XML 164 R32.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
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. Contracts with minimum payment obligations 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 September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 because 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. As of September 30, 2025, CenterPoint Energy and CERC had the following undiscounted minimum purchase obligations:
| CenterPoint Energy |  | CERC
| Natural Gas Supply |  | Electric Supply (1) |  | Other (2) |  | Natural Gas Supply
| (in millions)
Remainder of 2025 | $ | 207 |  |  | $ | 24 |  |  | $ | 43 |  |  | $ | 206 |
2026 | 675 |  |  | 98 |  |  | 107 |  |  | 670 |
2027 | 592 |  |  | 130 |  |  | 26 |  |  | 588 |
2028 | 547 |  |  | 71 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 543 |
2029 | 527 |  |  | 68 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 523 |
Thereafter | 1,832 |  |  | 943 |  |  | 145 |  |  | 1,804 |
Total | $ | 4,380 |  |  | $ | 1,334 |  |  | $ | 334 |  |  | $ | 4,334 |
(1)Related to PPAs with commitments ranging from 20 years to 25 years. (2)Related 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 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) AMAs (CenterPoint Energy and CERC) CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses continue to utilize AMAs associated with their utility distribution service in Indiana, Minnesota and Texas. The AMAs have varying terms, the longest of which expires in 2029. Pursuant to the provisions of the agreements, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses either sell natural gas to the asset manager and agree to repurchase an equivalent amount of natural gas throughout the year at the same cost, or simply purchase their full natural gas requirements at each delivery point from the asset manager. Generally, AMAs are contracts between CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses and an asset manager that are intended to transfer the working capital obligation and maximize the utilization of the assets. In these agreements, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses agree to release transportation and storage capacity to other parties to manage natural gas storage, supply and delivery arrangements for CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses and to use the released capacity for other purposes when it is not needed for CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses. CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses may receive compensation from the asset manager through payments made over the life of the AMAs. CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses have an obligation to purchase their winter storage requirements that have been released to the asset manager under these AMAs. Amounts outstanding under these AMAs as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 were not material. (c) Guarantees (CenterPoint Energy) CenterPoint Energy recognizes guarantee obligations at fair value. CenterPoint Energy discloses parent company guarantees of a subsidiary’s obligation when that guarantee results in the exposure of a material obligation of the parent company even if the probability of fulfilling such obligation is considered remote. On May 21, 2023, CenterPoint Energy, through Vectren Energy Services, entered into the Equity Purchase Agreement to sell Energy Systems Group. The sale closed on June 30, 2023. In the normal course of business prior to the consummation of the transaction on June 30, 2023, CenterPoint Energy, primarily through Vectren, issued parent company level guarantees supporting Energy Systems Group’s obligations. When Energy Systems Group was wholly-owned by CenterPoint Energy, these guarantees did not represent incremental consolidated obligations, but rather, these guarantees represented guarantees of Energy Systems Group’s obligations to allow it to conduct business without posting other forms of assurance. For those obligations where potential exposure can be estimated, management estimated the maximum exposure under these guarantees to be approximately $444 million as of September 30, 2025 and expects the exposure to decrease pro rata. 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, were issued prior to the sale of Energy Systems Group in support of federal operations and maintenance projects for which a maximum exposure cannot be estimated based on the nature of the projects. Under the terms of the Equity Purchase Agreement, ESG Holdings Group must generally use reasonable best efforts to replace existing CenterPoint Energy guarantees with credit support provided by a party other than CenterPoint Energy as of and after the closing of the transaction. The Equity Purchase Agreement also requires certain protections to be provided for any damages incurred by CenterPoint Energy in relation to these guarantees not released by closing. No additional guarantees were provided by CenterPoint Energy in favor of Energy Systems Group subsequent to the closing of the sale on June 30, 2023. 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 to be remote. CenterPoint Energy believes that, from Energy Systems Group’s inception in 1994 to the closing of the sale of Energy Systems Group on June 30, 2023, Energy Systems Group had a history of generally meeting its performance obligations and energy savings guarantees and its installed products operated effectively. CenterPoint Energy recorded no amounts on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 related to its obligation under the outstanding guarantees. (d) Legal, Environmental and Other Matters Legal Matters Litigation Related to Hurricane Beryl. Various federal, state and local governmental and regulatory agencies and other entities, such as the Texas Governor’s office, the Texas legislature and the PUCT, called for, conducted or are conducting inquiries and investigations into Hurricane Beryl, the efforts made by Houston Electric to prepare for, and respond to, this event, including the electric service outage issues, and the procurement of TEEEF. Moreover, additional governmental and regulatory agencies and other entities may conduct such inquiries and investigations. There are significant uncertainties around these inquiries and investigations and potential results and consequences, including with respect to our recovery of costs incurred as a result of Hurricane Beryl and whether any financial penalties will be assessed or changes to Houston Electric’s