XML 52 R35.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies (a)Purchase Obligations (CenterPoint Energy and CERC) Commitments include minimum purchase obligations related to CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas reportable segment and CenterPoint Energy’s Electric reportable segment. A purchase obligation is defined as an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding on the registrant and that specifies all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Contracts with minimum payment provisions have various quantity requirements and durations and are not classified as non-trading derivative assets and liabilities in CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2021. These contracts meet an exception as “normal purchases contracts” or do not meet the definition of a derivative. Natural gas and coal supply commitments also include transportation contracts that do not meet the definition of a derivative. On October 27, 2021, the IURC issued an order approving the CPCN, authorizing Indiana Electric to purchase the Posey Solar project through a BTA to acquire its solar array assets for a fixed purchase price and approved recovery of costs via a levelized rate over the anticipated 35-year life. Due to community feedback and rising project costs caused by inflation and supply chain issues affecting the energy industry, Indiana Electric, along with Arevon, the developer, announced plans in January 2022 to downsize the Posey Solar project to 191 MW. Indiana Electric collaboratively agreed to the scope change, and on February 1, 2023, Indiana Electric entered into an amended and restated BTA that is contingent on further IURC review and approval. On February 7, 2023, Indiana Electric filed a CPCN with the IURC to approve the amended BTA. With the passage of the IRA, Indiana Electric can now pursue PTCs for solar projects. Indiana Electric will request that project costs, net of PTCs, be recovered in rate base rather than a levelized rate, through base rates or the CECA mechanism, depending on which provides more timely recovery. The Posey Solar project is expected to be placed in service in 2025. On July 5, 2022, Indiana Electric entered into a BTA to acquire a 130 MW solar array in Pike County, Indiana through a special purpose entity for a capped purchase price. A CPCN for the project was filed with the IURC on July 29, 2022. On September 21, 2022, an agreement in principle was reached resolving all the issues between Indiana Electric and OUCC. The Stipulation and Settlement agreement was filed on October 6, 2022 and a settlement hearing was held on November 1, 2022. On January 11, 2023, the IURC issued an order approving the settlement agreement granting Indiana Electric a CPCN to purchase and acquire the Pike County solar project through a BTA and approved the estimated cost. The IURC also designated the project as a clean energy project under Ind. Code Ch. 8-1-8.8, approved the proposed levelized rate and associated ratemaking and accounting treatment. The project is expected to be placed in service by 2025. As of March 31, 2023, other than discussed below, undiscounted minimum purchase obligations are approximately:
| CenterPoint Energy |  | CERC
| Natural Gas Supply | Electric Supply (1) |  | Other (2) |  | Natural Gas Supply
| (in millions)
Remaining nine months of 2023 | $ | 431 |  | $ | 141 |  |  | $ | 134 |  |  | $ | 426 |
2024 | 659 |  | 168 |  |  | 185 |  |  | 654 |
2025 | 555 |  | 702 |  |  | 22 |  |  | 551 |
2026 | 466 |  | 102 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 463 |
2027 | 397 |  | 104 |  |  | — |  |  | 394 |
2028 | 366 |  | 67 |  |  | — |  |  | 362 |
2029 and beyond | 1,696 |  | 714 |  |  | 387 |  |  | 1,671 |
(1)CenterPoint Energy’s undiscounted minimum payment obligations related to PPAs with commitments ranging from 15 to 25 years and its purchase commitments under its BTA in Posey County, Indiana and its BTA in Pike County, Indiana are included above. (2)The undiscounted payment obligations relate primarily to technology hardware and software agreements. Excluded from the table above are estimates for cash outlays from other PPAs through Indiana Electric that do not have minimum thresholds but do require payment when energy is generated by the provider. Costs arising from certain of these commitments are pass-through costs, generally collected dollar-for-dollar from retail customers through regulator-approved cost recovery mechanisms. (b) Guarantees and Product Warranties (CenterPoint Energy) In the normal course of business, Energy Systems Group enters into contracts requiring it to timely install infrastructure, operate facilities, pay vendors and subcontractors and support warranty obligations and, at times, issue payment and performance bonds and other forms of assurance in connection with these contracts. Specific to Energy Systems Group’s role as a general contractor in the performance contracting industry, as of March 31, 2023, there were 66 open surety bonds supporting future performance with an aggregate face amount of approximately $666 million. Energy Systems Group’s exposure is less than the face amount of the surety bonds and is limited to the level of uncompleted work under the contracts. As of March 31, 2023, approximately 36% of the work was yet to be completed on projects with open surety bonds. Further, various subcontractors issue surety bonds to Energy Systems Group. In addition to these performance obligations, Energy Systems Group also warrants the functionality of certain installed infrastructure generally for one year and the associated energy savings over a specified number of years. As of March 31, 2023, there were 34 warranties totaling $517 million and an additional $1.4 billion in energy savings commitments not guaranteed by Vectren. Since Energy Systems Group’s inception in 1994, CenterPoint Energy believes Energy Systems Group has had a history of generally meeting its performance obligations and energy savings guarantees and its installed products have operated effectively. CenterPoint Energy assessed the fair value of its obligation for such guarantees as of March 31, 2023 and no amounts were recorded on CenterPoint Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. CenterPoint Energy issues parent company level guarantees to certain vendors, customers and other commercial counterparties of Energy Systems Group. These guarantees do not represent incremental consolidated obligations, but rather, represent guarantees of subsidiary obligations to allow those subsidiaries to conduct business without posting other forms of assurance. As of March 31, 2023, CenterPoint Energy, primarily through Vectren, has issued parent company level guarantees supporting Energy Systems Group’s obligations. For those obligations where potential exposure can be estimated, management estimates the maximum exposure under these guarantees to be approximately $523 million as of March 31, 2023. This exposure primarily relates to energy savings guarantees on federal energy savings performance contracts. Other parent company level guarantees, certain of which do not contain a cap on potential liability, have been issued in support of federal operations and maintenance projects for which a maximum exposure cannot be estimated based on the nature of the projects. While there can be no assurance that performance under any of these parent company guarantees will not be required in the future, CenterPoint Energy considers the likelihood of a material amount being incurred as remote. (c)Legal, Environmental and Other Matters Legal Matters Litigation Related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event. Various legal proceedings are still pending against numerous entities with respect to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, including against CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, Houston Electric, and CERC. Like other Texas energy companies and TDUs, CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric have become involved in certain investigations, litigation and other regulatory and legal proceedings regarding their efforts to restore power during the storm and their compliance with NERC, ERCOT and PUCT rules and directives. Additionally, like other natural gas market participants, CERC has been named in litigation alleging gas market manipulation. CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, and Houston Electric, along with hundreds of other defendants (including ERCOT, power generation companies, other TDUs, natural gas producers, REPs, and other entities) have received claims and lawsuits filed by plaintiffs alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and other injuries and damages. Substantially all of the litigation is or will be consolidated in Texas state court in Harris County, Texas, as part of a multi-district litigation proceeding, with two cases currently pending in federal court in Houston. The judge overseeing the multi-district litigation issued an initial case management order and stayed all proceedings and discovery. Per the case management order, the judge entertained dispositive motions in five representative or “bellwether” cases and, in late January 2023, issued rulings on them. The judge ruled that ERCOT has sovereign immunity as a governmental entity and dismissed the suits against it. The judge also dismissed all claims against the natural gas defendants (which lists of natural gas defendants incorrectly included Utility Holding, LLC), and the REP defendants and some causes of action against the other defendants. As to the TDU and generator defendants, the judge dismissed some causes of action but denied the motions to dismiss claims for negligence, gross negligence, and nuisance, which denial the TDU defendants and generator defendants are asking the court of appeals to overturn. The judge allowed plaintiffs to file amended petitions, but otherwise the cases remain stayed as the judge addresses additional preliminary issues. Following the initial rulings and around the two-year anniversary of the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, there were voluminous amendments, non-suits and re-filings of pending lawsuits, and the filing of new lawsuits, such that the pleadings are still being settled and the precise number of cases and claims against particular defendants and in total is still being determined. As of March 31, 2023, there are approximately 220 pending lawsuits that are in or will be added to the multi-district litigation proceeding related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, and CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, along with numerous other entities, have been named as defendants in approximately 155 of those lawsuits. One of the newly filed lawsuits is a putative