Commitments include minimum purchase obligations related to CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas reportable segment and CenterPoint Energy’s Electric reportable segment. A purchase obligation is defined as an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding on the registrant and that specifies all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Contracts with minimum payment provisions have various quantity requirements and durations and are not classified as non-trading derivative assets and liabilities in CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021 and 2020. These contracts meet an exception as “normal purchases contracts” or do not meet the definition of a derivative. Natural gas and coal supply commitments also include transportation contracts that do not meet the definition of a derivative.

On February 9, 2021, Indiana Electric entered into a BTA with a subsidiary of Capital Dynamics. Pursuant to the BTA, Capital Dynamics, with its partner Tenaska, will build a 300 MW solar array in Posey County, Indiana through a special purpose entity, Posey Solar. Upon completion of construction, currently projected to be at the end of 2023, and subject to IURC approval, which was received on October 27, 2021, Indiana Electric will acquire Posey Solar and its solar array assets for a fixed purchase price. Due to rising cost for the project, caused in part by supply chain issues in the energy industry, the rising cost of commodities and community feedback, CenterPoint Energy, along with Capital Dynamics, recently announced plans to downsize the project to approximately 200 MW. Indiana Electric collaboratively agreed to the scope change and is currently working through contract negotiations, contingent on further IURC review and approval.

Upon expiration of the AMAs with the Energy Services Disposal Group discussed in Note 4, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses entered into new third-party AMAs beginning in April 2021 associated with their utility distribution service in Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Additionally, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas business in Minnesota entered into a third-party AMA beginning in February 2021. The AMAs have varying terms, the longest of which expires in 2027. Pursuant to the provisions of the agreements, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas either sells natural gas to the asset manager and agrees to repurchase an equivalent amount of natural gas throughout the year at the same cost, or simply purchases its full natural gas requirements at each delivery point from the asset

manager. Generally, AMAs are contracts between CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas and an asset manager that are intended to transfer the working capital obligation and maximize the utilization of the assets. In these agreements, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas agrees to release transportation and storage capacity to other parties to manage natural gas storage, supply and delivery arrangements for CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas and to use the released capacity for other purposes when it is not needed for CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas. CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas may receive compensation from the asset manager through payments made over the life of the AMAs. CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas has an obligation to purchase their winter storage requirements that have been released to the asset manager under these AMAs. For amounts outstanding under these AMAs, see Notes 4 and 14.

Specific to Energy Systems Group’s role as a general contractor in the performance contracting industry, as of December 31, 2021, there were 53 open surety bonds supporting future performance with an aggregate face amount of approximately $569 million. Energy Systems Group’s exposure is less than the face amount of the surety bonds and is limited to the level of uncompleted work under the contracts. As of December 31, 2021, approximately 30% of the work was yet to be completed on projects with open surety bonds. Further, various subcontractors issue surety bonds to Energy Systems Group. In addition to these performance obligations, Energy Systems Group also warrants the functionality of certain installed infrastructure generally for one year and the associated energy savings over a specified number of years. As of December 31, 2021, there were 35 warranties totaling $550 million and an additional $1.2 billion in energy savings commitments not guaranteed by Vectren Corp. Since Energy Systems Group’s inception in 1994, CenterPoint Energy believes Energy Systems Group has had a history of generally meeting its performance obligations and energy savings guarantees and its installed products operating effectively. CenterPoint Energy assessed the fair value of its obligation for such guarantees as of December 31, 2021 and no amounts were recorded on CenterPoint Energy’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CenterPoint Energy issues parent company level guarantees to certain vendors, customers and other commercial counterparties of Energy Systems Group. These guarantees do not represent incremental consolidated obligations, but rather, represent guarantees of subsidiary obligations to allow those subsidiaries to conduct business without posting other forms of assurance. As of December 31, 2021, CenterPoint Energy, primarily through Vectren, has issued parent company level guarantees supporting Energy Systems Group’s obligations. For those obligations where potential exposure can be estimated, management estimates the maximum exposure under these guarantees to be approximately $514 million as of December 31, 2021. This exposure primarily relates to energy savings guarantees on federal energy savings performance contracts. Other parent company level guarantees, certain of which do not contain a cap on potential liability, have been issued in support of federal operations and maintenance projects for which a maximum exposure cannot be estimated based on the nature of the projects. While there can be no assurance that performance under any of these parent company guarantees will not be required in the future, CenterPoint Energy considers the likelihood of a material amount being incurred as remote.

On February 24, 2020, CenterPoint Energy, through its subsidiary CERC Corp., entered into the Equity Purchase Agreement to sell the Energy Services Disposal Group. The transaction closed on June 1, 2020. In the normal course of business prior to June 1, 2020, the Energy Services Disposal Group through CES, traded natural gas under supply contracts and entered into natural gas related transactions under transportation, storage and other contracts. In connection with the Energy Services Disposal Group’s business activities prior to the closing of the sale of the Energy Services Disposal Group on June 1, 2020, CERC Corp. issued guarantees to CES’s counterparties to guarantee the payment of CES’s obligations. When CES remained wholly owned by CERC Corp., these guarantees did not represent incremental consolidated obligations, but rather, these guarantees represented guarantees of CES’s obligations to allow it to conduct business without posting other forms of assurance. See Note 4 for further information.

Under the terms of the Equity Purchase Agreement, Symmetry Energy Solutions Acquisition must generally use reasonable best efforts to replace existing CERC Corp. guarantees with credit support provided by a party other than CERC Corp. as of and after the closing of the transaction. Additionally, to the extent that CERC Corp. retains any exposure relating to certain guarantees of CES’s obligations 90 days after closing of the transaction, Symmetry Energy Solutions Acquisition will pay a 3% annualized fee on such exposure, increasing by 1% on an annualized basis every three months. As of December 31, 2020, CES had provided replacement credit support to counterparties to whom CERC Corp. had issued guarantees prior to June 1, 2020, representing all $23 million of the estimated remaining exposure under the previously issued guarantees. CERC believes that counterparties to whom replacement credit support has been provided would seek payment if needed under such replacement credit support instead of a CERC Corp. guarantee. No additional guarantees were provided by CERC Corp. to CES subsequent to the closing of the transaction on June 1, 2020.

If CERC Corp. is required to pay a counterparty under a guarantee in respect of obligations of CES, Symmetry Energy Solutions Acquisition is required to promptly reimburse CERC Corp. for all amounts paid. If Symmetry Energy Solutions Acquisition fails to reimburse CERC Corp., CERC Corp. has the contractual right to seek payment from Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. in an amount up to $40 million in the aggregate. While there can be no assurance that payment under any of these guarantees will not be required in the future, CenterPoint Energy and CERC consider the likelihood of a material amount being incurred as remote.

Minnehaha Academy (CenterPoint Energy and CERC). On August 2, 2017, a natural gas explosion occurred at the Minnehaha Academy in Minneapolis, Minnesota, resulting in the deaths of two school employees, serious injuries to others and significant property damage to the school. CenterPoint Energy, certain of its subsidiaries, including CERC, and the contractor company working in the school were named in wrongful death, property damage and personal injury litigation arising out of the incident and have now reached confidential settlement agreements in all litigation, and all related governmental matters were previously concluded. CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s general and excess liability insurance policies provide coverage for third party bodily injury and property damage claims. These matters are now concluded.

Litigation Related to the Merger (CenterPoint Energy). With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of Vectren’s Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because it omitted material information concerning the Merger. The District Court consolidated and subsequently dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice, and the plaintiffs appealed. On September 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order of dismissal. The plaintiffs did not seek rehearing in the Court of Appeals nor review by the Supreme Court of the United States. This matter is now concluded.

Litigation Related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event. With respect to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, along with ERCOT, power generation companies, and others, have received claims and lawsuits filed by plaintiffs alleging personal injury, property damage and other injuries and damages. Additionally, various regulatory and governmental entities have announced that they intend to conduct or are conducting inquiries, investigations and other reviews of the February 2021 Winter Storm Event and the efforts made by various entities to prepare for, and respond to, this event, including the electric generation shortfall issues. Such entities include the United States Congress, FERC, NERC, Texas RE, ERCOT, Texas government entities and officials such as the Texas Governor’s office, the Texas Legislature, the Texas Attorney General, the PUCT, the City of Houston and other municipal and county entities in Houston Electric’s service territory, among other entities.

Like other Texas TDUs, Houston Electric has become involved in certain of the above-referenced investigations, litigation or other regulatory and legal proceedings regarding their efforts to restore power and their compliance with NERC, ERCOT and PUCT rules and directives. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric have responded to inquiries from the Texas Attorney General and the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office, and CenterPoint Energy and CERC have responded to inquiries from the Arkansas, Minnesota and Oklahoma Attorneys General. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric are subject to, and may be further subject to, litigation and claims. Such claims include, or in the future could include, wrongful death, personal

injury and property damage claims, lawsuits for impacts on businesses and other organizations and entities and shareholder claims, among other claims or litigation matters. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, along with numerous other entities, have been named as defendants in such litigation, all of which is now pending in state court as part of a multi-district litigation proceeding. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised. CenterPoint Energy, Houston Electric and CERC are unable to predict the consequences of any such matters or to estimate a range of potential losses.

MGP Sites. CenterPoint Energy, CERC and their predecessors operated MGPs in the past. In addition, certain of CenterPoint Energy’s subsidiaries acquired through the Merger operated MGPs in the past. The costs CenterPoint Energy or CERC, as applicable, expect to incur to fulfill their respective obligations are estimated by management using assumptions based on actual costs incurred, the timing of expected future payments and inflation factors, among others. While CenterPoint Energy and CERC have recorded all costs which they presently are obligated to incur in connection with activities at these sites, it is possible that future events may require remedial activities which are not presently foreseen, and those costs may not be subject to PRP or insurance recovery.

