Dynegy Quarterly Report Nov. 6, 2008

Recently, we completed property tax settlements with the local taxing jurisdictions in connection with the assessed value of our Roseton and Danskammer generating facilities. While the amount of actual tax savings resulting from the reduction in the assessed value of these facilities will depend on future budgets of the various taxing jurisdictions, the projected savings in property taxes for the period 2008-2012 is approximately $55 million. In addition, we received a refund of $13 million for settlement of prior years’ property tax payments in the fourth quarter 2008.

New York Attorney General Subpoena. On September 17, 2007, Dynegy and four other companies received a subpoena from the Office of the New York Attorney General. The subpoena sought information and documents related to the Company’s public disclosures concerning the expected impact of climate change and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2008, the Attorney General closed its inquiry and did not find any weakness or impropriety in the Company’s past disclosures. Under an agreement reached with the Attorney General’s Office, the Company acknowledged that it will continue to provide timely and relevant information to investors about climate change risk in accordance with applicable SEC disclosure requirements.

Danskammer State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. In January 2005, the NYSDEC issued a Draft SPDES Permit renewal for the Danskammer plant, and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for the fall of 2005. Three environmental groups sought to impose a permit requirement that the Danskammer plant install a closed cycle cooling system in order to reduce the volume of water withdrawn from the Hudson River, thus reducing aquatic organism mortality. The petitioners claim that only a closed cycle cooling system meets the Clean Water Act’s requirement that the cooling water intake structures reflect BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. On October 2, 2008, the Third Department denied Petitioners’ motion for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. We expect that Petitioners will now directly file in the Court of Appeals a motion for leave to appeal the Third Department’s decision. Dynegy will oppose such a motion.

The denial of Petitioners’ motion essentially confirms the Appellate Division’s prior determination upholding NYSDEC’s issuance of the revised Danskammer SPDES Permit. The denial of Petitioners’ motion does not have any direct legal effect on the draft Roseton SPDES Permit, discussed below. However, once Petitioners’ efforts to seek judicial review of the Danskammer SPDES Permit have been exhausted and if such efforts continue to be unsuccessful, the Danskammer decision will serve as favorable precedent for us on certain issues expected to be raised in the Roseton SPDES Permit proceedings.

%d bloggers like this: