Energy Future (TXU) 8-K Energy Future Holdings Reports Third Quarter 2010 Results

EFH Corp.

2010 EEI Financial Conference

Discussion Deck

October 31

st

-

November 3rd

Exhibit 99.3

1

Safe Harbor Statement

This presentation contains forward-looking statements, which are subject

to various risks and uncertainties.  Discussion of risks and uncertainties

that could cause actual results to differ materially from management's

current projections, forecasts, estimates and expectations is contained in

EFH Corp.'s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

Regulation G

This presentation includes certain non-GAAP financial measures. A

reconciliation

of

these

measures

to

the

most

directly

comparable

GAAP

measures is included in the appendix to this presentation.

2

Table of Contents

I.

Energy Future Holdings (EFH) Overview……………………  

II.

Luminant …………………………………………………………. 

       Luminant Background ………………………………………

III.

TXU Energy……………………………………………………. 

IV.

Oncor…………………………………………………………… 

V.

EFH Background……………………………………………...  

VI.

Appendix – Reg G…………………………………………….  

5 -

7

8 -

24

25 -

27

28 -

32

33 -

35

36 -

40

3 -

4

3

2

nd

largest competitive

electric generator in US

Largest lignite/coal and

nuclear baseload

generation fleet in Texas

Low-cost lignite reserves

Largest T&D utility in

Texas

High-growth service

territory

Constructive regulatory

regime

Largest retail

electricity provider in

Texas

Strong customer value

proposition

The largest power generator, retail electricity provider and transmission & distribution

utility in Texas.

Energy Future Holdings Overview

4

4

2010 YTD Highlights

Monetized non-core assets (DFW

Midstream, Permian water rights)

10 of 14 CCNs

obtained for CREZ

transmission construction project

Operational

achievements

Solid safety performance

Oak Grove 1 & 2 COD

1

Baseload

plants on track for solid year

New ERCOT Summer and Winter

load peaks

Over 1.3 million AMS meters installed

through September 2010

Liability management program

–

Reduced net debt by $1.6 billion

–

Extended $4.1 billion of maturities

Settled

1997

–

2002

IRS

audit

New TXUE brand launch

ERCOT nodal transition preparation

and leadership

Reclamation program planted 1.1

million trees offsetting 26 million tons

of CO2

New nuclear development

–

CP3/4 licensing progress

Prevailed in Alcoa and FPL lawsuits

Prevailed and successfully resolved the

Sandow

5 Consent Decree lawsuit

Financial

achievements

Strategic

initiatives

1

COD = Commercial Operations Date

5

6

Luminant

Generation Facilities

Generation capacity in ERCOT

At 9/30/10; MW

HOUSTON

SAN ANTONIO

AUSTIN

WACO

MIDLAND

LUFKIN

ODESSA

DALLAS

TYLER

FORT

WORTH

Power Plants

Natural gas

Lignite/coal

Lignite, new build

Nuclear

Nuclear

2,300 MW

Lignite/coal

8,017

Natural gas

1

8,002

Total

18,319 MW

1

Includes eleven mothballed units (3,886 MW) not currently available for dispatch and two units (655 MW) currently in Reliability Must Run (RMR) status with ERCOT.  Luminant  expects 

to retire eight gas units (2,771 MW installed nameplate capacity) of its mothballed capacity in December 2010.

1

Installed

nameplate

capacity.

Includes

eleven

mothballed

units

(3,886

MW)

not

currently

available

for

dispatch

and

two

units

(655

MW)

currently

in

Reliability

Must

Run

(RMR)

status

with

ERCOT.

Luminant

expects

to retire eight gas plant units (2,771 MW installed nameplate capacity) of its mothballed capacity in December 2010.

