1.0.0.3 false (3) Regulatory Matters 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 Regulatory Matters 1 us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock 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">(3)       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="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">(a) Hurricane Ike</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 Houston’s electric delivery system suffered substantial damage as a result of Hurricane Ike, which struck the upper Texas coast in September 2008.</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">As is common with electric utilities serving coastal regions, the poles, towers, wires, street lights and pole mounted equipment that comprise CenterPoint Houston’s transmission and distribution system are not covered by property insurance, but office buildings and warehouses and their contents and substations are covered by insurance </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">that provides for a maximum deductible of $10 million. Current estimates are that total losses to property covered by this insurance were approximately $30 million.</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 Houston deferred the uninsured system restoration costs as management believed it was probable that such costs would be recovered through the regulatory process. As a result, system restoration costs did not affect CenterPoint Energy’s or CenterPoint Houston’s reported operating income for 2008 or 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">Legislation enacted by the Texas Legislature in April 2009 authorized the Texas Utility Commission to conduct proceedings to determine the amount of system restoration costs and related costs associated with hurricanes or other major storms that utilities are entitled to recover, and to issue financing orders that would permit a utility like CenterPoint Houston to recover the distribution portion of those costs and related carrying costs through the issuance of non-recourse system restoration bonds similar to the securitization bonds issued previously.  The legislation also allowed such a utility to recover, or defer for future recovery, the transmission portion of its system restoration costs through the existing mechanisms established to recover transmission costs.</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">Pursuant to such legislation, CenterPoint Houston filed with the Texas Utility Commission an application for review and approval for recovery of approximately $678 million, including approximately $608 million in system restoration costs identified as of the end of February 2009, plus $2 million in regulatory expenses, $13 million in certain debt issuance costs and $55 million in incurred and projected carrying costs calculated through August 2009. In July 2009, CenterPoint Houston announced a settlement agreement with the parties to the proceeding.  Under that settlement agreement, CenterPoint Houston was entitled to recover a total of $663 million in costs relating to Hurricane Ike, along with carrying<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> </font>costs from September 1, 2009 until system restoration bonds were issued. The Texas Utility Commission issued an order in August 2009 approving CenterPoint Houston’s application and the settlement agreement and authorizing recovery of $663 million, of which $643 million was attributable to distribution service and eligible for securitization and the remaining $20 million was attributable to transmission service and eligible for recovery through the existing mechanisms established to recover transmission costs.</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 July 2009, CenterPoint Houston filed with the Texas Utility Commission its application for a financing order to recover the portion of approved costs related to distribution service through the issuance of system restoration bonds.   In August 2009, the Texas Utility Commission issued a financing order allowing CenterPoint Houston to securitize $643 million in distribution service costs plus carrying charges from September 1, 2009 through the date the system restoration bonds were issued, as well as certain up-front qualified costs capped at approximately $6 million.  In November 2009, CenterPoint Houston issued approximately $665 million of system restoration bonds through its CenterPoint Energy Restoration Bond Company, LLC subsidiary with interest rates of 1.833% to 4.243% and final maturity dates ranging from February 2016 to August 2023.  The bonds will be repaid over time through a charge imposed on customers.</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 accordance with the financing order, CenterPoint Houston also placed a separate customer credit in effect when the storm restoration bonds were issued.  That credit (ADFIT Credit) is applied to customers’ bills while the bonds are outstanding to reflect the benefit of accumulated deferred federal income taxes (ADFIT) associated with the storm restoration costs (including a carrying charge of 11.075%). The beginning balance of the ADFIT related to storm restoration costs was approximately $207 million and will decline over the life of the system restoration bonds as taxes are paid on the system restoration tariffs. The ADFIT Credit will reduce operating income in 2010 by approximately $24 million.</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 accordance with the orders discussed above, as of December 31, 2009, CenterPoint Houston has recorded $651 million associated with distribution-related storm restoration costs as a net regulatory asset and $20 million associated with transmission-related storm restoration costs, of which $18 million is recorded in property, plant and equipment and $2 million of related carrying costs is recorded in regulatory assets.   These amounts reflect carrying costs of $60 million related to distribution and $2 million related to transmission through December 31, 2009, based on the 11.075% cost of capital approved by the Texas Utility Commission.  The carrying costs have been bifurcated into two components: (i) return of borrowing costs and (ii) an allowance for earnings on shareholders’ investment.  During the year ended December 31, 2009, the component representing a return of borrowing costs of $23 million has been recognized and is included in other income in CenterPoint Energy’s Statements of Consolidated Income.  The component representing an allowance for earnings on shareholders’ investment of $39 million is being deferred and will be recognized as it is collected through rates.</font></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"> </font></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) Recovery of True-Up Balance</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1"><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 March 2004, CenterPoint Houston filed its true-up application with the Texas Utility Commission, requesting recovery of $3.7 billion, excluding interest, as allowed under the Texas Electric Choice Plan (Texas electric restructuring law). In December 2004, the Texas Utility Commission issued its final order (True-Up Order) allowing CenterPoint Houston to recover a true-up balance of approximately $2.3 billion, which included interest through August 31, 2004, and provided for adjustment of the amount to be recovered to include interest on the balance until recovery, along with the principal portion of additional excess mitigation credits (EMCs) returned to customers after August 31, 2004 and certain other adjustments.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.25"><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 Houston and other parties filed appeals of the True-Up Order to a district court in Travis County, Texas. In August 2005, that court issued its judgment on the various appeals. In its judgment, the district court:</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_0" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">reversed the Texas Utility Commission’s ruling that had denied recovery of a portion of the capacity auction true-up amounts;</font></div> </td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_1" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">reversed the Texas Utility Commission’s ruling that precluded CenterPoint Houston from recovering the interest component of the EMCs paid to retail electric providers (REPs); and</font></div> </td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_2" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">affirmed the True-Up Order in all other respects.</font></div> </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">The district court’s decision would have had the effect of restoring approximately $650 million, plus interest, of the $1.7 billion the Texas Utility Commission had disallowed from CenterPoint Houston’s initial request.</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 Houston and other parties appealed the district court’s judgment to the Texas Third Court of Appeals, which issued its decision in December 2007. In its decision, the court of appeals:</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_3" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">reversed the district court’s judgment to the extent it restored the capacity auction true-up amounts;</font></div> </td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_4" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">reversed the district court’s judgment to the extent it upheld the Texas Utility Commission’s decision to allow CenterPoint Houston to recover EMCs paid to RRI Energy, Inc. (RRI) (formerly known as Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant Resources, Inc.);</font></div> </td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_5" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">ordered that the tax normalization issue described below be remanded to the Texas Utility Commission as requested by the Texas Utility Commission; and</font></div> </td> </tr></table> </div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> <div> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent_6" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> <tr valign="top"> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">  </font></div> </td> <td style="WIDTH: 18pt"> <div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">•</font></div> </td> <td> <div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects.</font></div> </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">In April 2008, the court of appeals denied all motions for rehearing and reissued substantially the same opinion as it had rendered in December 2007.</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 2008, CenterPoint Houston petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review of the court of appeals decision. In its petition, CenterPoint Houston seeks reversal of the parts of the court of appeals decision that (i) denied recovery of EMCs paid to RRI, (ii) denied recovery of the capacity auction true-up amounts allowed by the district court, (iii) affirmed the Texas Utility Commission’s rulings that denied recovery of approximately $378 million related to depreciation and (iv) affirmed the Texas Utility Commission’s refusal to permit CenterPoint Houston to utilize the partial stock valuation methodology for determining the market value of its former generation assets. Two other petitions for review were filed with the Texas Supreme Court by other parties to the appeal. In those petitions parties contend that (i) the Texas Utility Commission was without authority to fashion the methodology it used for valuing the former generation assets after it had determined that CenterPoint Houston could not use the partial stock valuation method, (ii) in fashioning the method it used for valuing the former generating assets, the Texas Utility Commission deprived parties of their due process rights and an opportunity to be heard, (iii) the net book value of the generating assets should have been adjusted downward due to the impact of a purchase option that had been granted to RRI, (iv) CenterPoint Houston should not have been permitted to recover construction work in progress balances without proving those amounts in the manner required by law and (v) the Texas Utility Commission was without authority to award interest on the capacity auction true up award.