1.0.0.3 false (10) Commitments and Contingencies false 1 $ false false u000 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 u002 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] 0 cnp_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstract cnp false na duration string No definition available. false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false No definition available. false 3 Commitments and Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration string No definition available. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0 <div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(10)    Commitments and Contingencies</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(a) Natural Gas Supply Commitments</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Natural gas supply commitments include natural gas contracts related to CenterPoint Energy’s Natural Gas Distribution and Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services business segments, which have various quantity requirements and durations, that are not classified as non-trading derivative assets and liabilities in CenterPoint Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2009 as these contracts meet the exception to be classified as "normal purchases contracts" or do not meet the definition of a derivative. Natural gas supply commitments also include natural gas transportation contracts that do not meet the definition of a derivative. As of December 31, 2009, minimum payment obligations for natural gas supply commitments are approximately $439 million in 2010, $490 million in 2011, $427 million in 2012, $390 million in 2013, $269 million in 2014 and $543 million after 2014.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(b) Asset Management Agreements</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Gas Operations has entered into asset management agreements associated with its utility distribution service in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Generally, these asset management agreements are contracts between Gas Operations and an asset manager that are intended to transfer the working capital obligation and maximize the utilization of the assets.  In these agreements, Gas Operations agreed to release transportation and storage capacity to other parties to manage gas storage, supply and delivery arrangements for Gas Operations and to use the released capacity for other purposes when it is not needed for Gas Operations. Gas Operations is compensated by the asset manager through payments made over the life of the agreements based in part on the results of the asset optimization. Under the provisions of these asset management agreements, Gas Operations has an obligation to purchase its winter storage requirements from the asset manager. The agreements have varying terms, the longest of which expires in 2016.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(c) Lease Commitments</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The following table sets forth information concerning CenterPoint Energy’s obligations under non-cancelable long-term operating leases at December 31, 2009, which primarily consist of rental agreements for building space, data processing equipment and vehicles (in millions):</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div align="center"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="40%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2010<font id="TAB1_0" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">12</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="white"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2011<font id="TAB1_1" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font id="TAB1_2" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 14.5pt"></font>13</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2012<font id="TAB1_3" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font id="TAB1_4" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 21.15pt"></font>9</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="white"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2013<font id="TAB1_5" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font id="TAB1_6" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 21.15pt"></font>6</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2014<font id="TAB1_7" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font id="TAB1_8" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 21.15pt"></font>4</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="white"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2015 and beyond<font id="TAB1_9" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font id="TAB1_10" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 21.15pt"></font>7</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="30%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px"> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5.05pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">Total<font id="TAB1_11" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 12pt"></font></font></div> </td> <td align="left" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="1%" style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 4px double; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" width="7%" style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 4px double; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">51</font></td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="1%" style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Total lease expense for all operating leases was $48 million, $46 million and $37 million during 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(d) Other Commitments</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In December 2008, CenterPoint Energy entered into an agreement to purchase software licenses, support and maintenance over the next five years.  As of December 31, 2009, payment obligations under this agreement are $7 million in 2010, $6 million in 2011, $6 million in 2012 and $6 million in 2013.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Long-Term Gas Gathering and Treating Agreements. </font>In September 2009, CenterPoint Energy Field Services, Inc. (CEFS), a wholly-owned natural gas gathering and treating subsidiary of CERC Corp., entered into long-term agreements with an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of EnCana Corporation (EnCana) and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) to provide gathering and treating services for their natural gas production from certain Haynesville Shale and Bossier Shale formations in Louisiana. CEFS also acquired jointly-owned gathering facilities from EnCana and Shell in De Soto and Red River parishes in northwest Louisiana.  Each of the agreements includes acreage dedication and volume commitments for which CEFS has rights to gather Shell’s and EnCana’s natural gas production from the dedicated areas.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In connection with the agreements, CEFS commenced gathering and treating services utilizing the acquired facilities. CEFS is expanding the acquired facilities in order to gather and treat up to 700 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of natural gas. If EnCana or Shell elect, CEFS will further expand the facilities in order to gather and treat additional future volumes.  The construction necessary to reach the contractual capacity of 700 MMcf per day includes more than 200 miles of gathering lines, nearly 25,500 horsepower of compression and over 800 MMcf per day of treating capacity.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">CEFS estimates that the purchase of existing facilities and construction to gather 700 MMcf per day will cost up to $325 million. If EnCana and Shell elect expansion of the project to gather and process additional future volumes of up to 1 Bcf per day, CEFS estimates that the expansion would cost as much as an additional $300 million and EnCana and Shell would provide incremental volume commitments. Funds for construction are being provided from anticipated cash flows from operations, lines of credit or proceeds from the sale of debt or equity securities.  