system, service territories, operations and/or regulatory treatment will result therefrom. Further, on January 22, 2025, a putative shareholder of CenterPoint Energy, Donel Davidson, filed a derivative petition in Harris County District Court, Texas, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment on behalf of CenterPoint Energy against certain of its current and former directors and officers citing, in part, the topics of these inquiries and investigations. The action seeks to recover damages and other relief from the defendants on behalf of CenterPoint Energy. The action was removed to the Texas Business Courts, and on June 18, 2025, the parties filed an agreed upon stipulation to stay the case, which was approved by the court on June 24, 2025. Additionally, on February 12, 2025, a second putative shareholder of CenterPoint Energy made a demand on the Board to investigate the same basic allegations raised in the derivative petition filed by Donel Davidson. CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC and Houston Electric are subject to current and potential future litigation and claims arising out of Hurricane Beryl, which litigation and claims could include allegations of, among other things, personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, various economic losses in connection with loss of power, unlawful business practices, and others. Following Hurricane Beryl, several putative class actions were filed against CenterPoint Energy and/or Houston Electric in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of individuals or entities who claim losses due to power outages lasting at least 48 hours as a result of Hurricane Beryl, such actions consisting of the following proposed classes: (1) all restaurants in Harris County, Galveston County, and Montgomery County; (2) all residential customers; and (3) all health, wellness, medical and beauty facilities in Harris County. These putative classes asserted claims and theories of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, fraud, and/or violation of Houston Electric’s tariff for retail delivery service, and each seeks damages in excess of $100 million for, among other things, business interruption, property damage and loss, cost of repair, loss of use and market value, lost income, nuisance, extreme mental anguish and/or punitive damages. On July 30, 2025, the plaintiffs in the putative class action on behalf of all residential customers nonsuited without prejudice all claims and causes of action. In addition, the plaintiffs in the other two putative class actions have amended their petitions to remove all class action allegations and to assert only claims of gross negligence and intentional misconduct. One of those lawsuits is brought by approximately 220 individually named plaintiffs, and the other lawsuit includes approximately 45 individually named plaintiffs. Several individual actions have also been filed in Harris County District Courts asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, negligent undertaking and/or gross negligence against CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC and/or Houston Electric. Certain plaintiffs in these actions allege personal injury or property damage and seek damages in excess of $1 million. These cases have been or will be transferred to the designated MDL pretrial court. CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC and Houston Electric intend to vigorously defend themselves against the lawsuits. 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 some allegations, certain insurers have disputed, and more insurers may dispute, coverage for some types of claims or damages that have been or may in the future be alleged by plaintiffs. For example, CenterPoint Energy has received from two insurers denials of indemnity coverage in the cases arising out of power outages based on the failure to supply exclusion, and those insurers have also reserved their rights with respect to coverage in those actions. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric intend to continue to pursue all available insurance coverage for all of these matters. 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 number 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. For more information regarding Hurricane Beryl, see Note 6. 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, 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, and Houston Electric, along with hundreds of other defendants (including ERCOT, power generation companies, other TDUs, natural gas producers, REPs, and other entities) received claims and lawsuits filed by plaintiffs alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and other injuries and damages. As of September 30, 2025, there were approximately 220 pending lawsuits that are consolidated in Texas state court in Harris County, Texas, as part of the MDL 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 lawsuits in the MDL was 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 is currently named as a defendant in one lawsuit in which CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric are also named as defendants. The judge overseeing the MDL 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. In a subsequent opinion in an unrelated matter, the Texas Supreme Court held that ERCOT is entitled to sovereign immunity. This ruling will apply to claims against ERCOT in the MDL. The MDL judge also dismissed all claims against the natural gas defendants (which list of natural gas defendants incorrectly included Utility Holding) and the REP defendants and some causes of action against the other defendants. CenterPoint Energy expects that the claims against Utility Holding will ultimately be dismissed in light of the judge’s initial rulings. 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 asked the courts of appeals to overturn. On April 2, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas issued an opinion in the TDU mandamus proceeding, granting in part and denying in part the TDUs’ mandamus request. In its opinion, the panel granted the TDUs’ mandamus request relating to the TDUs’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligent nuisance and (3) strict liability nuisance and ordered those claims be dismissed. The panel denied the TDUs’ mandamus request relating to the TDUs’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ gross negligence and intentional nuisance claims. On May 22, 2024, the TDUs filed a mandamus petition with the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas issued its decision and held that plaintiffs’ pleadings are insufficient as to both their intentional nuisance and gross negligence claims. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ intentional nuisance claims with prejudice, but concluded that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to replead their gross negligence claims only. In the generator mandamus proceeding that was pending in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, a three-judge panel granted the generators’ mandamus request and ordered dismissal of all claims asserted against the generators’ defendants. The plaintiffs asked the entire First Court of Appeals to rehear the panel’s decision. On November 26, 2024, the First Court of Appeals denied that motion. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Texas on January 31, 2025, and on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas requested briefing on the merits in that proceeding. The plaintiffs filed their brief on the merits on September 26, 2025, and the generator defendants’ response is currently due on November 17, 2025. The MDL judge allowed defendants (including Houston Electric) to file several additional motions on preliminary legal issues. These motions included the TDUs’ motion to dismiss under Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which was filed in one of the bellwether cases and argued that all of plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not include a sufficient certificate by a qualified engineer with their petition as required by Texas law, as well as a motion to deny class certification in the putative class action. On November 13, 2024, the MDL Court granted the TDUs’ motion to dismiss under Chapter 150, and on December 3, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling. Briefing in this appellate proceeding is complete. On January 8, 2025, the MDL Court denied class certification in the putative class action. Following issuance of the order denying class certification, a new lawsuit was filed on behalf of approximately 140 plaintiffs in Harris County District Court against hundreds of defendants, including CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, and that case was transferred to the MDL on January 23, 2025. In addition, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the denial of class certification on January 27, 2025, but dismissed that appeal on April 28, 2025. On August 13, 2025, the MDL judge signed orders dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the TDUs except gross negligence. On September 11, 2025, the MDL judge issued an order with a schedule for the plaintiffs to re-plead their gross negligence claims and for the TDUs to file certain dispositive motions in response. All litigation otherwise remains stayed in the MDL. CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, 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 a defendant, along with “CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.,” incorrectly identifying it as CERC’s parent company (CenterPoint Energy previously divested CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.). 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) were brought by an entity that purports to be an assignee of the claims of tens of thousands of persons and entities. 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. All twelve lawsuits have been tagged for transfer to the existing MDL proceeding referenced above, but only three of the cases have been served against the defendants, including CERC. These gas market cases are in addition to the 220 cases noted above regarding electric market issues. On February 2, 2024, CERC filed pleas to the jurisdiction in the three cases in which it was served; CERC also partially joined the other defendants’ motions to dismiss and additional pleas to the jurisdiction. On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs in the three served cases filed amended petitions rather than responding to pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to dismiss. Among other changes, plaintiffs in these three cases dismissed CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., but maintained the same three causes of action as to the remaining defendants. CERC has vigorously defended itself against the claims raised, including filing updated pleas to the jurisdiction on May 17, 2024 in response to plaintiffs’ amended petitions and intends to continue to do so. On August 12, 2024, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a motion for leave to amend to add additional plaintiffs/class representatives. Defendants opposed this motion on September 20, 2024. On September 23, 2024, the MDL judge heard oral argument on CERC’s plea to the jurisdiction and defendants’ motions to dismiss and other pleas to the jurisdiction. On November 7, 2024 and November 11, 2024, the MDL judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and CERC’s plea to the jurisdiction in all three cases. As a result of these rulings, all claims against CERC were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed these rulings, and the appeals have been assigned to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas. On December 4, 2024, the MDL judge denied as moot a plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add additional plaintiffs/class representatives in the putative class action case. On January 17, 2025, the plaintiffs in the putative class action case filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted on February 4, 2025. The parties have now completed their briefing. 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 number 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. As CenterPoint Energy previously noted, given the nature of certain of the plaintiffs’ allegations, insurance coverage may not be available other than for third party bodily injury and property damage claims caused by an accident, and one of CenterPoint Energy’s insurers has reserved its rights with respect to coverage for plaintiffs’ intentional nuisance claims as well as plaintiffs’ claims in the gas market cases. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries intend to continue to pursue all available insurance coverage for all of these matters. Jefferson Parish. Several parishes and the State of Louisiana filed 42 suits under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act against hundreds of oil and gas companies seeking compensatory damages for contamination and erosion of the Louisiana coastline allegedly caused by historical oil and gas operations. One of the defendants in one of the lawsuits (filed in 2013 only by the Parish of Jefferson) is Primary Fuels, Inc., a predecessor company of CenterPoint Energy, which operated in Louisiana from 1983-1989. All 42 suits were removed to Louisiana federal courts twice and were stayed for several years pending the district courts’ consideration of various motions to remand and multiple appeals of remand orders. Several cases involving other parishes were remanded to Louisiana state court. To date, two of the 42 suits have substantially progressed in state court. The first case, Cameron Parish v. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc., et al., settled shortly before trial on confidential terms. The second case, Plaquemines Parish v. Rozel Operating Co., et al., was tried against one defendant, Chevron Corporation, and on April 4, 2025, the jury returned a verdict of $744.6 million. Before final judgment was entered, the Rozel case was stayed until the United States Supreme Court rules on the merits of a jurisdictional issue in a related case that does not include Primary Fuels, Inc. As of September 30, 2025, the federal district court had not ruled on Jefferson Parish’s motion to remand to state court the lawsuit which includes Primary Fuels, Inc. among the defendants. The timing of further progress in the Jefferson Parish case is uncertain and dependent in part on the court’s ruling on the motion to remand and further developments in other related Chevron Corporation cases. Because of the procedurally preliminary nature of the proceedings in the case in which Primary Fuels, Inc. is a defendant, lack of information about both the scope of and damages for Jefferson Parish’s claim against Primary Fuels, Inc., the number 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 this matter or to estimate a range of potential losses. CenterPoint Energy intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims raised and pursue any and all available insurance coverage. 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 five 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:
| September 30, 2025
| CenterPoint Energy |  | CERC
| (in millions, except years)
Amount accrued for remediation | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 11 |
Minimum estimated remediation costs | 8 |  |  | 7 |
Maximum estimated remediation costs | 47 |  |  | 41 |
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 a portion of the ash generated by Indiana Electric’s generating plants will continue to be reused. 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 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. Pursuant to the CCR Rule, both the Culley East and A.B. Brown facilities were taken out of service in a timely manner per the commitments made to the EPA in the extension requests filed for both ponds. 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. 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 sought accounting and ratemaking relief for the project, and on June 8, 2023, Indiana Electric filed a revised CPCN for recovery of the federally mandated ash pond costs. On February 7, 2024 the IURC approved the federally mandated costs, both incurred and projected, of $52 million in capital costs, plus an estimated $133,000 in annual operation and maintenance expenses, for recovery through the ECA. Following approval of its most recent rate case, this project is now being recovered through base rates. As of September 30, 2025, CenterPoint Energy had recorded an approximate $137 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 previously settled insurance proceedings. 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. On April 25, 2024, the EPA released its final Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Legacy CCR Surface Impoundments rule (CCR Legacy Rule), which was published in the Federal Register in May 2024. The CCR Legacy Rule requires companies to investigate previously closed impoundments that were used historically for ash disposal or locations which have had ash placed on them in amounts set forth in the CCR Legacy Rule. The Registrants have completed their preliminary review of potential sites that will require further investigation under the CCR Legacy Rule and identified certain sites in Indiana for further evaluation. During 2024, Indiana Electric recorded an approximate $11 million ARO with a corresponding increase of $11 million to Property, plant and equipment for amounts recoverable for electric generation stations that are currently in service. These estimates reflect the discounted value of future estimated capping costs for an area of historic ash placement at F.B. Culley. Indiana Electric will continue to refine the assumptions, engineering analyses and resulting cost estimates associated with this ARO and such refinement could materially impact the amount of the estimated ARO. Clean Water Act Permitting of Groundwater and Power Plant Discharges. In April 2020, 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. On November 27, 2023, the EPA published draft guidance regarding the application of the “functional equivalent” analysis as related to permitting of certain discharges through groundwater to surface waters. The Registrants do not currently anticipate impacts from this guidance, but groundwater monitoring continues under the CCR Rule. In 2015, the EPA finalized revisions to the existing steam electric wastewater discharge standards which set more stringent wastewater discharge limits and effectively prohibited further wet disposal of coal ash in ash ponds. In February 2019, the IURC approved Indiana Electric’s Effluent Limitation Guidelines Compliance Plan for its F.B. Culley Generating Station, which was completed in compliance with the requirements of the Effluent Limitation Guidelines. On April 25, 2024, the EPA released its final Supplemental Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category. On September 29, 2025, the EPA released a proposed rule to extend various deadlines and other provisions of the 2024 Supplemental Effluent Limitation Guidelines. The Registrants currently anticipate that they will be in compliance with the Supplemental Effluent Limitation Guidelines at the Culley facility due to previous wastewater treatment upgrades. 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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration