Rate

Plan Years beginning on or prior to January 1, 2010  Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010  Average monthly Mergent’s Seasoned AAA Corporate Bond Yield Index rate (the “Officers Deferred Plan Base Index Rate”) for the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was
4.96 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2011Deferrals prior to January 1, 2010Officers Deferred Plan Base Index Rate for the 12-month period ending on November 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding such plan year — for 2011 such interest crediting rate was 4.96 4.15 percent
Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010  Deferrals on and after January 1, 2010  Officers Deferred Plan Interest Rate — for 20112014 such interest crediting rate was 4.243.99 percent

The plan compounds interest annually and the rate is calculated as of the first day of the plan year.

Distributions from the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan will be paid in cash. A participant may choose to receive the deferred amounts at retirement in a single lump sum payment or in substantially equal installments over a set period of up to5, 10 or 15 years. In the event a participant terminates employment with the Company and its subsidiaries prior to age 55, the balance in such participant’s deferral account is distributable in a lump sum to the participant within 30 days of the date the participant terminates employment.

88


Participants are 100 percent vested at all times in the value of their contributions, investment earnings and any Company
401(k) matching credits. A participant’s benefit will be comprised of separate bookkeeping accounts evidencing his or her interest in each of the investment funds in which contributions and applicable matching contributions have been deemed invested. While no actual contributions are made to the funds, earnings or losses are calculated using the valuation methodology employed by the record keeper for each of the corresponding funds. Participants may generally transfer investments among various investment alternatives on a daily basis, subject to the provisions of the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan.

Distributions from the Ameren Deferred Compensation Plan will be paid in cash. Participants may also elect to receive distributions in a single lump sum or in substantially equal annual or monthly installments over a period of 5, 10 or 15 years.

OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS

Employment Agreements

The Company has no employment agreements with the Executives.Named Executive Officers.

General Severance Plan

Ameren maintains athe Ameren Corporation Severance Plan for ManagementAmeren Employees, which provides for severance based on years of service and weeks of pay for all salaried full-time employees on the active payroll. The ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers are covered under this plan in the event of a qualified termination (defined under the plan) and are eligible for severance on the same basis as other full-time salaried employees.

Change of Control Protection

In General

Change of Control Severance Plan.PlanIn 2008, Ameren’s Board of Directors adopted a Second Amended and Restated Change of Control Severance Plan, as amended (the “Change of Control Plan”). Other Company plans also carry change of control provisions.

Severance and PSUP provisions pursuant to a Change of Control (as defined below) were redesigned or designed by the Committee in 2006 and subsequent changes to the Change of Control Plan have been made in response to various changes in tax laws. In 2008, Ameren’s Board of Directors adopted a Second Amended and Restated Change of Control Severance Plan, as amended (the “Change of Control Plan”). Other Company plans also carry change of control provisions. The Change of Control Plan was amended in 2009 to eliminate reimbursement and gross-up payments in connection with any excise taxes that may be imposed on benefits received by any officers who first become designated as entitled to receive benefits under the Change of Control Plan on or after October 1, 2009.

Under the Change of Control Plan, designated officers of Ameren and its subsidiaries, including the Executives,Named Executive Officers, are entitled to receive severance benefits if their employment is terminated without Cause (as defined below) or by the Named Executive Officer for Good Reason (as defined below) within two years after a Change of Control.

Definitions of Change of Control, Cause and Good Reason

A change of control (“Change of Control”) occurs under the Change of Control Plan, in general, upon:

(i) the acquisition of 20 percent or more of the outstanding Common Stock of Ameren or of the combined voting power of the outstanding voting securities of Ameren;

(ii) a majority change in composition of the board of directors;

89


(iii) a reorganization, merger or consolidation, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of Ameren, unless current shareholders continue to own 60 percent or more of the surviving entity immediately following the transaction; or

(iv) approval by Ameren shareholders of a complete liquidation or dissolution of Ameren.

“Cause” is defined as follows:

(i) the participant’s willful failure to substantially perform his or her duties with Ameren (other than any such failure resulting from the participant’s disability), after notice and opportunity to remedy;

(ii) gross negligence in the performance of the participant’s duties which results in material financial harm to Ameren;

(iii) the participant’s conviction of, or plea of guilty ornolo contendere to, any felony or any other crime involving the personal enrichment of the participant at the expense of Ameren or shareholders of Ameren; or

(iv) the participant’s willful engagement in conduct that is demonstrably and materially injurious to Ameren, monetarily or otherwise.

“Good Reason” is defined as follows:

(i) a net reduction of the participant’s authorities, duties, or responsibilities as an executive and/or officer of Ameren;

(ii) required relocation of more than 50 miles;

(iii) any material reduction of the participant’s base salary or target bonus opportunity;

(iv) reduction in grant-date value of long-term incentive opportunity;

(v) failure to provide the same aggregate value of employee benefit or retirement plans in effect prior to a Change of Control;

(vi) failure of a successor to assume the Change of Control Plan agreements; or

(vii) a material breach of the Change of Control Plan.Plan which is not remedied by the Company within ten business days of receipt of written notice of such breach.

If an Executive’sa Named Executive Officer’s employment is terminated without Cause or by the Named Executive Officer for Good Reason within two years after a Change of Control, the Named Executive Officer will receive a cash lump sum equal to the following:

(i) unpaid salary and unpaid vacation pay through the date of termination;

(ii) pro rata EIP compensation for the year of termination;

(iii) three years’ worth of each of base salary and target EIP compensation andcompensation;

(iv) additional pension credit;

(iv) up to $30,000 for the cost of outplacement services (not available for a Good Reason termination); and

(v) solely with respect to officers who first became designated as entitled to receive benefits under the Change of Control Plan before October 1, 2009, reimbursement and gross-up for any excise tax imposed on benefits received by the Named Executive Officer from Ameren, assuming such payments (as defined by the IRS) are at least 110 percent of the imposed cap under the IRC; provided that officers who first become designated as entitled to receive benefits under the Change of Control Plan on or after October 1, 2009, are not eligible to receive reimbursement and gross-up for any such excise tax.IRC.

90


In addition to the cash lump sum payment, any such Named Executive Officer shall (i) continue to be eligible for health and welfare benefits during the three-year severance period, provided that if the Named Executive Officer becomes reemployed with another employer and is eligible to receive such health and welfare benefits under such other employer’s plan, the Company’s health and welfare benefits will be secondary to those provided under such other plan during the severance period.period and (ii) receive, as incurred, up to $30,000 for the cost of outplacement services (not available for a Good Reason termination).

Following are details of how the above items are calculated.

