Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Natural Gas Supply Commitments

Natural gas supply commitments include natural gas contracts related to CERC’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 CERC’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011 and 2012 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, 2012, minimum payment obligations for natural gas supply commitments are approximately $430 million in 2013, $344 million in 2014, $214 million in 2015, $149 million in 2016, $96 million in 2017 and $156 million after 2017.

(b) Asset Management Agreements

Gas Operations has 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.

The following table sets forth information concerning CERC’s obligations under non-cancelable long-term operating leases at December 31, 2012, which primarily consist of rental agreements for building space, data processing equipment, compression equipment and rights of way (in millions):



2013	$	12
2014	8
2015	5
2016	5
2017	3
2018 and beyond	13
Total	$	46

Total lease expense for all operating leases was $76 million, $42 million and $26 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

(d) Long-Term Gas Gathering and Treating Agreements

CenterPoint Energy Field Services, LLC (CEFS) has 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 Texas and Louisiana.

Under the long-term agreements, Encana or Shell may elect to require CEFS to expand the capacity of its gathering systems by up to an additional 1.3 Bcf per day. CEFS estimates that the cost to expand the capacity of its gathering systems by an additional 1.3 Bcf per day would be as much as $440 million. Encana and Shell would provide incremental volume commitments in connection with an election to expand system capacity.

(e) Legal, Environmental and Other Regulatory Matters

Legal Matters

Gas Market Manipulation Cases. CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor, Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits described below. Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, RRI Energy, Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses, including attorneys’ fees and other costs, arising out of these lawsuits. In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business to a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc. In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn). In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG. None of the sale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI’s (now GenOn’s) contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification obligations regarding the gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect the terms of existing guaranty arrangements for certain GenOn gas transportation contracts discussed below.

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 were 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 since 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. In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants in the case, each of whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, based on federal preemption. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay the dismissal of this case pending the filing and final disposition of their petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. In December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 4, 2013, the Supreme Court removed the case from its docket since the plaintiffs’ petition exceeded the applicable word limit. In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a corrected petition with the Supreme Court. 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.

Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits. 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 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 and, in March 2010, denied the plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of that order. In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss certain defendants from both lawsuits, including the remaining CERC Corp. defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of gas and that these lawsuits are without merit. CERC does not expect the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits to have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. 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.

As of December 31, 2012, CERC had recorded a liability of $14 million for remediation of these Minnesota sites. The estimated range of possible remediation costs for the sites CERC believes it has responsibility for was $6 million to $41 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 (PRPs), if any, and the remediation methods used. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission includes approximately $285,000 annually in rates to fund normal on-going remediation costs. As of December 31, 2012, CERC had collected $5.8 million from insurance companies to be used for future environmental remediation.

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 does not expect the ultimate outcome of these investigations will have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Asbestos. Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CERC or its predecessor companies 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 CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Environmental. From time to time CERC identifies the presence of environmental contaminants on property where it conducts or has conducted operations. Other such sites involving contaminants may be identified in the future. CERC has remediated and expects to continue to remediate identified sites consistent with its legal obligations. From time to time CERC 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, CERC 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, CERC does not expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Proceedings

CERC 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. CERC regularly analyzes current information and, as necessary, provides accruals for probable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters. CERC does not expect the disposition of these matters to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

(f) Guaranties

Prior to the distribution of CenterPoint Energy’s 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 (now GenOn) 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 based on an annual calculation, with any required collateral to be posted each December. The undiscounted maximum potential payout of the demand charges under these transportation contracts, which will be in effect until 2018, was approximately $73 million as of December 31, 2012. Based on market conditions in the fourth quarter of 2012 at the time the most recent annual calculation was made under the agreement, GenOn was not obligated to post any security. As a result, CERC returned to GenOn in the fourth quarter of 2012 the approximately $28 million of aggregate collateral previously posted by GenOn under the agreement. If GenOn should fail to perform the contractual obligations, CERC could have to honor its guarantee and, in such event, any collateral then provided as security may be insufficient to satisfy CERC's obligations.