class action on behalf of everyone who received electric power via the ERCOT grid and sustained a power outage between February 10, 2021 and February 28, 2021. Additionally, Utility Holding, LLC is currently named as a defendant in approximately 15 lawsuits, but CenterPoint Energy expects that those claims will ultimately be dismissed in light of the judge’s initial rulings. CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, and Houston Electric intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric have also responded to inquiries from the Texas Attorney General and the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office, and various other regulatory and governmental entities also conducted inquiries, investigations and other reviews of the February 2021 Winter Storm Event and the efforts made by various entities to prepare for, and respond to, the event, including the electric generation shortfall issues. In February 2023, twelve lawsuits were filed in state district court in Harris County and Tom Green County, Texas, against dozens of gas market participants in Texas, including natural gas producers, processors, pipelines, marketers, sellers, traders, gas utilities, and financial institutions. Plaintiffs named CERC as one such defendant, along with “CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.,” incorrectly identifying it as CERC’s parent company (CenterPoint Energy previously divested CES). One lawsuit filed in Harris County is a putative class action on behalf of two classes of electric and natural gas customers (those who experienced a loss of electricity and/or natural gas, and those who were charged securitization-related surcharges on a utility bill or were otherwise charged higher rates for electricity and/or gas during the February 2021 Winter Storm Event), potentially including millions of class members. Two other lawsuits (one filed in Harris County and one in Tom Green County) are brought by an entity that purports to be an assignee of claims by tens of thousands of persons and entities that have assigned claims to the plaintiff. These, and nine other similar lawsuits filed in Harris County, generally allege that the defendants engaged in gas market manipulation and price gouging, including by intentionally withholding, suppressing, or diverting supplies of natural gas in connection with the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, Winter Storm Elliott, and other severe weather conditions, and through financial market manipulation. Plaintiffs allege that this manipulation impacted gas supply and prices as well as the market, supply, and price of electricity in Texas and caused blackouts and other damage. Plaintiffs assert claims for tortious interference with existing contract, private nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and allege a broad array of injuries and damages, including personal injury, property damage, and harm from certain costs being securitized and passed on to ratepayers. The lawsuits do not specify the amount of damages sought, but seek broad categories of actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential economic, and punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and other relief. As of April 12, 2023, most of the lawsuits have not been served, but as they are served, the cases will be tagged for transfer to the existing multi-district litigation proceeding referenced above. CERC intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims raised. To date, there have not been demands, quantification, disclosure or discovery of damages by any party to any of the above legal matters that are sufficient to enable CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries to estimate exposure. Given that, as well as the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the numerosity of parties and complexity of issues involved, and the uncertainties of litigation, CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome or consequences of any of the foregoing matters or to estimate a range of potential losses. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries have general and excess liability insurance policies that provide coverage for third party bodily injury and property damage claims. Given the nature of certain of the recent allegations, however, it is possible that the insurers for third party bodily injury and property damage claims could dispute coverage for other types of damage that may be alleged by plaintiffs. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries intend to continue to pursue any and all available insurance coverage for all of these matters. Environmental Matters MGP Sites. CenterPoint Energy, CERC and their predecessors, including predecessors of Vectren, operated MGPs in the past. The costs CenterPoint Energy or CERC, as applicable, expect to incur to fulfill their respective obligations are estimated by management using assumptions based on actual costs incurred, the timing of expected future payments and inflation factors, among others. While CenterPoint Energy and CERC have recorded obligations for all costs which are probable and estimable, including amounts they are presently obligated to incur in connection with activities at these sites, it is possible that future events may require remedial activities which are not presently foreseen, and those costs may not be subject to PRP or insurance