 

  

Retirement Plan Benefit Assumptions.Assumptions. Amount equal to the difference between (a) the account balance under the Retirement Plan and SRP which the participant would receive if his or her employment continued during the
three-year period upon which severance is received (assuming the participant’s compensation during such period would have been equal to his or her compensation as in effect immediately prior to termination), and (b) the actual account balance (paid or payable) under such plans as of the date of termination.

 

  

Health and Welfare Benefit Payment Assumptions. Continued coverage for the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s family with medical, dental, life insurance and executive life insurance benefits as if employment had not been terminated during the three-year period upon which severance is received. The calculation and the corresponding amounts set forth in the Estimated Potential Post-Employment Payments tables below assume full cost of benefits over the three-year period. In addition, the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s family receives additional retiree medical benefits (if applicable) as if employment had not been terminated during the three-year period upon which severance is received. All retiree medical benefits are payable only in their normal form as monthly premium payments. The actuarial present value of the additional retiree medical benefits is included, calculated based on retirement at the end of the three-year severance period, a graded discount rate assumption of 0.240.41 percent for payment duration of three years or less, 1.532.06 percent for payment duration of over three but not more than nine years and 3.373.29 percent for payment duration over nine years, and post-retirement mortality (but not pre-retirement mortality) according to the RP-2000RP-2014 (generational) table. (No pre-retirement mortality.)

Ability to Amend or Terminate Change of Control Plan

The Board may amend or terminate the Change of Control Plan at any time, including designating any other event as a Change of Control, provided that the Change of Control Plan may not be amended or terminated (i) following a Change of Control, (ii) at the request of a third party who has taken steps reasonably calculated to effect a Change of Control or (iii) otherwise in connection with or in anticipation of a Change of Control in any manner that could adversely affect the rights of any officer covered by the Change of Control Plan.

Change of Control Provisions Relating to PSU Awards

Below is a summary of protections provided upon a Change of Control with respect to the PSU awards under the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.Plan (or if applicable, the 2014 Plan). In brief, the goal of these protections is to avoid acceleration of PSU vesting and payment in situations where a Change of Control occurs but the Company continues to exist and the Named Executive Officer retains his or her position. In the table below, the term “qualifying termination” means the participant is involuntarily terminated other than(i) has an involuntary termination without Cause, (ii) for Cause orChange of Control Severance Plan participants, has a voluntary termination of employment for Good

91


Reason before the second anniversary of the date of(as defined in the Change of Control.Control Severance Plan) or (iii) has an involuntary termination that qualifies for severance under the Ameren Corporation Severance Plan for Ameren Employees (as in effect immediately prior to the Change of Control). Other definitions of capitalized terms may be found in the Change of Control Plan.2006 Plan (or if applicable, the 2014 Plan) or applicable award agreement.

 

Change of Control Event Termination Event Unvested PSU Awards

Change of Control which occurs on or before the end of the applicable performance period after which the Company continues in existence and remains a publicly traded company on the NYSE or NASDAQ

 

No qualifying
termination

 

Payable upon the earliest to occur of the following:

•    for PSU awards granted through December 31, 2008, two years after the performance period has ended and for PSU awards granted in 2009 or thereafter, after the performance period has ended; or

•    the participant’s death; or

•   if the participant becomes disabled or retires during the performance period, immediately following the performance period and if the participant becomes disabled or retires after the performance period but before earned amounts have been paid out, upon such disability or death.

 

 

 

Qualifying termination within two years after the Change of Control and during the three-year performance period

 

 

The PSUs the participant would have earned if such participant remained employed untilfor the vesting date,entire performance period, at actual performance, will vest on the last day of the performance period and be paid in shares of the Company’s Common Stock immediately.immediately following the performance period; provided that such distribution shall be deferred until the date which is six months following the participant’s termination of employment to the extent required by IRC Section 409A.

 

   

Change of Control which occurs on or before the end of the applicable performance period in which the Company ceases to exist or is no longer publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ

 Automatic Uponupon Change of Control 

The target number of PSU awards granted, together with dividends accrued thereon, will be converted to nonqualified deferred compensation. Interest on the nonqualified deferred compensation will accrue based on the prime rate, computed as provided in the award agreement.

 

 

 

Continued employment until the end of the three-year performance period

 

 

Lump sum payout of the nonqualified deferred compensation plus interest immediately following the performance period.

 

Retirement or termination due to disability prior to the Change of Control

Immediate lump sum payment of the nonqualified deferred compensation plus interest upon the Change of Control.

 

Continued employment until death or disability which occurs after the Change of Control and before the end of the

three-year performance period

 

 

 

Immediate lump sum payout of the nonqualified deferred compensation plus interest.interest upon such death or disability.

 

 

Qualifying termination during the three-year performance period

 

 

Immediate lump sum payout of the nonqualified deferred compensation plus interest;interest upon termination; provided that such distribution shall be deferred until the date which is six months following the participant’s termination of employment to the extent required by IRC Section 409A.

 

92


Change of Control EventTermination EventUnvested PSU Awards
  

 

Other termination of employment before the end of the

three-year performance period

 

 

 

Forfeiture of the nonqualified deferred compensation plus interest.

Termination of PSU Awards Other Than for Change of Control

The following table summarizes the impact of certain employment events outside the context of a Change of Control that may result in the payment of unvested PSU awards.

 

Type of  Termination Additional Termination
Details
 

Unvested PSU
Awards

Awards

Voluntary terminationN/A

Forfeited

Involuntary termination

not for Cause

Prior to age 62Forfeited

Age 62+

   
Death 

Prior to age 62N/A

 

 

All awards pay out at target (plus accrual of dividends), pro rata for the number of days worked in each performance period.

Age 62+

 

   
Disability 

Prior to age 62N/A

 

 

All outstanding awards are earned at the same time and to the same extent that they are earned by other participants, and are paid immediately following the performance period.

 

  

Age 62+

 
Retirement (Termination at or after age 55) During Performance Period 

Prior to age 62

 

Only if the participant has at least five years of service, a prorated award is earned at the end of the three-year performance period (based on actual performance) and paid immediately following the performance period.

 

 

Age 62+

 

Only if the participant has at least ten years of service (or five years of service in the case of the 2011 PSU awards), a full award is earned at the end of the three-year performance period (based on actual performance) and paid immediately following the performance period.

 

   
Retirement (Termination at or after age 55) Following Performance Period

PSU awards prior to 2009 incorporate a two-year holding period after a three-year performance vesting period.Termination for any reason other than death, disability, and retirement as provided above

 

 This scenario occurs when awards have already vested. In this situation, payout is made immediately.

