Energy Future Intermediate Holding 8-K 2010 JP Morgan HY Credit Conference

EFH Corp.

2010 JP Morgan HY Credit Conference

Discussion Deck

March 1-3, 2010

Exhibit 99.1

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).

In

addition

to

the

risks

and

uncertainties

set

forth

in

EFH

Corp.'s

SEC

filings,

the

forward-looking

statements

in

this

presentation

regarding

the

company’s

long-

term

hedging

program

could

be

affected

by,

among

other

things:

any

change

in

the

ERCOT

electricity

market,

including

a

regulatory

or

legislative

change,

that

results

in

wholesale

electricity

prices

not

being

largely

correlated

to

natural

gas

prices;

any

decrease

in

market

heat

rates

as

the

long-term

hedging

program

generally

does

not

mitigate

exposure

to

changes

in

market

heat

rates;

the

unwillingness

or

failure

of

any

hedge

counterparty

or

the

lender

under

the

commodity

collateral

posting

facility

to

perform

its

obligations;

or

any

other

unforeseen

event

that

results

in

the

inability

to

continue

to

use

a

first

lien

to

secure

a

substantial

portion

of

the

hedges

under

the

long-term

hedging

program.

In

addition,

the

forward-looking

statements

in

this

presentation

regarding

the

company’s

new

generation

plants

could

be

affected

by,

among

other

things,

any

adverse

judicial

rulings

with

respect

to

the plants’

construction and operating permits.

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

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 #1 power generator, retail electricity provider and transmission & distribution utility

in Texas.

Energy Future Holdings Overview

3

in February 2010.

2

Excludes purchased power

3

Twelve months ended 12/31/09

4

Total lignite and PRB fuel expense excluding emissions

29%

67%

4%

Luminant Overview

Business Profile

Generation

Baseload around-the-clock assets that dispatch at

low heat rate levels

~1,400 MW of new coal capacity achieved

substantial completion and ~800 MW under

construction and start-up

Low-cost lignite reserves -

Luminant mines ~20

million tons of lignite annually

Liquidity-light natural gas hedging program

designed to provide cash flow security

Voluntary SO2

and NO

x

emission reduction program

expected to reduce emissions below US averages

Comanche Peak expansion through Mitsubishi

partnership may provide a low-cost nuclear growth

option

13%

39%

44%

4%

Coal

Gas

Nuclear

Generating capacity¹

As of 12/31/09; MW

Total generation²

12/31/09³; GWh

18,319 MW

68,235 GWh

New Build-Coal

Safety

Wholesale power prices

Baseload reliability

Mining operations

Fuel costs

O&M costs

Operational excellence/continuous improvement

Stable competitive market

Value Drivers

1.33

0.99

Lignite

Delivered

PRB

2.75

1.30

Lignite

Delivered

PRB

Lignite/coal vs. PRB fuel cost

4

05-07 Average; $/MMBtu

13E; $/MMBtu

1

Installed

nameplate

capacity.

Includes

~800

MW

of

new

coal-fueled

generation

under

construction,

1,953

MW

of

mothballed

gas

plant

capacity,

655

MW

of

gas

plant

capacity

currently

in   

Reliability

Must

Run

(RMR)

status

with

ERCOT

and

1,856

MW

of

gas

plant

capacity

(1,933

MW

of

installed

nameplate

capacity)

related

to

four

gas

units

that

Luminant

proposed

for

mothball

4

Luminant Areas of Focus –

2010

Safety

Industry leading performance at plants and mines

Operations

Ramp up performance of Sandow 5 and Oak Grove 1 and mid-year substantial

completion of Oak Grove 2

Top decile/quartile availability at Comanche Peak and existing coal plants

Further embed “Luminant Operating System”

and drive improvement through

Balance of Plant initiative

Drive continuous improvement at mines

Development

Continue to advance Comanche Peak 3 & 4 options

Explore opportunities for new technologies, including wind, solar, next

generation coal and new demand sources such as plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles (PHEV)

Risk Management

Continue effective and efficient hedging program that is intended to secure

cash flows

5

5

TXU Energy Overview

TXU Energy is the leading electricity retailer in the ERCOT market.