As of December 31, 2009, approximately $176 million has been spent on this project, including the purchase of existing facilities.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(e) Legal, Environmental and Other Regulatory Matters</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Legal Matters</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Gas Market Manipulation Cases</font>.  CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor, Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former subsidiaries are named as defendants in several lawsuits described below. Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and RRI (formerly known as Reliant Resources, Inc. and Reliant Energy, Inc.), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI for any losses, including attorneys’ fees and other costs, arising out of these lawsuits.  Pursuant </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">to the indemnification obligation, RRI is defending CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries to the extent named in these lawsuits.  A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market participants in a number of federal and western state courts in connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-2002. CenterPoint Energy’s former affiliate, RRI, was a participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys’ fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been released or dismissed from all but two of such cases. CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but the plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal the dismissal. CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On May 1, 2009, RRI completed the previously announced sale of its Texas retail business to NRG Retail LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.  In connection with the sale, RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc. and no longer provides service as a REP in CenterPoint Houston’s service territory.  The sale does not alter RRI’s contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification regarding certain litigation, nor does it affect the terms of existing guaranty arrangements for certain RRI gas transportation contracts.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits.</font> CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries, along with 76 other natural gas pipelines, their subsidiaries and affiliates, were defendants in a lawsuit filed in 1997 under the Federal False Claims Act alleging mismeasurement of natural gas produced from federal and Indian lands. The suit sought undisclosed damages, along with statutory penalties, interest, costs and fees. This case was consolidated, together with the other similar False Claims Act cases, in the federal district court in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In October 2006, the judge considering this matter granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. The plaintiff sought review of that dismissal from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s dismissal in March 2009. Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to the Tenth Circuit for rehearing, the plaintiff sought review by the United States Supreme Court, but his petition for certiorari was denied in October 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In addition, CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.  In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25 years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying certification of the plaintiffs’ alleged class. In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the gas. The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in which they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for more than 25 years. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and fees.  In September 2009, the district court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification of their case. The plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration of that denial.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of gas and that these lawsuits are without merit. CERC and CenterPoint Energy do not expect the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits to have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy or CERC.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Gas Cost Recovery Litigation. </font>In October 2004, a lawsuit was filed by certain CERC ratepayers in Texas and Arkansas in circuit court in Miller County, Arkansas against CenterPoint Energy, CERC Corp., certain other </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy and CERC Corp. and various non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Although the plaintiffs in the Miller County case sought class certification, no class was certified. In June 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the Arkansas claims were within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) and in February 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court directed the Miller County court to dismiss the entire case for lack of jurisdiction.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In August 2007, the Arkansas plaintiff in the Miller County litigation initiated a complaint at the APSC seeking a decision concerning the extent of the APSC’s jurisdiction over the Miller County case and an investigation into the merits of the allegations asserted in his complaint with respect to CERC. In February 2009, the Arkansas plaintiff notified the APSC that he would no longer pursue his claims, and in July 2009 the complaint proceeding was dismissed by the APSC. All appellate deadlines expired without an appeal of the dismissal order.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In June 2007, CenterPoint Energy, CERC Corp., and other defendants in the Miller County case filed a petition in a district court in Travis County, Texas seeking a determination that the Railroad Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over the Texas claims asserted in the Miller County case.  In January 2009, the district court entered a final declaratory judgment ruling that the Railroad Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the Texas claims asserted against CenterPoint Energy, and the other defendants in the Miller County case.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Environmental Matters</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Manufactured Gas Plant Sites.</font> CERC and its predecessors operated manufactured gas plants (MGPs) in the past. In Minnesota, CERC has completed remediation on two sites, other than ongoing monitoring and water treatment. There are five remaining sites in CERC’s Minnesota service territory. CERC believes that it has no liability with respect to two of these sites.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">At December 31, 2009, CERC had accrued $14 million for remediation of these Minnesota sites and the estimated range of possible remediation costs for these sites was $4 million to $35 million based on remediation continuing for 30 to 50 years. 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 be dependent upon the number of sites to be remediated, the participation of other potentially responsible parties (PRP), if any, and the remediation methods used. CERC has utilized an environmental expense tracker mechanism in its rates in Minnesota to recover estimated costs in excess of insurance recovery. As of December 31, 2009, CERC had collected $13 million from insurance companies and rate payers to be used for future environmental remediation. In January 2010, as part of its Minnesota rate case decision, the MPUC eliminated the environmental expense tracker mechanism and ordered amounts previously collected from ratepayers and related carrying costs refunded to customers.  As of December 31, 2009, the balance in the environmental expense tracker account was $8.7 million.  The MPUC provided for the inclusion in rates of approximately $285,000 annually to fund normal on-going remediation costs.  CERC was not required to refund to customers the amount collected from insurance companies, $4.6 million at December 31, 2009, to be used to mitigate future environmental costs.  The MPUC further gave assurance that any reasonable and prudent environmental clean-up costs CERC incurs in the future will be rate-recoverable under normal regulatory principles and procedures.  This provision had no impact on earnings.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In addition to the Minnesota sites, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators have investigated MGP sites that were owned or operated by CERC or may have been owned by one of its former affiliates. CERC has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, District of Maine, under which contribution is sought by private parties for the cost to remediate former MGP sites based on the previous ownership of such sites by former affiliates of CERC or its divisions. CERC has also been identified as a PRP by the State of Maine for a site that is the subject of the lawsuit. In June 2006, the federal district court in Maine ruled that the current owner of the site is responsible for site remediation but that an additional evidentiary hearing would be required to determine if other potentially responsible parties, including CERC, would have to contribute to that remediation. In September 2009, the federal district court granted CERC’s motion for summary judgment in the proceeding.  Although it is likely that the plaintiff will pursue an appeal from that dismissal, further action will not be taken until the district court disposes of claims against other defendants in the case. CERC believes it is not liable as a former owner or operator of the site under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and applicable state statutes, and is vigorously contesting the suit and its designation as a PRP. CERC and CenterPoint Energy do not expect the ultimate outcome to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy or CERC.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Mercury Contamination.</font> CenterPoint Energy’s pipeline and distribution operations have in the past employed elemental mercury in measuring and regulating equipment. It is possible that small amounts of mercury may have been spilled in the course of normal maintenance and replacement operations and that these spills may have contaminated the immediate area with elemental mercury. CenterPoint Energy has found this type of contamination at some sites in the past, and CenterPoint Energy has conducted remediation at these sites. It is possible that other contaminated sites may exist and that remediation costs may be incurred for these sites. Although the total amount of these costs is not known at this time, based on CenterPoint Energy’s experience and that of others in the natural gas industry to date and on the current regulations regarding remediation of these sites, CenterPoint Energy believes that the costs of any remediation of these sites will not be material to CenterPoint Energy’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Asbestos.</font> Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy’s subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale to NRG Texas LP, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by NRG Texas LP, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense from NRG Texas LP. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and does not expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Groundwater Contamination Litigation. </font>Predecessor entities of CERC, along with several other entities, are defendants in litigation, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">St. Michel Plantation, LLC, et al, v. White, et al</font>., pending in civil district court in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that their property in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana suffered salt water contamination as a result of oil and gas drilling activities conducted by the defendants.  Although a predecessor of CERC held an interest in two oil and gas leases on a portion of the property at issue, neither it nor any other CERC entities drilled or conducted other oil and gas operations on those leases.  In January 2009, CERC and the plaintiffs reached agreement on the terms of a settlement that, if ultimately approved by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, is expected to resolve this litigation. CenterPoint Energy and CERC do not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energy or CERC.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Other Environmental.</font> From time to time CenterPoint Energy has received notices from regulatory authorities or others regarding its status as a PRP in connection with sites found to require remediation due to the presence of environmental contaminants. In addition, CenterPoint Energy has been named from time to time as a defendant in litigation related to such sites. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Energy does not expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Other Proceedings</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">CenterPoint Energy is 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. Some of these proceedings involve substantial amounts. CenterPoint Energy regularly analyzes current </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">information and, as necessary, provides accruals for probable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters. CenterPoint Energy does not expect the disposition of these matters to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In December 2009, $3.3 million was distributed to a subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy in connection with the settlement of 2002 AOL Time Warner, Inc. securities and ERISA class action litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the indenture governing CenterPoint Energy’s ZENS, in February 2010, CenterPoint Energy distributed to current ZENS holders $2.8 million, which amount represented the portion of the payment received that was attributable to the reference shares corresponding to the outstanding ZENS.  This distribution reduced the contingent principal amount of the ZENS from $814 million to $811 million.  The litigation settlement was recorded as other income and the distribution payable to ZENS holders was recorded as other expense in 2009.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 9pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(f) Guaranties</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Prior to CenterPoint Energy’s distribution of its ownership in RRI to its shareholders, CERC had guaranteed certain contractual obligations of what became RRI’s trading subsidiary.  When the companies separated, RRI agreed to secure CERC against obligations under the guaranties RRI had been unable to extinguish by the time of separation.  Pursuant to such agreement, as amended in December 2007, RRI has agreed to provide to CERC cash or letters of credit as security against CERC’s obligations under its remaining guaranties for demand charges under certain gas transportation agreements if and to the extent changes in market conditions expose CERC to a risk of loss on those guaranties.  The present value of the demand charges under these transportation contracts, which will be effective until 2018, was approximately $96 million as of December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2009, RRI was not required to provide security to CERC.  If RRI should fail to perform the contractual obligations, CERC could have to honor its guarantee and, in such event, collateral provided as security may be insufficient to satisfy CERC’s obligations.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> (10)    Commitments and Contingencies (a) Natural Gas Supply Commitments Natural gas supply commitments false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true