N/A

Forfeited

Estimated Potential Post-Employment Payments

The tables below reflect the payments and benefits payable to each of the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers in the event of a termination of the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s employment under several different circumstances. TheFor Named Executive Officers, the amounts shown assume that termination was effective as of December 31, 2011,2014, at the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s compensation and service levels as of that date, and are estimates of the amounts that would be payable to the Named Executive Officer in each scenario. ExciseTo the extent applicable, excise tax and gross-up payments are estimated using a stock price of $33.13$46.13 per share (the closing price of Ameren’s Common Stock on the NYSE on December 30, 2011, the last business day of 2011)31, 2014). In addition, the amounts shown do not include benefits paid by insurance providers under life and disability policies or payments and benefits provided on a non-discriminatory basis to employees upon a termination of employment.employment, including severance payments under the Ameren Corporation Severance Plan for Ameren Employees. The actual amounts to be paid out can only be determined at the time of the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s actual separation from the Company. Factors that could affect the nature and amount of the payments on termination of employment, among others, include the timing of event, compensation level, the market price of our Common Stock and the Executive’sNamed Executive Officer’s age.

93


VBOSSAXTER

 

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  

Retirement at
Age at
12/31/11

($)

  

Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause

($)

  Change of
Control(1)
($)
 

Cash Severance (Three years’ Base

Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  

  N/A    N/A    N/A     6,300,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  3,362,671    2,351,679    2,351,679(2)    6,623,339  
Performance Restricted Stock Vesting(3)  28,326    28,326    28,326     28,326  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A    N/A     1,012,872  
Three Years’ Welfare Benefits(4)  N/A    N/A    N/A     104,832  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A    N/A     30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A    N/A     7,071,949  
Total  3,390,997    2,380,005    2,380,005        21,171,318  

LYONS

 

     
Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  

Retirement at
Age at
12/31/11(5)

($)

  Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
  Change of
Control(1)
($)
 

Cash Severance (Three years’ Base

Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  

  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,716,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  978,769    711,322     0    1,921,605  
Performance Restricted Stock Vesting(3)  9,409    9,409     9,409    9,409  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A     N/A    306,316  
Three Years’ Welfare Benefits(4)  N/A    N/A     N/A    47,193  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A     N/A    30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,400,137  
Total     988,178       720,731                           9,409    7,430,660  

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  Retirement
at Age at
12/31/14(4)
($)
 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
 Change of
Control(1)
($)
 
Cash Severance (Three years’ Base Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)    N/A    N/A        6,650,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  3,742,471    6,918,919        6,386,574  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A        626,971  
Three Years’ Health and Welfare Benefits(3)  N/A    N/A        105,936  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A        30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A        7,386,212  
Total  3,742,471    6,918,919        21,185,693  

BLAXTERYONS

 

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  

Retirement at
Age at
12/31/11(5)

($)

 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
  Change of
Control(1)
($)
 

Cash Severance (Three years’ Base

Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  

  N/A    N/A     N/A    3,304,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  1,612,931       1,170,875     0    2,870,391  
Performance Restricted Stock Vesting(3)  33,196    33,196     33,196    33,196  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A     N/A    470,994  
Three Years’ Welfare Benefits(4)  N/A    N/A     N/A    57,744  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A     N/A    30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A     N/A    3,083,898  
Total  1,646,127    1,204,071      33,196    9,850,223  

HEFLIN

 

     
Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  

Retirement at
Age at
12/31/11(5)

($)

 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
  Change of
Control(1)
($)
 

Cash Severance (Three years’ Base

Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  

  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,160,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  995,523    721,010     0    1,742,947  
Retention Award Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  111,111    111,111     111,111    400,000  
Performance Restricted Stock Vesting(3)  N/A    N/A     N/A    N/A  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A     N/A    230,695  
Three Years’ Welfare Benefits(4)  N/A    N/A     N/A    46,977  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A     N/A    30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,275,164  
Total     1,106,634       832,121      111,111    6,885,783  

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  Retirement
at Age at
12/31/14(4)
($)
 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
 Change of
Control(1)
($)
 
Cash Severance (Three years’ Base Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  N/A    N/A       3,285,700  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  2,761,227    5,241,999       4,170,639  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A       431,901  
Three Years’ Health and Welfare Benefits(3)  N/A    N/A       60,040  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A       30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A       4,132,223  
Total  2,761,227    5,241,999        12,110,503  

SNULLIVANASLUND

 

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  

Retirement at
Age at
12/31/11(5)

($)

 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
  Change of
Control(1)
($)
  Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  Retirement
at Age at
12/31/14(5)
($)
  Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
 Change of
Control(1)
($)
 
Cash Severance (Three years’ Base Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,564,800    N/A    N/A    N/A      2,570,400  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  1,157,911    839,045     0    2,029,233    2,048,264    3,863,947    3,863,947(2)     3,070,228  
Performance Restricted Stock Vesting(3)  19,745    19,745     19,745    19,745  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A     N/A    394,487    N/A    N/A    N/A      556,932  
Three Years’ Welfare Benefits(4)  N/A    N/A     N/A    101,392  
Three Years’ Health and Welfare Benefits(3)  N/A    N/A    N/A      71,715  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A     N/A    30,000    N/A    N/A    N/A      30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A     N/A    2,338,934    N/A    N/A    N/A      3,149,247  
Total     1,177,656       858,790     19,745    7,478,591    2,048,264    3,863,947    3,863,947      9,448,522  

 

94


DIYA

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  Retirement
at Age at
12/31/14(4)
($)
 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
  Change of
Control(1)
($)
 
Cash Severance (Three years’ Base Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  N/A    N/A      N/A    2,160,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  949,836    1,781,208      N/A    1,594,235  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A      N/A    209,879  
Three Years’ Health and Welfare Benefits(3)  N/A    N/A      N/A    75,457  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A      N/A    30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A      N/A    2,142,686  
March 2014 Retention Award(6)  167,518    167,518      167,518    400,000  
Total  1,117,354    1,948,726      167,518    6,612,257  

MOEHN

Component of Pay Death
($)
  Disability
($)
  Retirement
at Age at
12/31/14(4)
($)
 Involuntary
Termination not
for Cause
($)
 Change of
Control(1)
($)
 
Cash Severance (Three years’ Base Salary and Target EIP, Plus Prorata EIP)  N/A    N/A       2,716,000  
PSU Vesting, Assuming Termination of Employment  1,297,620    2,454,216       2,102,957  
Three Years’ Pension Credit  N/A    N/A       246,690  
Three Years’ Health and Welfare Benefits(3)  N/A    N/A       40,609  
Outplacement at Maximum  N/A    N/A       30,000  
Excise Tax and Gross-up  N/A    N/A       2,665,595  
Total  1,297,620    2,454,216        7,801,851  

 

(1)Indicates Change of Control figures assumeamounts payable to Named Executive Officers pursuant to the Change of Control Plan, assuming that the Company ceases to exist or is no longer publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ after the Change of Control.