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></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 2009, the Texas Supreme Court granted the petitions for review of the court of appeals decision.  Oral argument before the court was held in October 2009.  Although CenterPoint Energy and CenterPoint Houston believe that CenterPoint Houston’s true-up request is consistent with applicable statutes and regulations and, accordingly, that it is reasonably possible that it will be successful in its appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, CenterPoint Energy can provide no assurance as to the ultimate court rulings on the issues to be considered in the appeal or with respect to the ultimate decision by the Texas Utility Commission on the tax normalization issue described below.</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">To reflect the impact of the True-Up Order, in 2004 and 2005, CenterPoint Energy recorded a net after-tax extraordinary loss of $947 million. No amounts related to the district court’s judgment or the decision of the court of appeals have been recorded in CenterPoint Energy’s consolidated financial statements. However, if the court of appeals decision is not reversed or modified as a result of further review by the Texas Supreme Court, CenterPoint Energy anticipates that it would be required to record an additional loss to reflect the court of appeals decision. The amount of that loss would depend on several factors, including ultimate resolution of the tax normalization issue described below and the calculation of interest on any amounts CenterPoint Houston ultimately is authorized to recover or is required to refund beyond the amounts recorded based on the True-Up Order, but could range from $180 million to $410 million (pre-tax) plus interest subsequent to December 31, 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 the True-Up Order, the Texas Utility Commission reduced CenterPoint Houston’s stranded cost recovery by approximately $146 million, which was included in the extraordinary loss discussed above, for the present value of certain deferred tax benefits associated with its former electric generation assets. CenterPoint Energy believes that the Texas Utility Commission based its order on proposed regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in March 2003 that would have allowed utilities owning assets that were deregulated before March 4, 2003 to make a retroactive election to pass the benefits of Accumulated Deferred Investment Tax Credits (ADITC) and Excess Deferred Federal Income Taxes (EDFIT) back to customers. However, the IRS subsequently withdrew those proposed normalization regulations and, in March 2008, adopted final regulations that would not permit utilities like CenterPoint Houston to pass the tax benefits back to customers without creating normalization violations. In addition, CenterPoint Energy received a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) from the IRS in August 2007, prior to adoption of the final regulations, that confirmed that the Texas Utility Commission’s order reducing CenterPoint Houston’s stranded cost recovery by $146 million for ADITC and EDFIT would cause normalization violations with respect to the ADITC and EDFIT.</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">If the Texas Utility Commission’s order relating to the ADITC reduction is not reversed or otherwise modified on remand so as to eliminate the normalization violation, the IRS could require CenterPoint Energy to pay an amount equal to CenterPoint Houston’s unamortized ADITC balance as of the date that the normalization violation is deemed to have occurred. In addition, the IRS could deny CenterPoint Houston the ability to elect accelerated tax depreciation benefits beginning in the taxable year that the normalization violation is deemed to have occurred. Such treatment, if required by the IRS, could have a material adverse impact on CenterPoint Energy’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows in addition to any potential loss resulting from final resolution of the True-Up Order. In its opinion, the court of appeals ordered that this issue be remanded to the Texas Utility Commission, as that commission requested. No party has challenged that order by the court of appeals although the Texas Supreme Court has the authority to consider all aspects of the rulings above, not just those challenged specifically by the appellants. CenterPoint Energy and CenterPoint Houston will continue to pursue a favorable resolution of this issue through the appellate and administrative process. Although the Texas Utility Commission has not previously required a company subject to its jurisdiction to take action that would result in a normalization violation, no prediction can be made as to the ultimate action the Texas Utility Commission may take on this issue on remand.</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 Texas electric restructuring law allowed the amounts awarded to CenterPoint Houston in the Texas Utility Commission’s True-Up Order to be recovered either through securitization or through implementation of a competition transition charge (CTC) or both. Pursuant to a financing order issued by the Texas Utility Commission in March 2005 and affirmed by a Travis County district court, in December 2005, a new special purpose subsidiary of CenterPoint Houston issued $1.85 billion in transition bonds with interest rates ranging from 4.84% to 5.30% and final maturity dates ranging from February 2011 to August 2020. Through issuance of the transition bonds, </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">CenterPoint Houston recovered approximately $1.7 billion of the true-up balance determined in the True-Up Order plus interest through the date on which the bonds were issued.