Value Drivers

Strong customer value proposition

•

High brand recognition in Texas competitive areas

•

Competitive retail offers

•

Innovative products and services

•

Committed to low-income customer assistance

Back Office

•

Latest Customer Care Platform (SAP)

Balance Sheet

•

Combined TCEH risk management and liquidity

efficient capital structure

Margins (5–10% net)

1.9

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

1.4

TXU Energy

Reliant

Direct

Energy

Stream

Energy

Ambit

First Choice

Source: Latest available company filings, TXU Energy estimates.

Business Profile

Residential customers/meters

At 12/31/09; millions

Sources: NERC, ERCOT

2.0

1.8

US Average

ERCOT

15%

TXU Energy total residential customers

2002-2009; end of period, thousands

1,862

1,914

1,850

1,982

2,145

2,207

2,477

1,856

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TXU Energy has maintained market share since 2006.

Projected annual demand growth

US avg. and ERCOT; CAGR (2008A-2018E)

6

6

TXU

Energy

Areas

of

Focus

–

2010

Profitable Growth

Deliver customer based value proposition

Expand profitable residential market share and add profitable business

markets customers

Customer Care Transformation

Enhance customer experience through effective utilization of people, process

and technology

Risk Management

Accurate forecasting of customer needs

Active management and monitoring of procurement position to align with

changing market conditions

7

Supportive regulatory environment

10.25% authorized ROE

Expedited capital expenditure recovery

(transmission and AMS)

Low operating costs per customer

Strong demand growth vs. US average

Top quartile reliability (SAIDI) and safety

Oncor Overview

Value Drivers

Business Profile

Oncor focuses on maintaining safe operations, achieving a high level of reliability,

minimizing service interruptions and investing in its transmission and distribution

infrastructure to serve a growing customer base.

6

th

largest US transmission & distribution

company

Low costs and high reliability

No commodity position

Accelerated recovery of investments in

advanced meters and transmission

$1.3

billion

1

CREZ

investment

62

64

65

67

69

71

72

73

75

76

63

2008A

2009A

2010E

2011E

2012E

2013E

2014E

2015E

2016E

2017E

2018E

Sources: ERCOT, CDR Report, December 2009

Capital expenditure estimates

08–13E;

$ billions

Projected peak demand growth

1 

Based on ERCOT cost  estimates

2 

Minimum capital spending of $3.6 billion over a five-year period, including AMS

T&D

CREZ

Total

4.9

1.3

3.6

2

1

8

Safety and reliability

AMS

Full deployment of advanced meters expected by 2012 (over 700,000 meters

installed through January 2010)

Capital investment of ~$690 million

Recovery through monthly surcharge over 11 years, began January 2009  

(~$2.20 per month for average residential customer)

CREZ

Obtain CCN’s

for priority lines requiring expedited construction

Continue construction of ~$1.3 billion

1

of CREZ project

Oncor Areas of Focus –

2010

1

Based on ERCOT cost estimates

Appendix –

Additional Slides and

Regulation G Reconciliations

10

EFH Corp. Debt Structure

1

Summary

diagram

includes

unamortized

discounts

and

premiums

and

excludes

subsidiaries

of

EFH

that

are

not

subsidiaries

of

Energy

Future

Intermediate

Holding

Company

or

Energy

Future

Competitive

Holdings

Company,

including

TXU

Receivables

Company,

which

buys

receivables

from

TXU

Energy

and

sells

undivided

interests

in

such

receivables

under

the

TXU

receivables

program.

The

existing

debt

amount

for

EFH

includes a financing lease of an indirect subsidiary of EFH not included in the diagram above.

2

December 31, 2009 balances adjusted to include the effects of the $500 million EFH Corp. debt issuance on January 2010. See Regulation G reconciliations in this Appendix.

3

Includes

Deposit

Letter

of

Credit

Facility

of

$1,250

million

that

is

shown

as

debt

on

TCEH’s

balance

sheet

offset

by

$1,134

million

of

restricted

cash

(net

of

$115

million

related

to

a

letter

of

credit

drawn

in

June

2009).

4

Includes

securitization

bonds

issued

by

Oncor

Electric

Delivery

Transmission

Bond

Company

LLC

and

Oncor’s

Revolving

Credit

Facility

that

had

a

balance

of

$616

million.

5

Includes $425 million (including accrued interest) of investments posted with third party.