 

(2)The estimated number of PSUs that would be payable upon retirement at December 31, 20112014 for Mr. VossNaslund is calculated according to the schedule following “—Termination Other Than for Change of Control Provisions Relating to PSU Awards”Control” above, depending on their respective ageshis age at December 31, 2011.2014. Where performance was estimated, it was estimated at 30200 percent payout for the 2013 PSU awardsaward and 10050 percent payout for Performance Restricted Stock awards based upon historical payouts.the 2014 PSU award.

 

(3)All outstanding Performance Restricted Stock vested on March 1, 2012 in accordance with its terms.

(4)WelfareHealth and welfare benefits figures reflect the estimated lump-sum present value of all future premiums which will be paid on behalf of or to the ExecutivesNamed Executive Officers under our welfare benefit plans. These amounts, however, would not actually be paid as a cash lump sum upon a Change of Control and termination of employment.

 

(5)(4)Messrs. Baxter, Lyons, Baxter, HeflinDiya and SullivanMoehn are not retirement-eligible. Therefore, no PSU or Performance Restricted Stock vesting is shown upon retirement for them.

Notwithstanding anything

95


(5)Mr. Naslund retired from the Company on March 1, 2015. In connection with his retirement, Mr. Naslund will be entitled to approximately 81,256 PSUs calculated in accordance with the schedule following “— Termination Other Than for Change of Control” above, based on his age on March 1, 2015 and an estimated performance at 200 percent payout for the 2013 PSU award, 50 percent payout for the 2014 PSU award and 100 percent payout for the 2015 award.

(6)In accordance with the terms of the March 1, 2014 retention award, (i) the amounts in the “Death”, “Disability” and “Involuntary Termination not for Cause” columns represent an estimated payment equal to the maximum award, pro-rated based on an assumed date of death, disability or involuntary termination of December 31, 2014, and (ii) the amount in the “Change of Control” column represents a payment equal to 100% of the target award.

In connection with Mr. Voss’ retirement as our Chief Executive Officer on April 24, 2014, the service vesting condition under his 2012 PSU award, 2013 PSU award and 2014 PSU award was deemed satisfied pursuant to the contrary set forth in anyterms of the applicable award. Based on the Company’s filingsactual performance, Mr. Voss received a payout in the amount of $4,624,394 for his 2012 PSU award, which represents a 87.5 percent payout under the Securities Actaward. Based on an estimate of 1933, as amended, orperformance at 200 percent payout for his 2013 PSU award and an estimate of performance at 50 percent payout for his 2014 PSU award, Mr. Voss will be eligible to receive a payout in the Securities Exchange Actamount of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate other filings with$11,546,524 for his 2013 PSU award and a payout in the SEC, including this proxy statement,amount of $2,480,502 for his 2014 PSU award.

The information contained in whole or in part, the following Audit and Risk Committee Report shall not be deemed to be incorporated“soliciting material” or “filed” or “incorporated by reference” in future filings with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference into any such filings.a document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE REPORT

The Audit and Risk Committee reviews Ameren’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Audit and Risk Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements to be included in the 20112014 Form 10-K with Ameren’s management and the independent registered public accounting firm. Management is responsible for the financial statements and the reporting process, as well as maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and

assessing such effectiveness. The independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, as well as expressing an opinion on whether Ameren maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.

The Audit and Risk Committee has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by the rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), including U.S. Auditing Standard Section 380. No. 16, “Communications with Audit Committees.”

In addition, the Audit and Risk Committee has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm thesuch accounting firm’s independence with respect to Ameren and its management, including the matters in the written disclosures and the letter

96


required by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit and Risk Committee concerning independence, received from the independent registered public accounting firm.

To ensure the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm, Ameren has instituted monitoring processes at both the internal management level and the Audit and Risk Committee level. At the management level, the chief financial officer or the chief accounting officer is required to review and pre-approve all engagements of the independent registered public accounting firm for any category of services, subject to the pre-approval of the Audit and Risk Committee described below. In addition, the chief financial officer or the chief accounting officer is required to provide to the Audit and Risk Committee at each of its meetings (except meetings held exclusively to review earnings press releases and quarterly reports on SEC Form 10-Q) a written description of all services to be performed by the independent registered public accounting firm and the corresponding estimated fees. The monitoring process at the Audit and Risk Committee level includes a requirement that the Committee pre-approve the useperformance of any services by the independent registered public accounting firm, except that pre-approvals of non-audit services may be delegated to perform any categorya single member of services.the Committee. At each Audit and Risk Committee meeting (except meetings held exclusively to review earnings press releases and quarterly reports on SEC Form 10-Q), the Committee receives a joint report from the independent registered public accounting firm and the chief financial officer or the chief accounting officer concerning audit fees and fees paid to the independent registered public accounting firm for all other services rendered, with a description of the services performed. The Audit and Risk Committee has considered whether the independent registered public accounting firm’s provision of the services covered under the captions “INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM—FEESFIRM — FEES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2011 FISCAL YEARS 2014 AND 2010 2013 — Audit-Related Fees,” “— Tax Fees” and “— All Other Fees” in this proxy statement is compatible with maintaining the independent registered public accounting firm’s independence and has concluded that the independent registered public accounting firm’s independence has not been impaired by theirits engagement to perform these services.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit and Risk Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in Ameren’s 20112014 Form 10-K, for filing with the SEC.

Audit and Risk Committee:

Walter J. Galvin, Chairman

Stephen F. Brauer

Catherine S. Brune

Ellen M. Fitzsimmons

Stephen R. Wilson

97


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

PwC served as the independent registered public accounting firm for Ameren and its subsidiaries in 2011.2014. PwC is an independent registered public accounting firm with the PCAOB. Representatives of the firm are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting with the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire and are expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

FEESFOR FISCAL YEARS 20112014AND 20102013

Audit Fees

The aggregate fees for professional services rendered by PwC for (i) the audits of the consolidated annual financial statements of Ameren included in the combined 2011 2014Form 10-K of Ameren and its registered subsidiaries, the annual financial statements of its subsidiaries included in the combined 2011 Form 10-K of Ameren and its registered subsidiaries and the consolidated annual financial statements of certain non-registeredits Ameren included in the combined 2014 Form 10-K of Ameren and its registered subsidiaries; (ii) the audit of Ameren’s internal control over financial reporting; (iii) the reviews of the quarterly financial statements included in the combined Forms 10-Q of Ameren and its subsidiaries for the 20112014 fiscal year; (iv) services provided in connection with debt and equity offerings; (v) a required Department of Energy grant compliance audit; (vi) controls assessment over new system implementations; (vii)(vi) certain accounting and reporting consultations; and(vii) ratemaking-related audits; (viii) certain regulatory required auditsprocedures for the 20112014 fiscal year,year; and (ix) certain services relating to Ameren’s ongoing discontinued operations, were $3,023,026.$3,637,225.