</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 July 2005, CenterPoint Houston received an order from the Texas Utility Commission allowing it to implement a CTC designed to collect the remaining $596 million from the True-Up Order over 14 years plus interest at an annual rate of 11.075% (CTC Order). The CTC Order authorized CenterPoint Houston to impose a charge on REPs to recover the portion of the true-up balance not recovered through a financing order. The CTC Order also allowed CenterPoint Houston to collect approximately $24 million of rate case expenses over three years without a return through a separate tariff rider (Rider RCE). CenterPoint Houston implemented the CTC and Rider RCE effective September 13, 2005 and began recovering approximately $620 million. The return on the CTC portion of the true-up balance was included in CenterPoint Houston’s tariff-based revenues beginning September 13, 2005. Effective August 1, 2006, the interest rate on the unrecovered balance of the CTC was reduced from 11.075% to 8.06% pursuant to a revised rule adopted by the Texas Utility Commission in June 2006. Recovery of rate case expenses under Rider RCE was completed in September 2008.</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">Certain parties appealed the CTC Order to a district court in Travis County. In May 2006, the district court issued a judgment reversing the CTC Order in three respects. First, the court ruled that the Texas Utility Commission had improperly relied on provisions of its rule dealing with the interest rate applicable to CTC amounts. The district court reached that conclusion based on its belief that the Texas Supreme Court had previously invalidated that entire section of the rule. The 11.075% interest rate in question was applicable from the implementation of the CTC Order on September 13, 2005 until August 1, 2006, the effective date of the implementation of a new CTC in compliance with the revised rule discussed above. Second, the district court reversed the Texas Utility Commission’s ruling that allows CenterPoint Houston to recover through Rider RCE the costs (approximately $5 million) for a panel appointed by the Texas Utility Commission in connection with the valuation of electric generation assets. Finally, the district court accepted the contention of one party that the CTC should not be allocated to retail customers that have switched to new on-site generation. The Texas Utility Commission and CenterPoint Houston appealed the district court’s judgment to the Texas Third Court of Appeals, and in July 2008, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment in all respects and affirmed the Texas Utility Commission’s order. Two parties appealed the court of appeals decision to the Texas Supreme Court which heard oral argument in October 2009. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted at this time. However, CenterPoint Energy does not expect the disposition of this matter to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy’s or CenterPoint Houston’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">During the 2007 legislative session, the Texas legislature amended statutes prescribing the types of true-up balances that can be securitized by utilities and authorized the issuance of transition bonds to recover the balance of the CTC. In June 2007, CenterPoint Houston filed a request with the Texas Utility Commission for a financing order that would allow the securitization of the remaining balance of the CTC, adjusted to refund certain unspent environmental retrofit costs and to recover the amount of the final fuel reconciliation settlement. CenterPoint Houston reached substantial agreement with other parties to this proceeding, and a financing order was approved by the Texas Utility Commission in September 2007. In February 2008, pursuant to the financing order, a new special purpose subsidiary of CenterPoint Houston issued approximately $488 million of transition bonds in two tranches with interest rates of 4.192% and 5.234% and final maturity dates of February 2020 and February 2023, respectively. Contemporaneously with the issuance of those bonds, the CTC was terminated and a transition charge was implemented. During the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008, CenterPoint Houston recognized approximately $42 million and $5 million, respectively, in operating income from the CTC.</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">As of December 31, 2009, CenterPoint Energy has not recognized an allowed equity return of $193 million on CenterPoint Houston’s true-up balance because such return will be recognized as it is recovered in rates. During the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, CenterPoint Houston recognized approximately $14 million, $13 million and $13 million, respectively, of the allowed equity return not previously recognized.</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) Rate 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"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Texas.</font> In March 2008, the natural gas distribution businesses of CERC (Gas Operations) filed a request to change its rates with the Railroad Commission of Texas (Railroad Commission) and the 47 cities in its Texas Coast service territory, an area consisting of approximately 230,000 customers in cities and communities on the outskirts of </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Houston. In 2008, Gas Operations implemented rates increasing annual revenues by approximately $3.5 million.  The implemented rates were contested by 9 cities in an appeal to the 353rd District Court in Travis County, Texas. In January 2010, that court reversed the Railroad Commission’s order in part and remanded the matter to the Railroad Commission.  The court concluded that the Railroad Commission did not have statutory authority to impose on the complaining cities the cost of service adjustment mechanism which the Railroad Commission had approved in its order.  Certain parties filed a motion to modify the district court’s judgment and a final decision is not expected until April 2010.  