6

Cash

and

cash

equivalents

and

restricted

cash

as

of

December

31,

2009

Investor Group

EFH

$2.0 billion Pre-Merger Notes

Guarantor of $0.6

billion New EFH

Senior Secured Notes

$5.7

billion

of

debt

Energy Future

Intermediate

Holding

Company

Energy Future

Competitive

Holdings

Company

TCEH

Oncor Electric

Delivery Holdings

Ring-fenced entities

Guarantor of $6.8 billion TCEH

Notes and $4.6 billion EFH Notes

Guarantor of TCEH Sr. Secured

Facilities and Commodity

Collateral Posting Facility (CCP)

$0.1 billion of Pre-Merger Notes

Guarantor of $6.8 billion

Cash Pay and PIK Toggle

TCEH Notes

Guarantor of TCEH Sr.

Secured Facilities and CCP

$6.8 billion Cash Pay/PIK Toggle

TCEH Notes

$22.4

billion

Sr.

Secured

Facilities

3

~20%

Minority

Investor

$4.6

billion

Cash

Pay/PIK

Toggle

EFH

Notes

$1.6 billion of other debt

$0.0 billion of CCP

Debt Outstanding ($ billions)

As

of

12/31/09

Pro-forma

EFH

$  7.2

EFIH

0.1

EFCH

0.1

TCEH

30.8

Non-regulated

38.2

Oncor

5.7

Total debt

43.9

Cash and cash equivalents

5,6

(1.6)

Restricted cash

6

(1.2)

Net debt  

$41.1

EFH

Corp.

debt

structure

As

of

12/31/09

Pro-forma

2

;

$

billions

As

of

December

31,

2009,

the

EFH

Corp.

leverage

ratio

was

9.40x

$0.6 billion New Senior Secured Notes

$0.1 billion New

Senior Secured Notes

Guarantor of $4.6

billion EFH Notes

Guarantor of $0.6 billion New

EFH Senior Secured Notes

1

4

2

11

TCEH Amendments/Consents

In Q3 2009, TCEH received positive support (60%+ vote) from its

secured lenders to amend its Credit Agreement.

These amendments provide additional debt capacity to de-lever

TCEH and provide a vehicle for 2014 TCEH maturity extensions.

Credit Agreement Amendments

Ability to selectively Extend Revolver/Term Loan B

Ability to use unlimited 1st lien Post 2014 bonds and loans to retire

Term Loan B at par

Trade

$1.25

billion

1st

lien

Accordion

for

additional

$4

billion

2nd

lien capacity at TCEH

Exclude 2nd lien debt at TCEH from Maintenance Covenant

calculation

Allow for 1st lien Secured Bond Offering under Accordion

12

EFH Corp. and EFIH Exchange Offer

In November 2009, EFH Corp. and EFIH completed a SEC-registered

debt-for-debt exchange.

EFH is committed to improving the balance sheet

and is evaluating alternatives.

Exchange Offer Summary

In the exchange, EFH Corp. sought to issue up to an

aggregate of $3.0 billion of new EFH Corp. and EFIH secured

9.75% debt due 2019 for ~$4.5 billion of EFH Corp. Legacy

and LBO Notes and TCEH LBO Notes

Ultimately, ~$350 million of old debt was exchanged for ~$250

million aggregate of new EFH Corp. and EFIH debt

13

EFH Corp. New Financing Accomplished

In January 2010, EFH Corp. successfully issued $500 million of 

Senior Secured Notes maturing in 2020 in a private offering.

EFH continually seeks opportunities to enhance its financial flexibility. 

New Debt Issuance Summary

10% coupon, priced at par

The initial $300 million offering was upsized to $500 million

Proceeds from this offer will be used for general or other

corporate purposes, including working capital needs,

investment in business initiatives, capital expenditures and

prepayment or repurchase of outstanding debt

14

B+  (+1)

n/a

B+  (+2)

n/a

Caa3  (-2)

n/a

Sr. Secured

Fitch

S&P

Moody’s

EFIH LLC

B+  (+1)

n/a

B+  (+2)

n/a

Caa3  (-2)

n/a

Sr. Secured

Stable

Stable

Stable

Stable

Stable

Stable

Oncor Outlook

Negative

Negative

Negative

Negative

Negative

Negative

EFH Outlook

AAA

BBB  (+6)