Fees billed by PwC for audit services rendered to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20102013 fiscal year totaled $3,535,296.$5,325,075.

Audit-Related Fees

The aggregate fees for audit-related services rendered by PwC to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20112014 fiscal year totaled $531,074.$167,565. Such services consisted of: (i) business decision support — $319,824; (ii) employee benefit plan audits — $205,500;audits; (ii) income tax accounting consultations; and (iii) stock transfer/registrar review — $5,750.review.

Fees billed by PwC for audit-related services rendered to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20102013 fiscal year totaled $478,252.$797,235.

Tax Fees

The aggregate fees forPwC did not render any tax services rendered by PwC to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20112014 fiscal year totaled $50,000 for tax compliance and advice.year.

Fees billed by PwC for tax services rendered to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20102013 fiscal year totaled $634,776.$165,000.

All Other Fees

The aggregate fees billed to Ameren by PwC during the 20112014 fiscal year for all other services rendered to Ameren and its subsidiaries totaled $20,400$6,500 for accounting and reporting reference software and workforce benchmarking services.software.

Fees billed by PwC for all other services rendered to Ameren and its subsidiaries during the 20102013 fiscal year totaled $175,700.$5,400.

98


POLICY REGARDINGTHE PRE-APPROVALOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM PROVISIONOF AUDIT, AUDIT-RELATEDAND NON-AUDIT SERVICES

The Audit and Risk Committee’s charter provides that the Committee has adopted a policyis required to pre-approve all audit, audit-related and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm to Ameren and its subsidiaries, except that in accordance with the Committee’s charter, pre-approvals of non-audit services may be delegated to a single member of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Audit and Risk Committee pre-approved under that policy 100 percent of the fees for services provided by PwC covered under the above captionscaptions: “— Audit Fees,” “— Audit-Related Fees,” “— Tax Fees” and “— All Other Fees” for fiscal years 20112014 and 2010.2013.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

Under the rules of the SEC, any shareholder proposal intended for inclusion in the proxy material for the Company’s 20132016 annual meeting of shareholders must be received by the Secretary of the Company on or before November 9, 2012.13, 2015. We expect that the 20132016 annual meeting of shareholders will be held on April 23, 2013.28, 2016.

In addition, under the Company’s By-Laws, shareholders who intend to submit a proposal that will not be in personthe proxy statement but is to be considered at anthe 2016 annual meeting, or who intend to nominate a director at anthe 2016 annual meeting, must provide advance written notice along with other prescribed information. In general, such notice must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the principal executive offices of the Company not later than 60 days or earlier than 90 days prior to the anniversary of the previous year’s annual meeting.meeting (i.e., not later than Tuesday, February 23, 2016 or earlier than Sunday, January 24, 2016). Subject to certain conditions, shareholders or a group of shareholders who have owned more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock for at least one year may also recommend director nominees for nomination by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee provided that written notice from the shareholder(s) must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the principal executive offices of the Company not later than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the date the Company’s proxy statement was released to shareholders in connection with the previous year’s annual meeting (i.e., not later than Friday, November 13, 2015). The specific procedures to be used by shareholders to recommend nominees for director are set forth in the Company’s Director Nomination Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A.Policy. The specific procedures to be used by shareholders to submit a proposal in person at an annual meeting are set forth in the Company’s By-Laws, a copy of which may be obtained upon written request to the Secretary of the Company.By-Laws. The chairman of the meeting may refuse to allow the transaction of any business, or to acknowledge the nomination of any person, not made in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Company’s By-Laws and, in the case of nominations, the Director Nomination Policy. Copies of the Company’s By-Laws and Director Nomination Policy may be obtained upon written request to the Secretary of the Company.

PROXY SOLICITATION

In addition to the use of the mails, proxies may be solicited by personal interview, by telephone, or through the Internet or other means, and banks, brokers, nominees and other custodians and fiduciaries will be reimbursed for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in forwarding soliciting material to their principals, the beneficial owners of our Common Stock. Proxies may be solicited by our directors, officers and key employees on a voluntary basis without compensation. We will bear the cost of soliciting proxies on our behalf.

99


Furthermore, we have retained Laurel Hill Advisory Group, LLC,Georgeson Inc., a proxy solicitation firm, to assist with the solicitation of proxies for the Annual Meeting at an anticipated cost to the Company of approximately $10,500,$27,500, plus the reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

FORM 10-K

Our 20112014 Form 10-K, including consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011,2014, accompanies this proxy statement. The 20112014 Form 10-K is also available on the Company’s website at http://www.ameren.com. If requested, we will provide you copies of any exhibits to the 20112014 Form 10-K upon the payment of a fee covering our reasonable expenses in furnishing the exhibits. You can request exhibits to the 20112014 Form 10-K by writing to the Office of the Secretary, Ameren Corporation, P.O. Box 66149, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-6149.

 

 

FORINFORMATIONABOUTTHE COMPANY,INCLUDINGTHE COMPANYSANNUAL,QUARTERLYANDCURRENTREPORTSON SEC FORMS 10-K, 10-QAND 8-K,RESPECTIVELY,PLEASEVISITTHE INVESTORSSECTIONOF AMERENSHOMEWEBSITEPAGEATONTHE INTERNETHTTP://WWW.AMEREN.COM/INVESTORS. INFORMATIONCONTAINEDONTHE COMPANYSWEBSITEISNOTINCORPORATEDINTOTHISPROXYSTATEMENTOROTHERSECURITIESFILINGS.

APPENDIX A

Policy Regarding Nominations of Directors100

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “Committee”) has adopted the following policy (the “Director Nomination Policy”) to assist it in fulfilling its duties and responsibilities as provided in its charter (the “Charter”). This Director Nomination Policy may be amended and/or restated from time to time by the Committee in accordance with the Charter and as provided herein.