2

Excludes purchased power

13%

3%

58%

26%

Business Profile

Generation

Largest baseload

generation fleet in ERCOT with around-the-

clock assets that dispatch at low heat rate levels

Top decile

nuclear plant production and cost performance

Top quartile coal fleet production and cost performance

Liquidity-light natural gas hedging program designed to provide

cash

flow

security

(~64%

hedged

for

Oct

1,

2010

–

Dec

31,

2014)

Comanche Peak expansion through Mitsubishi partnership may

provide a low-cost nuclear growth option

12%

44%

32%

12%

Coal

Gas

Nuclear

Generating Capacity 

as of 9/30/10

Total Generation

,

LTM 9/30/10

18,319 MW

74,823 GWh

New Build-Coal

Safety

Wholesale power prices

Natural gas hedge program

Baseload

reliability

Mining operations

Fuel costs

O&M costs

Operational excellence/continuous improvement

Competitive market

Value Drivers

1.38

1.27

2.79

1.50

2007-2009 Average

2013E

Lignite

Delivered PRB

Lignite / Coal vs. PRB Fuel Cost

($/MMBtu)

Note: Total lignite and PRB fuel expense excluding emissions.

Luminant

is the largest power generator in Texas.

Luminant

Business Summary

7

1

2

ERCOT Fundamental Supply and Demand Dynamics

ERCOT Supply Additions

03–10E; GW

ERCOT Reserve Margin Projections Over Time

07-10; Percent

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

24%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Dec 07

Target Min Reserve

Margin of 12.5%

Dec 08

Dec 09

May 10

4

5

6

6

6

8

12

13

0

0

1

2

4

7

8

8

4

5

7

8

10

15

20

21

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10E

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Wind

Non-Wind

Annual Average Power Price

Generation installation coupled with lower forecasted demand growth has resulted in

an upward trend in estimated reserve margins for ERCOT

8

$80

$61

$66

$105

$75

$90

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

What could change?

1

Uneconomic

construction

2

Change in WACC

•Higher or Lower

3

Market Redesign

•Capacity Markets

•Long Term PPA(s)

4

Accelerated

shutdowns from

environmental

regulations

ERCOT Reserve Margin

(1.8% Demand CAGR)

Target min

reserve margin

2016

9

ERCOT Supply/Demand Fundamentals

Note: All

prices

adjusted

to

7x24

equivalents.

Reserve

margins

based

on

ERCOT

Capacity

Demand

&

Reserves

(CDR);

prices

based

on

LRP

w/

2016

convergence.

Levelized

Cost of Electricity (LCOE) assumes 10%

WACC; 2.5% inflation

1) ATC = Around The Clock

2) Assumes

$6/MMBtu

levelized

gas.

CT

7x24

price

adjusted

assuming

a

20%

CF;

CT

LCOE

=

$118.

CCGT 7x24 price adjusted assuming an 60% CF;  CCGT LCOE = $80. 30yr asset life

3) Includes subsidies 

4) Wind assumes WACC of 7.5%-10% and 75% capture rate of 7x24

7x24 Levelized

Cost of

Electricity

2010

New

SCPC

New

CT

New

CCGT

New

Wind

(Non

dispatch)

New

Nuke

ATC

ERCOT

Power Price

(NZ)

Denotes approx

initial power price

needed to incent

development

1

2

2

3

3,4

ERCOT reserve margins are forecasted to approach the minimum target reserve margin in 2015

10

Summer

2010

ERCOT

supply

stack

-

indicative

Luminant

nuclear plant

Luminant

lignite/coal plants

Luminant

gas plants

Legend

ERCOT Supply Stack

Luminant

plants

are

typically

on

the

“book-ends”

of

the

supply

stack.

ERCOT’s

marginal price is set by natural gas in most hours of the year.

1

        Excludes gas plant capacity mothballed prior to summer 2010.  Includes two gas units with 655 MW of capacity currently in Reliability Must Run (RMR) status with  ERCOT and

        four gas units with 1,856 MW of capacity (1,933 MW of installed nameplate capacity) that Luminant  mothballed in September 2010.