BBB  (+6)

BBB-

(+5)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

B  (0)

BB  (+3)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

B+  (+1)

B

Pre-Exchange

AAA

BBB+  (+8)

BBB+  (+8)

BBB+  (+8)

CCC  (-2)

CCC  (-2)

CCC  (-2)

B+  (+2)

CCC  (-2)

CCC  (-2)

CCC  (-2)

B-

(0)

B-

Current

AAA

BBB  (+6)

BBB  (+6)

BBB-

(+5)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

B  (0)

BB  (+3)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

CCC  (-3)

B  (0)

B

Current

Aaa

Baa1  (+9)

Baa1  (+9)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa2  (-1)

B1  (+3)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Caa1

Current

BBB+  (+8)

Baa1  (+9)

Secured Notes

BBB+  (+8)

Oncor Issuer Rating

BBB+  (+8)

Baa1  (+9)

Secured Credit Facility

B-

Caa1

EFH Issuer Rating

CCC  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Unsecured

CCC  (-2)

Caa2  (-1)

LBO Cash Pay/PIK Toggle

B+  (+2)

B2  (+2)

Credit Facilities (secured)

EFC Holdings Company

CCC  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Sr.

Unsec

(Pre

–

10/07)

B-

(0)

Caa2  (-1)

LBO Cash Pay/PIK Toggle

EFH Corp.

TCEH Company LLC

CCC  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Secured

AAA

Aaa

Oncor Transition Bonds

CCC  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

Pre-10/07 debt

CCC  (-2)

Caa3  (-2)

PCRBs

Pre-Exchange

Pre-Exchange

Issuer / Security

Issuer/Debt Ratings Summary

Indicates change in rating pre-exchange vs. post-exchange

Issuer/Debt ratings for EFH Corp. and its subsidiaries

As of 1/31/10; rating agencies credit ratings

Note: Parenthetical amounts represent change in ratings notch from EFH Issuer Rating.

15

Luminant Generation Facilities

Generation capacity in ERCOT

At 12/31/09; MW

Nuclear

2,300 MW

Lignite/coal

7,217

Lignite –

new

1

800

Natural gas

2

8,002

Total

18,319 MW

1

Represents approximately 800 MW of new lignite-fueled generation under construction that is expected to come online in mid-2010.

2

Includes

seven

mothballed

units

(1,953

MW)

not

currently

available

for

dispatch,

655

MW

for

two

units

currently

in

RMR

status

with

ERCOT

and

1,856

MW

of

gas

plant

capacity

(1,933

MW

of

installed

nameplate

capacity)

related

to

four

gas

units

that

Luminant

proposed

for

mothball

in

February

2010.

HOUSTON

SAN ANTONIO

AUSTIN

WACO

MIDLAND

LUFKIN

ODESSA

DALLAS

TYLER

FORT

WORTH

Power Plants

Natural gas

Lignite/coal

Lignite, new build

Nuclear

16

0

4

8

12

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cummulative MWs

Summer

2010

ERCOT

supply

stack

-

indicative

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.

Luminant nucl

ear plant

Luminant lignite/coal plants

Luminant gas plants

1

Legend

ERCOT Supply Sta

ck

1

Excludes

1,953

MW

of

mothballed

gas

plant

capacity.

Includes

655

MW

of

gas

plant

capacity

currently

in

RMR

status

with

ERCOT

and

1,856

MW

of

gas

plant

capacity

(1,933

MW

of

installed

nameplate

capacity)

related

to

four

gas

units

that

Luminant

proposed

for

mothball

in

February

2010.

Sources: ERCOT and Energy Velocity ®, Ventyx

17

Existing Fleet Baseload

Capital Expenditures

234

318

660

556

560

566

02–03

04–05

06–07

08

09

10E

Baseload

capital

expenditures

1

02–09; 10E; $ millions

Luminant needs to drive sustained high performance at the optimal investment level.

Merger Close

1

Baseload

capital

expenditures

excluding

any

capital

expenditures

for

development

of

Oak

Grove

and

Sandow

5,

new

mine

development,

environmental

retrofit

program

and other

development

related

capital

expenditures.

Includes

new

build

sustaining

capital

expenditures

for

Oak

Grove

and

Sandow

5

for

2010

only.