1.    Recommended Candidates.  The Committee shall consider any and all candidates recommended as nominees for directors to the Committee by any directors, officers, shareholders of the Company, third party search firms and other sources. Under the terms of the Company’s By-Laws, the Committee will consider director nominations from shareholders of record who provide timely written notice along with prescribed information to the Secretary of the Company. To be timely, the notice must be received by the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Company not later than 60 or earlier than 90 days prior to the anniversary of the previous year’s annual meeting, except in the case of candidates recommended by shareholders of more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock who may also submit recommendations for nominations to the Committee in accordance with the procedures in Section 2 under “5% Shareholder Recommendations” and except as otherwise provided in the Company’s By-Laws. To be in proper form, such shareholder’s notice shall set forth (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election or re-election as a director, (i) all information relating to such person that is required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for the election of directors in a contested election pursuant to Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (including such person’s written consent to being named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serving as a director if elected) and (ii) a description of all direct and indirect compensation and other material monetary agreements, arrangements and understandings during the past three years, and any other material relationships, between or among such shareholder and beneficial owner, if any, and their respective affiliates and associates, or others acting in concert therewith, on the one hand, and each proposed nominee, and his or her respective affiliates and associates, or others acting in concert therewith, on the other hand, including, without limitation all information that would be required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 promulgated under Regulation S-K if the shareholder making the nomination and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination is made, if any, or any affiliate or associate thereof or person acting in concert therewith, were the “registrant” for purposes of such provision and the nominee were a director or executive officer of such registrant; (b) as to the shareholder giving the notice and the beneficial owner, if any, on whose behalf the nomination is made (i) the name and address of such shareholder, as they appear on the Company’s books, and of such beneficial owner, (ii) (A)the class or series and number of shares of the Company which are, directly or indirectly, owned beneficially and of record by such shareholder and such beneficial owner, (B) any option, warrant, convertible security, stock appreciation right, or similar right with an exercise or conversion privilege or a settlement payment or mechanism at a price related to any class or series of shares of the Company or with a value derived in whole or in part from the value of any class or series of shares of the Company, whether or not such instrument or right shall be subject to settlement in the underlying class or series of capital stock of the Company or otherwise (a “Derivative Instrument”) directly or indirectly owned beneficially by such shareholder and any other direct or indirect opportunity to profit or share in any profit derived from any increase or decrease in the value of shares of the Company, (C) any proxy, contract, arrangement, understanding, or relationship pursuant to which such

shareholder has a right to vote any shares of any security of the Company, (D) any short interest in any security of the Company (for purposes of this Director Nomination Policy a person shall be deemed to have a short interest in a security if such person directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, has the opportunity to profit or share in any profit derived from any decrease in the value of the subject security), (E) any rights to dividends on the shares of the Company owned beneficially by such shareholder that are separated or separable from the underlying shares of the Company, (F) any proportionate interest in shares of the Company or Derivative Instruments held, directly or indirectly, by a general or limited partnership in which such shareholder is a general partner or, directly or indirectly, beneficially owns an interest in a general partner and (G) any performance-related fees (other than an asset-based fee) that such shareholder is entitled to based on any increase or decrease in the value of shares of the Company or Derivative Instruments, if any, as of the date of such notice, including without limitation any such interests held by members of such shareholder’s immediate family sharing the same household (which information shall be supplemented by such shareholder and beneficial owner, if any, not later than 10 days after the record date for the meeting to disclose such ownership as of the record date); and (iii) any other information relating to such shareholder and beneficial owner, if any, that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for, as applicable, the proposal and/or for the election of directors in a contested election pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and (c) a signed statement by the nominee agreeing that, if elected, such nominee will (i) represent all Company shareholders in accordance with applicable law and the Company’s By-Laws, and (ii) comply with the Company’s Corporate Compliance Policy and this Director Nomination Policy. The Company may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Company to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as an independent director of the Company or that could be material to a reasonable shareholder’s understanding of the independence, or lack thereof, of such nominee. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Director Nomination Policy, the Committee shall not consider or recommend as a nominee for director any person who fails to meet the Director Qualification Standards set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

2.    5% Shareholder Recommendations.  For purposes of facilitating disclosure required in the proxy statement, the Committee and the Corporate Secretary shall identify any candidates recommended by shareholders owning more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock, and identify the shareholder making such recommendation, as provided in and to the extent required by the federal securities laws. In addition to the procedures for shareholders to recommend nominees described in Section 1 above, shareholders or a group of shareholders who have owned more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock for at least one year as of the date the recommendation was made, may recommend nominees for director who meet the Director Qualification Standards set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines to the Committee provided that written notice from the shareholder(s) must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the principal executive offices of the Company not later than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the date the Company’s proxy statement was released to shareholders in connection with the previous year’s annual meeting, except as otherwise provided in the Company’s By-Laws. To be in proper form, such shareholder’s(s’) notice shall set forth the information required in Sections 1(a) and 1(b), include a signed statement as required in Section 1(c) and include the written consent of the shareholder’s(s’) recommending the nominee to being identified in the Company’s proxy statement. The Company may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Company to determine the

eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as an independent director of the Company or that could be material to a reasonable shareholder’s understanding of the independence, or lack thereof, of such nominee.

3.    Desired Qualifications, Qualities and Skills.  The Committee shall endeavor to find individuals of high integrity who have a solid record of accomplishment in their chosen fields and who possess the qualifications, qualities and skills to effectively represent the best interests of all shareholders. Candidates will be selected for their ability to exercise good judgment, and to provide practical insights and diverse perspectives. Candidates also will be assessed in the context of the then-current composition of the Board of Directors, the operating requirements of the Company and the long-term interests of all shareholders. In conducting this assessment, the Committee will, in connection with its assessment and recommendation of candidates for director, consider diversity (including, but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, age, experience and skills) and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the then-current and anticipated future needs of the Board and the Company, and to maintain a balance of perspectives, qualifications, qualities and skills on the Board.

The Committee considers the following qualifications at a minimum to be required of any Board members in recommending to the Board of Directors potential new Board members, or the continued service of existing members:

the highest professional and personal ethics;

broad experience in business, government, education or technology;

ability to provide insights and practical wisdom based on their experience and expertise;

commitment to enhancing shareholder value;

sufficient time to effectively carry out their duties; their service on other boards of public companies should be limited to a reasonable number;

compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;

ability to develop a good working relationship with other Board members and contribute to the Board’s working relationship with senior management of the Company; and

independence; a majority of the Board shall consist of independent directors, as defined in this Director Nomination Policy.