®, Ventyx

1

Nuclear Reliability vs

Cost Benchmarks

75

80

85

90

95

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$/MWh

Braidwood

Byron

STP

Decile

Quartile

Median

Decile

Quartile

Median

Vogtle

CPNPP 06-08

94.1

CPNPP 09

95.6

Nuclear capability factor & O&M

07–09 percent and $/MWh

11

1

Benchmarking peer set defined as 18 month fuel cycle U.S. nuclear plants.

2

Source: Electric Utility Cost Group (EUCG) May 2010 release for Cost and World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) for Capability Factors.

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010²

EFH

Industry

16

17

18

19

20

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

1

2

3

EFH

# of Refueling Outages

Impact of Refueling Outages

Avg.

nuclear

fleet

refueling

outage

duration

1

-

18

month

cycle

units 

03-10; days

Nuclear fleet output

03-10; thousand GWh

Nuclear Refueling Cycle

18 months

Duration: ~18-25 days

2009-2010 Refueling Outage Impact

2009 outage was 25 days

2009 generation includes 110 GWh

ERCOT-driven backdown

2010 outage was 24 days

2010 generation includes 27 GWh

ERCOT-driven backdown

2011 Refueling Outage Impact

2011 outages planned at ~ 22 days each

World record steam

generator outage

World record steam

generator outage

1

2005 and 2008 were dual refueling outage years; this graph shows the average outage duration for each of those years.

2

Industry based on early release data from Electric Utility Cost Group (EUCG)

1

Benchmarking net capacity factors based on GADS.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Top decile

82.4%

Top quartile

78.9%

Top decile

3.3

Top quartile 

4.8

Luminant

07–09 fleet avg. = 83.6 %

Luminant

09 fleet = 81.4%

Luminant

07–09 fleet avg. = 3.36

Luminant

09 fleet = 3.74

Source: GKS

Luminant

vs.

US

coal

fleet

net

capacity

factors

1

Percent

Luminant

vs. US coal fleet O&M

$/MWh

Luminant

has industry leading performance relative to other coal-fueled generators.

High-Performance Coal Operator

13

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

14

High-Performance Coal Operator

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EFH

Industry

Average

coal

fleet

capacity

factor

1

05-09; percent

Range

of

coal

unit

2-year

capacity

factors

2

05-09; percent

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

EFH (9)

AYE (8)

DYN (4)

EIX (8)

MIR (2)

NRG (8)

RRI (7)

Operator (# of Units)

Range

5 Yr Average

1

Based on unscrubbed

merchant units greater than 450 MW.  Industry total excludes EFH plants.  EFH is legacy lignite/coal fleet only and based on net capacity of 5,837 MW.

2

Includes merchant units greater than 450 MW.

Source:  Velocity Suite (Energy Velocity)

Consistent high performance

15

41,000

42,000

43,000

44,000

45,000

46,000

47,000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

Net Gen

# of Planned Outage (PO)

Days

Coal Fleet Output

Coal fleet output

03-09; GWh

Coal Fleet Planned Outage Cycle

3 or 4 year overhaul cycle depending on

unit

Duration is scope dependent

2008 Planned Outage Impact

2008 reflects 136 planned outages days

2008 average major outage duration was

48 days

2009 Planned Outage Impact

2009 reflects 130 planned outages days

2009 average major outage duration was

45 days

1

1

2009 includes 1,443 GWh of new build generation (Sandow 5 and Oak Grove 1 units).

16

Nuclear Expansion Opportunity

HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

…partnering with

…partnering with

a world-class

a world-class

equipment provider…

equipment provider…

Luminant

is

pursuing

the

licensing

and

potential

construction

of

a

next-

generation nuclear facility by

…

…

…

and leveraging favorable

and leveraging favorable

site characteristics and

site characteristics and

operational expertise.

operational expertise.

The proposed expansion includes two nuclear generation units each having

approximately

1,700

MW

(gross)

capacity.

Luminant/EFH

have

been

working

with

the

Department of Energy loan guarantee program office and its Japanese counterpart

(METI) to secure construction financing.

17

ERCOT Average Daily Profile of Load and Wind

Source: ERCOT

ERCOT average daily profile of load and wind output

August 10; mixed measures

Hour

Load

(aMW)

Wind Output

(MW)

Wind operating characteristics necessitate additional resources for reliability.

Average

Load

Average

Wind Output

18

Texas Wind Additions

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Pre 01

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10A

10E

11E

RPS

Target

of 2,880 MW

by 2009

RPS

Target

of 5,880 MW

by 2015

CREZs

Designated

ERCOT SGIA

Cumulative wind capacity additions in Texas

Pre-01

–

10A;10E

-

11E;

MW

1

Renewable Portfolio Standard

2

Signed Generation Interconnect Agreement

Source:

ERCOT

–

September

2010

System

Planning

Report

to

the

Reliability

and

Operations

Subcommittee

1

1

2

Historical 2014 Forward Natural Gas Prices

Historical 2014 Forward Houston Ship Channel (HSC) Gas Prices

Q1’07-Q3’10; $/MMBtu

19

$7.18

$7.37

$7.10

$8.12

$8.71

$10.92

$8.09

$6.96

$6.95

$7.23

$7.05

$6.73

$6.27

$5.97

$5.28

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

Q1'07

Q2'07

Q3'07

Q4'07

Q1'08

Q2'08

Q3'08

Q4'08

Q1'09

Q2'09

Q3'09

Q4'09

Q1'10

Q2'10

Q3'10

20

20

Houston Ship Channel settled natural gas prices

1

Jan 05-Sept 10; $/MMBtu

Market Price Snapshot

NYMEX forward natural gas prices

2,3

2010-2012; $/MMBtu

NYMEX settled natural gas prices

1

Jan 05-Sept 10; $/MMBtu

Houston Ship Channel forward natural gas prices

2,3

2010-2012; $/MMBtu

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3

4

5

6

7

8

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

2010

2011

2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3

4

5

6

7

8

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

2010

2011

2012

1

Settled prices are monthly averages

2

Forward prices reflect market observable quotes during the 12 months ended Sept 30, 2010for the following delivery periods:  2010, 2011 and 2012

3

   2010 data points represent weighted average of settled NYMEX or HSC prices for settled periods and balance of year forward prices for remaining periods

21

21

Market Price Snapshot

ERCOT North Zone 7x24 settled heat rate

1,2

Jan 05-Sept 10; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT North Zone 7x24 forward heat rate

1,3,4

2010-2012; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT North Zone 5x16 forward heat rate

1,3,4

2010-2012; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT North Zone 5x16 settled heat rate

1,2

Jan 05-Sept 10; MMBtu/MWh

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

6

7

8

9

10

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

2010

2011

2012

6

7

8

9

10

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

2010

2011

2012

Market heat rate calculated by dividing 7x24 and 5x16 power prices, as appropriate, by Houston Ship Channel natural gas prices

Settled prices are monthly averages

Forward prices reflect market observable quotes during the 12 months ended Sept 30, 2010 for the following delivery periods: 2010, 2011 and 2012 

    2010 data points represent weighted average of settled North Zone 7x24 or 5x16 heat rates for settled periods and balance of year forward heat rates for remaining periods

1

2

3

4

2010 and Beyond: Environmental Regulatory Timeline

The environmental regulatory framework has come increasingly to the forefront with the

failure of climate/RES legislation and recent EPA actions

22

23

EPA-Urged New Controls Based on Proposed New EPA Rules

Rule

Targeted Emission or

Objective

Potential Control

Required

Mercury MACT

1

/HAPS rule

Mercury and other

“hazardous air pollutants”

(HAPs)

Baghouse

+ Scrubber (FGD

2

)