18

1

Benchmarking peer set defined as 18 month fuel cycle U.S. nuclear plants (42 plants / 66 units BWR & PWR)

Sources: EUCG May 2009 release for cost and WANO for Capability Factors

CPNPP adjusted

for SGR Outage

Decile

Quartile

Median

Decile

Quartile

Median

Nuclear

reliability

vs.

cost

1

06–08; percent and $/MWh

CPNPP

High-Performance Nuclear Operator

75

80

85

90

95

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$/MWh

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EFH

Industry

Impact of Refueling Outages

16

17

18

19

20

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

1

2

3

EFH

# of Refueling Outages

Avg.

nuclear

fleet

refueling

outage

duration

1

-

18

month

cycle

units 

03-09; days

Nuclear fleet output

03-09; thousand GWh

Based on the refueling cycle, 1 refueling

outage will occur in 2010

2010 Refueling Outage Impact

2008 reflects 2 refueling outages

2008 outages were 19 days and 21 days

2009 outage was 25 days

2009 generation includes 110 GWh

ERCOT-driven backdown

2008-2009 Refueling Outage Impact

18 months

Duration: ~18-25 days

Nuclear Refueling Cycle

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)

World record steam

generator outage

World record steam

generator outage

2

20

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

40

50

60

70

80

90

High-Performance Coal Operator

Luminant

vs.

US

lignite

fleet

net

capacity

factors

Percent

Top decile

84.7%

Top quartile

79.8%

Luminant vs. US lignite fleet O&M

$/MWh

Top decile

3.3

Top quartile 

4.0

Luminant 06–08 fleet avg. = 84.7 %

Luminant 08 fleet = 83.2%

Source: GKS

Luminant 06–08 fleet avg. = 3.11

Luminant 08 fleet = 3.29

1

Benchmarking net capacity factors based on GADS.

1

Luminant

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

21

High-Performance Coal Operator

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

EFH

Industry

Consistent high performance

Average

coal

fleet

capacity

factor

1

04-08; percent

Range

of

coal

unit

2-year

capacity

factors

2

04-08; percent

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

EFH (9)

AYE (10)

DYN (4)

EIX (8)

MIR (2)

NRG (9)

RRI (6)

Operator (# of Units)

Range

5 Yr Average

1

Based

on

unscrubbed

merchant

units

greater

than

450

MW.

Industry

total

excludes

EFH

plants.

2

Includes merchant units greater than 450 MW.

Source:  Velocity Suite (Energy Velocity)

22

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 PO Days

Coal Fleet Output

Coal fleet output

03-09; GWh

2009 reflects 130 planned outages days

2009 average major outage duration was

45 days

2009 Planned Outage Impact

2008 reflects 136 planned outages days

2008 average major outage duration was

48 days

2008 Planned Outage Impact

3 or 4 year overhaul cycle depending on

unit

Duration is scope dependent

Coal Fleet Planned Outage Cycle

1

1

2009 includes 1,443 GWh

for New Build

23

Nuclear Expansion

HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

…partnering with

…partnering with

a world-class

a world-class

equipment provider…

equipment provider…

Luminant

is

pursuing

the

construction

of

a

next-generation

nuclear

facility

by

…

…

…

and leveraging existing

and leveraging existing

site, water rights and

site, water rights and

leadership team.

leadership team.

Project includes two nuclear generation units each having approximately 1,700 MW

(gross) capacity, and is currently ranked 5th (first alternate) for DOE grants.

24

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

4

8

12

16

20

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

ERCOT Average Daily Profile of Load and Wind

Source: ERCOT

ERCOT average daily profile of load and wind output

August 09; mixed measures

Wind operating characteristics necessitate additional resources for reliability.

Average

Load

Average

Wind Output

Hour

Load

(aMW)

Wind Output

(MW)

25

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

10E

11E

RPS

1

Target

of 2,880 MW

by 2009

RPS

1

Target

of 5,880 MW

by 2015

CREZs

Designated

ERCOT SGIA

2

Cumulative wind capacity additions in Texas

Pre-01 -

09;10E -

11E; MW

1

Renewable Portfolio Standard

2

Signed Generation Interconnect Agreement

Source:

ERCOT

–

January

2010

System

Planning

Report

to

the

Reliability

and

Operations

Subcommittee

26

ERCOT Reserve Margins

ERCOT reserve margin

07-09; 10E-15E; percent

15

14

17

22

20

18

15

12

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

07

08

09

10E

11E

12E

13E

14E

15E

December

2009

2

1

Source: ERCOT (reserve margin projection prior to summer peak and based on the reserve margin formula in effect at the time)

2

Source: ERCOT CDR as of December 2009

The ERCOT market currently appears to be reasonably positioned to support

Texas’

needs through 2013.