Other than the foregoing, there are no stated minimum criteria for director nominees, although the Committee may also consider such other factors as it may deem are in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The Committee does, however, believe it appropriate for at least one member of the Board to meet the criteria for an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

The Company is committed to maintaining its tradition of inclusion and diversity within the Board, and confirms that its policy of non-discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, veteran status, pregnancy, marital status, sexual orientation or any other reason prohibited by law applies in the assessment and selection of all candidates.

4.    Independence.  The Committee believes and it is the policy of the Company that a majority of the members of the Board meet the definition of “independent director” set forth in this Director Nomination Policy. The Committee shall annually assess each nominee for director by reviewing any potential conflicts of interest and outside affiliations, based on the criteria for independence set out below.

An independent director is one who:

(1)    has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company;

(2)    is not an employee of the Company and no member of his or her immediate family is an executive officer of the Company;

(3)    has not been employed by the Company and no member of his or her immediate family has been an executive officer of the Company during the past three years;

(4)    has not received and no member of his or her immediate family has received more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from the Company in any capacity other than as a director or as a pension for prior service during the past three years;

(5)    (A) is not a current partner or employee of a firm that is the Company’s internal or external auditor; (B) does not have an immediate family member who is a current partner of the Company’s internal or external auditor; (C) does not have an immediate family member who is a current employee of the Company’s internal or external auditor and who personally works on the Company’s audit; and (D) within the last three years was not and no member of his or her immediate family was a partner or employee of the Company’s internal or external auditor and personally worked on the Company’s audit within that time;

(6)    is not and no member of his or her immediate family is currently, and for the past three years has not been, and no member of his or her immediate family has been, part of an interlocking directorate in which an executive officer of the Company serves on the compensation committee of another company that employs the director or an immediate family member of the director;

(7)    is not an executive officer or an employee, and no member of his or her immediate family is an executive officer, of another company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, the Company for property or services in an amount which, in any single year, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or 2% of such other company’s consolidated revenues during any of the past three years;

(8)    is free of any relationships with the Company that may impair, or appear to impair, his or her ability to make independent judgments; and

(9)    is not and no member of his or her immediate family is employed as an executive officer of a charitable organization that receives contributions from the Company or a Company charitable trust, in an amount which exceeds the greater of $1 million or 2% of such charitable organization’s total annual receipts.

This policy may be modified temporarily if, due to unforeseen circumstances, strict adherence would be detrimental to the Board’s performance.

For purposes of determining a “material relationship,” the Committee shall utilize the following standards:

1.    Any payments by the Company to a director’s primary business affiliation or the primary business affiliation of an immediate family member of a director for goods or services, or other contractual arrangements, must be made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with non-affiliated persons.

2.    The aggregate amount of such payments must not exceed 2% of the Company’s consolidated gross revenues; provided, however, there may be excluded from this 2% standard payments arising from (a) competitive bids which determined the rates or charges for the services and (b) transactions involving services at rates or charges fixed by law or governmental authority.

For purposes of these independence standards, (i) immediate family members of a director include the director’s spouse, parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, siblings, mother- and father-in-law, sons- and daughters-in-law, and brothers- and sisters-in-law and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares the director’s home and (ii) the term “primary business affiliation” means an entity of which the director is a principal/executive officer or in which the director holds at least a 5% equity interest.

5.    Nominee Evaluation Process.  The Committee will consider as a candidate any director of the Company who has indicated to the Committee that he or she is willing to stand for re-election as well as any other person who is recommended by any shareholders of the Company in accordance with the procedures described under “Recommended Candidates” in Section 1 and under “5% Shareholder Recommendations” in Section 2. The Committee may also undertake its own search process for candidates and may retain the services of professional search firms or other third parties to assist in identifying and evaluating potential nominees and, if fees are paid to such persons in any year, such fees shall be disclosed in the next annual proxy statement relating to such year. The Committee may use any process it deems appropriate for the purpose of evaluating candidates which is consistent with the policies set forth in the Charter, Corporate Governance Guidelines and this Director Nomination Policy, which process may include, without limitation, personal interviews, background checks, written submissions by the candidates and third party references. Although the Committee may seek candidates that have different qualities and experiences at different times in order to maximize the aggregate experience, qualities and strengths of the Board members, nominees for each election or appointment of directors shall be evaluated using a substantially similar process and under no circumstances shall the Committee evaluate nominees recommended by a shareholder of the Company pursuant to a process substantially different than that used for other nominees for the same election or appointment of directors.

6.    Categorize Recommendations.  For purposes of facilitating disclosure required in the proxy statement, the Committee and the Corporate Secretary shall identify and organize the recommendations for nominees received by the Committee (other than nominees who are executive officers or who are directors standing for re-election) in accordance with one or more of the following categories of persons or entities that recommended that nominee:

(1)    a shareholder, a 5% shareholder, independent director, chief executive officer, or other executive officer of the Company;

(2)    a third-party search firm used by or on behalf of the Company; and

(3)    any other specified source.

7.    Voting for Directors.  Each director and each nominee for election as director shall agree, by serving as a director or by accepting nomination for election as a director, that if while serving as a director such director is a nominee for re-election as a director at an annual meeting of the shareholders and fails to obtain the necessary shareholder vote, as provided in the Company’s By-Laws, to be re-elected as a director at the annual meeting, he or she shall tender his or her resignation as a director for consideration by the Committee. The Committee shall evaluate the best interests of the Company and its shareholders and shall recommend to the Board the action to be taken with respect to such tendered resignation.

8.    Material Changes to Nomination Procedures.  For purposes of facilitating disclosure required in Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, the Committee and the Corporate Secretary shall identify any material changes to the procedures for shareholder nominations of directors for the reporting period in which such material changes occur.

9.    Posting of Policy.  This Director Nomination Policy shall be posted to the Company’s website in accordance with the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

10.    Amendments to This Policy.  Any amendments to this Director Nomination Policy must be approved by the Committee and ratified by the Board.

11.    Applicability to Registered Companies.  This Director Nomination Policy shall apply to all Company subsidiaries which are registered companies under the Exchange Act and that are required to file a proxy or information statement pursuant thereto, provided that the independence requirements contained herein shall not apply to such registered companies which constitute “controlled companies” within the meaning of NYSE listing requirements pursuant to an election by each controlled company, as permitted under NYSE listing requirements.

Dated: February 12, 2010


LOGOLOGO

AMEREN CORPORATION

1901 CHOUTEAU AVENUE

ST. LOUIS, MO 63103

 

VOTE BY INTERNET -www.proxyvote.com

Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern TimeEDT on April 23, 2012.22, 2015. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the website and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.