+ ACI

3

Clean Air Transport

NOx

and SO

2

SCR (NOx) and Scrubber 

(FGD

2

) (SO

2

)

NAAQS revisions

Ozone NAAQS Revision

NOx

SCR

4

SO2 NAAQS Revision

SO

2

Scrubber (FGD

2

)

PM NAAQS

Particulate Matter (PM)

Scrubber (FGD

2

)

316(b) -

Water

Reduce fish impingement at

cooling water intakes

Cooling towers

Coal Combustion Byproducts

Fly ash, bottom ash, and

scrubber & cooling tower

byproducts

New handling and landfills

1

MACT refers to the maximum achievable control technology.

2

FGD refers to flue gas desulfurization systems that reduce SO2 emissions with minor co-benefit reductions of mercury.

3

ACI refers to activated carbon injection systems reduce mercury emissions.

4

SCR refers to selective catalytic reduction systems.

Currently Installed Environmental Control Equipment At

Luminant

Coal Units

Coal Unit

Capacity

(MW)

FGD

(Scrubber)

1

Activated

Carbon

Injection

2

ESP

3

SNCR

4

SCR

4

Bag-

house

3

Oak Grove 1

800

Oak Grove 2

800

Sandow

4

557

Sandow

5

580

Martin Lake 1

750

Martin Lake 2

750

Martin Lake 3

750

Monticello 1

565

Monticello 2

565

Monticello 3

750

Big Brown 1

575

Big Brown 2

575

Currently installed

24

1

There is no assurance that the currently installed control equipment will satisfy the requirements under any change to applicable law or any future Environmental  

                Protection Agency or Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulations.

2

FGD refers to flue gas desulfurization systems that reduce SO2 emissions with minor co-benefit reductions of mercury.

3

Activated carbon injection systems reduce mercury emissions

4

ESP refers to electro-static precipitation systems .  ESP and bag-house systems reduce particulate emissions with minor co-benefit reductions of mercury

5

SNCR refers to selective non-catalytic reduction systems.  SCR refers to selective catalytic reduction systems.  Both systems reduce Nox emissions  

25

1.4

1.8

US Average

ERCOT

Strong customer value proposition

•

High brand recognition in Texas competitive areas

•

Competitive retail prices

•

Innovative products and services

•

Committed to low-income customer assistance

•

Improved customer care platform (SAP)

Balance Sheet

•

Combined TCEH risk management and liquidity efficient

capital structure

Expected margins (5–10% net)

1.8

1.4

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

TXU Energy

Reliant

Direct

Energy

Stream

Energy

Ambit

First Choice

Source: Latest available company filings, TXU Energy estimates.

Sources: NERC, ERCOT

1,800

1,862

1,914

1,850

1,982

2,145

2,207

2,477

1,856

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

9/30/10

Residential Customers / Meters

(in millions)

TXU Energy is the leading electricity retailer in the ERCOT market

Residential Customers

(in thousands)

TXU Energy has maintained market position since 2006

Projected Annual Demand Growth

CAGR (2008A-2015E)

Value Drivers

TXU Energy is the largest electricity retailer in Texas.

TXU Energy Business Summary

28%

26

27

Mass Media in Market

Outdoor

–

Spanish

Language

Outdoor

–

English

Language

TV

–

English

Language

TXU Energy Marketing Campaign

Newspaper

–

English

Language

28

29

Supportive regulatory environment

10.25% authorized ROE

Recently improved capital expenditure

recovery (transmission and AMS)

Low operating costs per customer

Low rates compared to peers

Strong reliability and safety performance

Oncor Overview

Value Drivers

Business Profile

Oncor , which is approximately 80% owned by EFH Corp., is the largest transmission &

distribution utility in Texas.