CenterPoint Energy and CERC do not expect the outcome of this matter 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"> <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 July 2009, Gas Operations filed a request to change its rates with the Railroad Commission and the 29 cities in its Houston service territory, consisting of approximately 940,000 customers in and around Houston. The request seeks to establish uniform rates, charges and terms and conditions of service for the cities and environs of the Houston service territory. As finally submitted to the Railroad Commission and the cities, the proposed new rates would result in an overall increase in annual revenue of $20.4 million, excluding carrying costs on gas inventory of approximately $2 million. In January 2010, Gas Operations withdrew its request for an annual cost of service adjustment mechanism due to the uncertainty caused by the court’s ruling in the above-mentioned Texas Coast appeal. In February 2010, the Railroad Commission issued its decision authorizing a revenue increase of $5.1 million annually, reflecting reduced depreciation rates of $1.2 million.  The hearing examiner also recommended a surcharge of $0.9 million per year to recover Hurricane Ike costs over three years.</font></div> </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 May 2009, CenterPoint Houston filed an application at the Texas Utility Commission seeking approval of certain estimated 2010 energy efficiency program costs, an energy efficiency performance bonus for 2008 programs and carrying costs, totaling approximately $10 million. The application sought to begin recovery of these costs through a surcharge effective July 1, 2010. In October 2009, the Texas Utility Commission issued its order approving recovery of the 2010 energy efficiency program costs and a partial performance bonus, plus carrying costs, but refused to permit CenterPoint Houston to recover a performance bonus of $2 million on approximately $10 million in 2008 energy efficiency costs expended pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement reached in CenterPoint Houston’s 2006 rate proceeding.  CenterPoint Houston has appealed the denial of the full 2008 performance bonus to the district court in Travis County, Texas, where the case remains pending.</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">Minnesota.</font> In November 2006, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) denied a request filed by Gas Operations for a waiver of MPUC rules in order to allow Gas Operations to recover approximately $21 million in unrecovered purchased gas costs related to periods prior to July 1, 2004. Those unrecovered gas costs were identified as a result of revisions to previously approved calculations of unrecovered purchased gas costs. Following that denial, Gas Operations recorded a $21 million adjustment to reduce pre-tax earnings in the fourth quarter of 2006 and reduced the regulatory asset related to these costs by an equal amount. In March 2007, following the MPUC’s denial of reconsideration of its ruling, Gas Operations petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals for review of the MPUC’s decision, and in May 2008 that court ruled that the MPUC had been arbitrary and capricious in denying Gas Operations a waiver. The MPUC sought further review of the court of appeals decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court.  In July 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and upheld the MPUC’s decision to deny the requested variance. The court’s decision had no negative impact on CenterPoint Energy’s or CERC’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, as the costs at issue were written off at the time they were disallowed.</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 November 2008, Gas Operations filed a request with the MPUC to increase its rates for utility distribution service by $59.8 million annually.  In addition, Gas Operations sought an adjustment mechanism that would annually adjust rates to reflect changes in use per customer.  In December 2008, the MPUC accepted the case and approved an interim rate increase of $51.2 million, which became effective on January 2, 2009, subject to refund. In January 2010, the MPUC issued its decision authorizing a revenue increase of $41 million per year, with an overall rate of return of 8.09% (10.24% return on equity).The difference between the rates approved by the MPUC and amounts collected under the interim rates, $10 million as of December 31, 2009, is recorded in other current liabilities and will be refunded to customers. The MPUC also authorized Gas Operations to implement a pilot program for residential and small volume commercial customers that is intended to decouple gas revenues from customers’ natural gas usage. In February 2010, CERC filed a request for rehearing of the order by the MPUC.  No </font><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">other party to the case filed such a request.  CERC and CenterPoint Energy do not expect a final order to be issued in this proceeding until spring 2010.</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">Mississippi.</font>  In July 2009, Gas Operations filed a request to increase its rates for utility distribution service with the Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC). In November 2009, as part of a settlement agreement in which the MPSC approved Gas Operations’ retention of the compensation paid under the terms of an asset management agreement, Gas Operations withdrew its rate request.</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) Regulatory Accounting</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 has a 50% ownership interest in Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) which owns and operates a 270-mile interstate natural gas pipeline.  In 2009, SESH discontinued the use of guidance for accounting for regulated operations, which resulted in CenterPoint Energy recording its share of the effects of such write-offs of SESH’s regulatory assets through non-cash pre-tax charges for the year ended December 31, 2009 of $16 million.  These non-cash charges are reflected in equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates in the Statements of Consolidated Income.  The related tax benefits of $6 million are reflected in the Income Tax Expense line in the Statements of Consolidated Income.</font></div> <div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div> </div> (3)       Regulatory Matters (a) Hurricane Ike CenterPoint Houston’s electric delivery false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true