recovery. (i)Minnesota MGPs (CenterPoint Energy and CERC). With respect to certain Minnesota MGP sites, CenterPoint Energy and CERC have completed state-ordered remediation and continue state-ordered monitoring and water treatment. CenterPoint Energy and CERC recorded a liability as reflected in the table below for continued monitoring and any future remediation required by regulators in Minnesota. (ii)Indiana MGPs (CenterPoint Energy and CERC). In the Indiana Gas service territory, the existence, location and certain general characteristics of 26 gas manufacturing and storage sites have been identified for which CenterPoint Energy and CERC may have some remedial responsibility. A remedial investigation/feasibility study was completed at one of the sites under an agreed upon order between Indiana Gas and the IDEM, and a Record of Decision was issued by the IDEM in January 2000. The remaining sites have been submitted to the IDEM’s VRP. CenterPoint Energy has also identified its involvement in 5 manufactured gas plant sites in SIGECO’s service territory, all of which are currently enrolled in the IDEM’s VRP. CenterPoint Energy is currently conducting some level of remedial activities, including groundwater monitoring at certain sites. (iii)Other MGPs (CenterPoint Energy and CERC). In addition to the Minnesota and Indiana sites, the EPA and other regulators have investigated MGP sites that were owned or operated by CenterPoint Energy or CERC or may have been owned by one of their former affiliates. Total costs that may be incurred in connection with addressing these sites cannot be determined at this time. The estimated accrued costs are limited to CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s share of the remediation efforts and are therefore net of exposures of other PRPs. The estimated range of possible remediation costs for the sites for which CenterPoint Energy and CERC believe they may have responsibility was based on remediation continuing for the minimum time frame given in the table below.
| March 31, 2023
| CenterPoint Energy |  | CERC
| (in millions, except years)
Amount accrued for remediation | $ | 16 |  |  | $ | 14 |
Minimum estimated remediation costs | 12 |  |  | 11 |
Maximum estimated remediation costs | 51 |  |  | 44 |
Minimum years of remediation | 5 |  | 5
Maximum years of remediation | 50 |  | 50
The cost estimates are based on studies of a site or industry average costs for remediation of sites of similar size. The actual remediation costs will depend on the number of sites to be remediated, the participation of other PRPs, if any, and the remediation methods used. CenterPoint Energy and CERC do not expect the ultimate outcome of these matters to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy or CERC. Asbestos. Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CCR Rule (CenterPoint Energy). In April 2015, the EPA finalized its CCR Rule, which regulates ash as non-hazardous material under the RCRA. The final rule allows beneficial reuse of ash, and the majority of the ash generated by Indiana Electric’s generating plants will continue to be reused. In July 2018, the EPA released its final CCR Rule Phase I Reconsideration which extended the deadline to October 31, 2020 for ceasing placement of ash in ponds that exceed groundwater protections standards or that fail to meet location restrictions. In August 2019, the EPA proposed additional “Part A” amendments to its CCR Rule with respect to beneficial reuse of ash and other materials. Further “Part B” amendments, which related to alternate liners for CCR surface impoundments and the surface impoundment closure process, were published in March 2020. The Part A amendments were finalized in August 2020 and extended the deadline to cease placement of ash in ponds to April 11, 2021, discussed further below. The Part A amendments do not restrict Indiana Electric’s current beneficial reuse of its fly ash. CenterPoint Energy evaluated the Part B amendments to determine potential impacts and determined that the Part B amendments did not have an impact on its current plans. Indiana Electric has three ash ponds, two at the F.B. Culley facility (Culley East and Culley West) and one at the A.B. Brown facility. Under the existing CCR Rule, Indiana Electric is required to perform integrity assessments, including ground water monitoring, at its F.B. Culley and A.B. Brown generating stations. The ground water studies are necessary to determine the remaining service life of the ponds and whether a pond must be retrofitted with liners or closed in place. Indiana Electric’s Warrick generating unit is not included in the scope of the CCR Rule as this unit has historically been part of a larger generating station that predominantly serves an adjacent industrial facility. Preliminary groundwater monitoring indicates potential groundwater impacts very close to Indiana Electric’s ash impoundments, and further analysis is ongoing. The CCR Rule required companies to complete location restriction determinations by October 18, 2018. Indiana Electric completed its evaluation and determined that one F.B. Culley pond (Culley East) and the A.B. Brown pond fail the aquifer placement location restriction. As a result of this failure, Indiana Electric was required to cease disposal of new ash in the ponds and commence closure of the ponds by April 11, 2021, unless approved for an extension. CenterPoint Energy