 

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS

If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by Ameren Corporation in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mailemail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.

 

VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903

Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern TimeEDT on April 23, 2012.22, 2015. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.

 

VOTE BY MAIL

Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Ameren Corporation,Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.

 

TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:

 
M40734-P20765M65945-P46377-Z62299        KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR  RECORDS

 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — —

DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY

THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.

AMEREN CORPORATION

 

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the following:

  

For

All

 

Withhold

All

 

For All

Except

 

Vote on Directors

    ¨ ¨ ¨
ITEM 1      

 

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS—NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR

 

        01) 

STEPHEN F. BRAUER

     07) 

STEVEN H. LIPSTEIN

 
        02) 

CATHERINE S. BRUNE

 

    08)

 

PATRICK T. STOKES

 
        03) 

ELLEN M. FITZSIMMONS

     09) THOMAS R. VOSS 
        04) 

WALTER J. GALVIN

     10) STEPHEN R. WILSON 
        05) 

GAYLE P.W. JACKSON

     11) JACK D. WOODARD 
        06) JAMES C. JOHNSON     

 

Vote on Proposals

 

     

The Board of Directors recommends you vote
FOR the following proposals:

 For Against Abstain
ITEM 2 – 

ADVISORY APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE EXECUTIVES DISCLOSED IN THE PROXY STATEMENT.

 ¨ ¨ ¨
ITEM 3 – 

RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012.

 ¨ ¨ ¨

Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting.

 

 

  

 

¨

 

Yes

 

¨

 

No

 
                        THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY

AMEREN CORPORATIONForWithholdFor All

To withhold authority to vote for any individual

    nominee(s), mark “For All Except” and write the

    number(s) of the nominee(s) on the line below.

        

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the following:

Vote on Directors

AllAllExcept       

 

ITEM 1

¨¨¨

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS—NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR

The Board of Directors recommends you vote AGAINST the following proposals:

ForAgainstAbstain

01)    WARNER L. BAXTER

02)    CATHERINE S. BRUNE

03)    J. EDWARD COLEMAN

04)    ELLEN M. FITZSIMMONS

05)    WALTER J. GALVIN

06)    RICHARD J. HARSHMAN

 For

    07)    GAYLE P. W. JACKSON

    08)    JAMES C. JOHNSON

    09)    STEVEN H. LIPSTEIN

    10)    STEPHEN R. WILSON

    11)    JACK D. WOODARD

  Against  Abstain

ITEM  4 –   SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING HAVING AN INDEPENDENT BOARD CHAIRMAN.

  SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATING TO REPORT ON COAL COMBUSTION WASTE.

¨

  

¨

  

¨

  ¨

ITEM 5 –    SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING A REPORT ON LOBBYING.

  SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATING TO REPORT ON COAL-RELATED COSTS AND RISKS.

¨

  

¨

  

¨

  ¨

ITEM 6 –    SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING ADOPTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION INCENTIVES FOR CARBON REDUCTION.

  SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT AND REPORT ON GREENHOUSE GAS AND OTHER AIR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS.

¨

  

¨

  

¨

  ¨

Vote on Proposals

The Board of Directors recommends you vote FORthe following

proposals:

ForAgainstAbstain

ITEM 2 –    NON-BINDING ADVISORY APPROVAL OF COMPENSATION OF THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS DISCLOSED IN THE PROXY STATEMENT.

¨¨¨NOTE:In their discretion, the proxies are authorized to vote on such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment thereof.

ITEM 3 –    RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015.

¨¨¨Each of the foregoing proposals is more fully described in the accompanying proxy statement.

This proxy will be voted as specified above. If no direction is made, this proxy will be voted FOR all nominees listed above and as recommended by the Board on the other items listed above.
Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting.¨

¨

YesNo

Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title as such. Joint owners should each sign personally. All holders must sign. If a corporation or partnership, please sign in full corporate or partnership name, by authorized officer.

 

 

                
 

Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX]

 

 

Date

     

Signature (Joint Owners)

 

Date

      


LOGOADMISSION TICKET
(Not Transferable)

 

LOGO

AMEREN CORPORATIONADMISSION TICKET

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

9:00 a.m. CDT

Powell Symphony Hall

718 North Grand Boulevard

St. Louis, MO(Not Transferable)

AMEREN CORPORATION

Please present this admission ticket in order to gain admittance to the meeting. This ticket admits only the shareholder listed on the reverse side and is not transferable.

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Thursday, April 23, 2015

10:30 A.M. CDT

Saint Louis Art Museum in Forest Park

One Fine Arts Drive

St. Louis, MO 63110

Please present this admission ticket in order to gain admittance to the meeting. This ticket admits only the shareholder listed on the reverse side and is not transferable.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting on April 23, 2015:

The Notice and Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.

FREE PARKING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING LOT(S) NEAR POWELL SYMPHONY HALL. YOUR PARKING TICKET WILL BE VALIDATED AT THE REGISTRATION STATION PRIOR TO YOUR ENTRANCE INTO THE MEETING.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting on April 24, 2012:

The Notice and Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

M40735-P20765        M65946-P46377-Z62299

 

 

AMEREN CORPORATION

  
 

AMEREN CORPORATION

P.O. BOX 66149, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63166-6149

PROXY

 
 

THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR

THE ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON APRIL 24, 201223, 2015

 

The undersigned hereby appoints THOMAS R. VOSS,WARNER L. BAXTER, MARTIN J. LYONS, JR. and GREGORY L. NELSON, and any of them,each with the power of substitution, as proxyproxies for the undersigned, to vote all shares of capital stock of Ameren Corporation representedCorporationrepresented hereby at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at Powell Symphony Hall, 718 North Grand Boulevard,the Saint Louis Art Museum in Forest Park, One Fine ArtsDrive, St. Louis, Missouri, on April 24, 201223, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.,10:30 A.M. CDT, and at any adjournment thereof, upon all matters that may properly beproperlybe submitted to a vote of shareholders including the matters described in the proxy statement furnished herewith, subject to any directionsanydirections indicated on the reverse side of this proxy card and in their discretion on any other matter that may be submitted to a vote ofvoteof shareholders. This proxy card also provides voting instructions, if applicable, for shares held in the DRPlus Plan and the various employeevariousemployee stock purchase and benefit plans as described in the proxy statement.

 

Please vote, date and sign on the reverse side hereof and return this proxy card promptly in the enclosed envelope. If you attend the meeting and wish to change your vote, you may do so automatically by casting your ballot at the meeting.

 

SEE REVERSE SIDE