(ii)Indiana MGPs (CenterPoint Energy). In the Indiana Gas service territory, the existence, location and certain general characteristics of 26 gas manufacturing and storage sites have been identified for which CenterPoint Energy may have some remedial responsibility. A remedial investigation/feasibility study was completed at one of the sites under an agreed upon order between Indiana Gas and the IDEM, and a Record of Decision was issued by the IDEM in January 2000. The remaining sites have been submitted to the IDEM’s VRP. CenterPoint Energy has also identified its involvement in 5 manufactured gas plant sites in SIGECO’s service territory, all of which are currently enrolled in the IDEM’s VRP. CenterPoint Energy is currently conducting some level of remedial activities, including groundwater monitoring at certain sites.

Asbestos. Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CCR Rule (CenterPoint Energy). In April 2015, the EPA finalized its CCR Rule, which regulates ash as non-hazardous material under the RCRA. The final rule allows beneficial reuse of ash, and the majority of the ash generated by Indiana Electric’s generating plants will continue to be reused. In July 2018, the EPA released its final CCR Rule Phase I Reconsideration which extended the deadline to October 31, 2020 for ceasing placement of ash in ponds that exceed groundwater protections standards or that fail to meet location restrictions. In August 2019, the EPA proposed additional “Part A” amendments to its CCR Rule with respect to beneficial reuse of ash and other materials. Further “Part B” amendments, which related to alternate liners for CCR surface impoundments and the surface impoundment closure process, were published in March 2020. The Part A amendments were finalized in August 2020 and extended the deadline to cease placement of ash in ponds to April 11, 2021, discussed further below. The EPA published the final Part B amendments in November 2020. The Part A amendments do not restrict Indiana Electric’s current beneficial reuse of its fly ash. CenterPoint Energy evaluated the Part B amendments to determine potential impacts and determined that the Part B amendments did not have an impact on its current plans. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order requiring agencies to review environmental actions taken by the Trump administration, including the CCR Rule Phase I Reconsideration, the Part A amendments, and the Part B amendments; the EPA has completed its review of the Phase I Reconsideration, Part A amendments, and Part B amendments and determined that the most environmentally protective course is to implement the rules.

Indiana Electric has three ash ponds, two at the F.B. Culley facility (Culley East and Culley West) and one at the A.B. Brown facility. Under the existing CCR Rule, Indiana Electric is required to perform integrity assessments, including ground water monitoring, at its F.B. Culley and A.B. Brown generating stations. The ground water studies are necessary to determine the remaining service life of the ponds and whether a pond must be retrofitted with liners or closed in place. Indiana Electric’s Warrick generating unit is not included in the scope of the CCR Rule as this unit has historically been part of a larger generating station that predominantly serves an adjacent industrial facility. Preliminary groundwater monitoring indicates potential groundwater impacts very close to Indiana Electric’s ash impoundments, and further analysis is ongoing. The CCR Rule required companies to complete location restriction determinations by October 18, 2018. Indiana Electric completed its evaluation and determined that one F.B. Culley pond (Culley East) and the A.B. Brown pond fail the aquifer placement location restriction. As a result of this failure, Indiana Electric was required to cease disposal of new ash in the ponds and commence closure of the ponds by April 11, 2021, unless approved for an extension. CenterPoint Energy has applied for the extensions available under the CCR Rule that would allow Indiana Electric to continue to use the ponds through October 15, 2023. The EPA is still reviewing industry extension requests, including CenterPoint Energy’s extension request. Companies can continue to operate ponds pending completion of the EPA’s evaluation of the requests for extension. If the EPA denies a full extension request, that denial may result in increased and potentially significant operational costs in connection with the accelerated implementation of an alternative ash disposal system or may adversely impact Indiana Electric’s future operations. Failure to comply with a cease waste receipt could also result in an enforcement proceeding, resulting in the imposition of fines and penalties. On April 24, 2019, Indiana Electric received an order from the IURC approving recovery in rates of costs associated with the closure of the Culley West pond, which has already completed closure activities. On August 14, 2019, Indiana Electric filed its petition with the IURC for recovery of costs associated with the closure of the A.B. Brown ash pond, which would include costs associated with the excavation and recycling of ponded ash. This petition was subsequently approved by the IURC on May 13, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the IURC approved Indiana Electric’s ECA proceeding, which included the initiation of recovery of the federally mandated project costs.

Other Environmental. From time to time, the Registrants identify the presence of environmental contaminants during operations or on property where predecessors have conducted operations. Other such sites involving contaminants may be identified in the future. The Registrants have and expect to continue to remediate any identified sites consistent with state and federal legal obligations. From time to time, the Registrants have received notices, and may receive notices in the future, from regulatory authorities or others regarding status as a PRP in connection with sites found to require remediation due to the presence of environmental contaminants. In addition, the Registrants have been, or may be, named from time to time as defendants in litigation related to such sites. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Registrants are involved in other legal, environmental, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. From time to time, the Registrants are also defendants in legal proceedings with respect to claims brought by various plaintiffs against broad groups of participants in the energy industry. Some of these proceedings involve substantial amounts. The Registrants regularly analyze current information and, as necessary, provide accruals for probable and reasonably estimable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters. The Registrants do not expect the disposition of these matters to have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.