6

th

largest US transmission & distribution

company

Low costs and high reliability

No commodity position

Accelerated recovery of investments in

advanced meters and transmission

$1.75

billion

1

CREZ

investment

Sources: ERCOT, CDR Report, May 2010

1

Oncor currently estimates that the cost of these projects will be approximately $1.75 billion based on the original ERCOT estimate of $1.3 billion, current estimates for the 3 default and 10

priority lines approved to date, the identification of additional costs not included in the original ERCOT estimate and Oncor’s preferred routes for the remaining five subsequent projects.

5.8

62

64

65

67

68

69

71

71

73

74

63

2008A

2009A

2010E

2011E

2012E

2013E

2014E

2015E

2016E

2017E

2018E

Projected peak demand growth

08-18E; GW

Rate Base

10E-15E; $ billions

8.5

9.9

10.3

10.7

11.0

9.2

2010E

2011E

2012E

2013E

2014E

2015E

Oncor

Key Performance Metrics

DART

Performance

(2004

–

2010)

DART = Days Away Restricted or Transfer

30

SAIDI

–

Reliability

(2004

–

2010)

SAIDI = System Average Interruption Duration Index

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

DART Performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Non-Storm Reliability vs. Industry Top Quartile Scores

Oncor

Reliab

Scores

Industry Quartile Scores

31

New Oncor

Infrastructure

Oncor’s

investment in CREZ will receive accelerated recovery,

consistent with other transmission investment, mitigating regulatory delay.

…to

…to

to

support

support

the

the

continued

continued

buildout

buildout

of

of

wind

wind

capacity

capacity

in

in

Texas

Texas

Oncor

expects

to

invest

~$1.75

billion

on

new

CREZ-related

transmission

lines…

1

Oncor currently estimates that the cost of these projects will be approximately $1.75 billion based on the original ERCOT estimate of $1.3 billion, current estimates for the 

3 default and 10 priority lines approved to date, the identification of additional costs not included in the original ERCOT estimate and Oncor’s preferred routes for the 

remaining five subsequent projects.

1

32

Oncor

Demand-Side Management

1

Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Oncor

recovers its investment through a

PUC  -approved surcharge

Customer monitoring of consumption

“Smart”

appliances

Dynamic pricing

Oncor’s

energy

efficiency

filing

has

been

approved

and

is

reflected

in

rates.

1

…that

…that

that

will

will

enable

enable

key

key

DSM

DSM

initiatives

initiatives

Oncor

Oncor

to

to

deploy

deploy

~$690

~$690

$690

million

million

of

of

capital

capital

for advanced metering initiatives…

Oncor is leading the largest advanced metering initiatives deployment in the US with a

commitment to have 3.2 million meters installed by 2012 (over 1.3 million meters have 

been installed through September  2010)

Energy Future Holdings Corp.

Energy Future Holdings Corp.

33

EFH Capital Structure Overview

(September 30 Proforma

for October Transactions)

EFH

$3.6B gross debt

Energy Future

Intermediate Holding

~ $2.3B gross debt

Energy Future

Competitive Holdings

~ $0.1B gross debt

~ $5.9B gross debt

TCEH

~ $29.3B gross debt ²

Approx. 80% Ownership

$41.2B total gross debt

$39.2B total

net

¹

debt

Ring-fenced entity

Texas

Transmission

Investment

LLC

Approx. 20%

Ownership

As of 9/30/10 (proforma)

$20.0B 1st Lien TLB due 2014

$0.1B 1st Lien Revolver due 2013

$1.3B Deposit LC

$0.7B 2

nd

Lien Notes @ 15% due

2021

$5.7B Unsecured LBO Notes @

10.25/10.5% due 2015 and 2016

$1.5B Unsecured PCRBs

$3.5B 1st Lien Notes @ 9.75/10%

due in 2019/2020

$0.9B Unsecured LBO Notes @

10.875/11.25% due in 2017

$1.5B Unsecured Legacy Notes @

5.55 –

6.55%

$0.1B Unsecured Other

$0.4B Revolver @ L+27.5 due 2013

$4.8B @ avg. 6.6%

$0.7B @ avg. 5.2%

34

1

Total net debt equals total gross debt less total cash & equivalents and restricted cash of ~$2.0 billion.

2

Excludes $228 million A/R.

Progress in Balance Sheet Initiatives

1

Results to Date

Net Debt Reduction

$ 1.6B

Debt Maturity Extension

$ 4.1B

Projected reduction in Interest

Expense through 2014

$ 1.1B

EFH is focused on creating shareholder value through reducing debt and extending

maturities by effectively deploying existing cash and debt capacity

1

Since inception of liability management program in October 2009.

35

Appendix –

Regulation G Reconciliations

36

37

Table 1: EFH Corp. Net Debt Reconciliation

1

As of September 30, 2010 Pro-forma

2

$ millions

Description

9/30/10

Pro-forma

Adjust.

2

9/30/10       

Pro-forma

Short-term borrowings

3

80

-

80

Long-term debt due currently

252

-

252

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

35,169

(226)

34,943

Total debt

35,501

(226)

35,275

Less:

Cash and cash equivalents

(652)

5

(647)

Restricted cash

(1,166)

(53)

(1,219)

Net debt

33,683

(274)

33,409

1

GAAP

basis

which

reflects

deconsolidation

of

Oncor.

Oncor’s

total

debt

is

~$5.9

billion,

added

to

EFH

Corp.’s

debt

equals

$41.2

billion.

2

Pro-forma

adjustment

reflects

the

October

issuance

of

$336

million

TCEH

15%

2

nd

Lien

Senior

Secured

Notes

due

2021

in

exchange

for

$423

million

of

TCEH

Cash

Pay

Notes

and

$55

million

of

TCEH

PIK

Toggle

Notes,

as

well

as

the

$350

million

cash

issuance

of

TCEH

15%

2nd

Lien

Senior

Secured

Notes

due

2012,

Series

B,

$290

million

of

which

was

used

to

repurchase

$225

million

of

TCEH

Cash

Pay

Notes

and

$200

million

of

TCEH

PIK

Toggle

Notes.

EFH

Corp.

also

repurchased

$9

million

of

TCEH

PIK

Toggle

Notes

for

$5.4

million

cash.

3

Excludes $228 million at TXU Receivables Company related to the accounts receivable securitization program.

38

Table 1: TCEH Total Debt Reconciliation

As of September 30, 2010 Pro-forma

$ millions

Description

9/30/10

Pro-forma

Adjust.¹

9/30/10       

Pro-forma

Short-term borrowings

80

-

80

Long-term debt due currently

233

-

233

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

29,175

(226)

28,949

Total debt

29,488

(226)

29,262

2

1

1

2

Pro-forma adjustment reflects the October issuance of $336 million TCEH 15% 2nd Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2021 in exchange for $423 million of

       TCEH Cash Pay Notes and $55 million of TCEH PIK Toggle Notes, as well as the $350 million cash issuance of TCEH 15% 2nd Lien Senior Secured Notes

       due 2012, Series B, $290 million of which was used to repurchase $225 million of TCEH Cash Pay Notes and $200 million of TCEH PIK Toggle Notes.   

       EFH Corp. also repurchased $9 million of TCEH PIK Toggle Notes for $5.4 million cash. 

       Excludes $228 million at TXU Receivables Company related to the accounts receivable securitization program.

39

Table 3: Oncor Net Debt Reconciliation

As of September 30, 2010

$ millions

Description

9/30/10

Short-term borrowings

428

Long-term debt due currently

111

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

5,395

Total debt

5,934

Less:

Cash and cash equivalents

(10)

Restricted cash

(79)

Net debt

5,845

40

EFH Corp. Investor Relations Contacts

Rima Hyder

Director, Investor Relations

214-812-5090

rima.hyder@energyfutureholdings.com  

Charles Norvell

Investor Relations Analyst

214-812-8062

charles.norvell@energyfutureholdings.com