Year

Targeted minimum

reserve margin is 12.5%

Actuals

1

%

27

Houston

Ship

Channel

settled

natural

gas

prices

1

Jan 04-Dec 09; $/MMBtu

Market Price Snapshot

NYMEX

forward

natural

gas

prices

2010-12; $/MMBtu

NYMEX

settled

natural

gas

prices

Jan 04-Dec 09; $/MMBtu

Houston

Ship

Channel

forward

natural

gas

prices

2010-12; $/MMBtu

1

Settled prices are monthly averages

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

Jul-09

Aug-09

Sep-09

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

2010

2011

2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

Jul-09

Aug-09

Sep-09

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

2010

2011

2012

2

2

1

Forward prices reflect market  observable quotes during the 12 months ended December 31, 2009 for the following delivery periods:  Calendar 2010, 2011 and 2012

28

Market Price Snapshot

ERCOT

North

Zone

7x24

settled

heat

rate

1,2

Jan 04-Dec 09; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT

North

Zone

7x24

forward

heat

rate

1,3

2010-12; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT

North

Zone

5x16

forward

heat

rate

1,3

2010-12; MMBtu/MWh

ERCOT

North

Zone

5x16

settled

heat

rate

1,2

Jan 04-Dec 09; MMBtu/MWh

1

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

2

Settled prices are monthly averages

3

Forward

prices

reflect

market

observable

quotes

during

the

12

months

ended

December

31,

2009

for

the

following

delivery

periods:

Calendar

2010,

2011

and

2012

29

29

New TXU Energy Marketing Campaign

Television

TXU.com

Billboards

30

New Oncor Infrastructure

Oncor

expects

to

invest

~$1.3

billion

1

over

the next 4 years on new transmission lines…

…to support the continued buildout of

wind capacity in Texas

Oncor’s investment in CREZ will receive accelerated recovery,

consistent with other transmission investment, mitigating regulatory delay.

1

PUC

awarded

approximately

$1.3

billion

(based

on

ERCOT

estimates)

of

the

CREZ

buildout

to

Oncor.

31

Oncor Demand-Side Management

Oncor is leading the largest advanced metering initiatives deployment in the

US with an initiative to have 3.4 million meters connected by 2012 (over

700,000 meters installed through January 2010)

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.

…that will enable key DSM initiatives

Oncor to deploy ~$690 million of capital

for advanced metering initiatives…

32

Table 1: EFH Corp. Net Debt Reconciliation

As of December 31, 2009 Pro-forma

1

$ millions

40,615

(1,197)

(425)

(1,189)

43,426

41,440

417

1,569

12/31/09

500

-

-

-

500

500

-

-

Pro-forma

Adjust.¹

41,115

Net debt

(1,197)

Restricted cash

(1,189)

Cash and cash equivalents

(425)

Investments posted with counterparty

Less:

41,940

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

1,569

Short-term borrowings

417

Long-term debt due currently

43,926

Total debt

12/31/09       

Pro-forma

Description

1

Pro-forma adjustment includes the issuance of EFH Corp. 10.0% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 that closed on January 12, 2010.

33

Table 2: TCEH Net Debt Reconciliation

As of December 31, 2009

$ millions

29,533

Net debt

(1,136)

Restricted cash

(94)

Cash and cash equivalents

Less:

29,516

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

953

Short-term borrowings

294

Long-term debt due currently

30,763

Total debt

12/31/09

Description

34

Table 3: Oncor Net Debt Reconciliation

As of December 31, 2009

$ millions

5,631

Net debt

(61)

Restricted cash

(28)

Cash and cash equivalents

Less:

4,996

Long-term debt, less amounts due currently

616

Short-term borrowings

108

Long-term debt due currently

5,720

Total debt

12/31/09

Description