filed timely extension requests available under the CCR Rule that would allow Indiana Electric to continue to use the ponds through October 15, 2023. The EPA is still reviewing industry extension requests, including CenterPoint Energy’s extension request for the Culley East pond. Companies can continue to operate ponds pending completion of the EPA’s evaluation of the requests for extension. If the EPA denies a full extension request, that denial may result in increased and potentially significant operational costs in connection with the accelerated implementation of an alternative ash disposal system or may adversely impact Indiana Electric’s future operations. Failure to comply with a cease waste receipt could also result in an enforcement proceeding, resulting in the imposition of fines and penalties. On October 5, 2022, EPA issued a proposed conditional approval of the Part A extension request for the A.B. Brown pond. EPA’s determination was up for public comment for thirty days from October 19, 2022. On April 24, 2019, Indiana Electric received an order from the IURC approving recovery in rates of costs associated with the closure of the Culley West pond, which has already completed closure activities. On August 14, 2019, Indiana Electric filed its petition with the IURC for recovery of costs associated with the closure of the A.B. Brown ash pond, which would include costs associated with the excavation and recycling of ponded ash. This petition was subsequently approved by the IURC on May 13, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the IURC approved Indiana Electric’s ECA proceeding, which included the initiation of recovery of the federally mandated project costs. In July 2018, Indiana Electric filed a Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief against its insurers seeking reimbursement of defense, investigation and pond closure costs incurred to comply with the CCR Rule, and has since reached confidential settlement agreements with its insurers. The proceeds of these settlements will offset costs that have been and will be incurred to close the ponds. On November 1, 2022, Indiana Electric filed for a CPCN to recover federally mandated costs associated with closure of the Culley East Pond, its third and final ash pond. Indiana Electric is also seeking accounting and ratemaking relief for the project. The project costs are estimated to be approximately $50 million, inclusive of overheads. OUCC and intervenor testimony was submitted February 10, 2023 and Indiana Electric’s rebuttal testimony was filed on February 24, 2023. A hearing was held on March 12, 2023 and post hearing briefs were filed on April 14, 2023. Indiana Electric is awaiting an order. As of March 31, 2023, CenterPoint Energy has recorded an approximate $105 million ARO, which represents the discounted value of future cash flow estimates to close the ponds at A.B. Brown and F.B. Culley. This estimate is subject to change due to the contractual arrangements; continued assessments of the ash, closure methods, and the timing of closure; implications of Indiana Electric’s generation transition plan; changing environmental regulations; and proceeds received from the settlements in the aforementioned insurance proceeding. In addition to these AROs, Indiana Electric also anticipates equipment purchases of between $60 million and $80 million to complete the A.B. Brown closure project. Clean Water Act Permitting of Groundwater Discharges. In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion providing that indirect discharges via groundwater or other non-point sources are subject to permitting and liability under the Clean Water Act when they are the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. The Registrants are evaluating the extent to which this decision will affect Clean Water Act permitting requirements and/or liability for their operations. Other Environmental. From time to time, the Registrants identify the presence of environmental contaminants during operations or on property where their predecessors have conducted operations. Other such sites involving contaminants may be identified in the future. The Registrants have and expect to continue to remediate any identified sites consistent with state and federal legal obligations. From time to time, the Registrants have received notices, and may receive notices in the future, from regulatory authorities or others regarding status as a PRP in connection with sites found to require remediation due to the presence of environmental contaminants. In addition, the Registrants have been, or may be, named from time to time as defendants in litigation related to such sites. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other Proceedings The Registrants are involved in other legal, environmental, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. From time to time, the Registrants are also defendants in legal proceedings with respect to claims brought by various plaintiffs against broad groups of participants in the energy industry. Some of these proceedings involve substantial amounts. The Registrants regularly analyze current information and, as necessary, provide accruals for probable and reasonably estimable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters. The Registrants do not expect the disposition of these matters to have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration