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, 2023 and 2022. 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 1, 2023, Indiana Electric entered into an amended and restated BTA to purchase the 191 MW Posey Solar project for a fixed purchase price over the anticipated 35-year life. On February 7, 2023, Indiana Electric filed a CPCN with the IURC to approve the amended BTA. With the passage of the IRA, Indiana Electric can now pursue PTCs for solar projects. Indiana Electric filed the updated CPCN with a request that project costs, net of PTCs, be recovered in rate base, through base rates or the CECA mechanism, depending on which provides more timely recovery. On September 6, 2023, the IURC issued an order approving the CPCN. The Posey Solar project is expected to be placed in service in 2025.

On January 11, 2023, the IURC issued an order approving the settlement agreement granting Indiana Electric a CPCN to purchase and acquire the 130 MW Pike County solar project through a BTA and approved the estimated cost. The IURC also designated the project as a clean energy project as well as approved the proposed levelized rate and associated ratemaking and accounting treatment. Due to inflationary pressures, the developer disclosed that costs have exceeded the agreed upon levels in the BTA. Once pricing is updated and parties determine whether to continue with the project, Indiana Electric may have to refile for approval of the project with the IURC, which could delay the in-service date from 2025 to 2026. If Indiana Electric is not able to reach a mutually acceptable solution with the developers of the Pike County Solar project, Indiana Electric may seek to terminate the project.

CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas businesses continue to utilize AMAs associated with their utility distribution service in Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas. The AMAs have varying terms, the longest of which expires in 2029. Pursuant to the provisions of the agreements, CenterPoint Energy’s and CERC’s Natural Gas 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 Note 13.

In the normal course of business prior to the consummation of the transaction on June 30, 2023, CenterPoint Energy, primarily through Vectren, issued parent company level guarantees supporting Energy Systems Group’s obligations. When Energy Systems Group was wholly owned by CenterPoint Energy, these guarantees did not represent incremental consolidated obligations, but rather, these guarantees represented guarantees of Energy Systems Group’s obligations to allow it to conduct business without posting other forms of assurance. For those obligations where potential exposure can be estimated, management estimates the maximum exposure under these guarantees to be approximately $503 million as of December 31, 2023 and expects the exposure to decrease pro rata. This exposure primarily relates to energy savings guarantees on federal energy savings performance contracts. Other parent company level guarantees, certain of which do not contain a cap on potential liability, were issued prior to the sale of Energy Systems Group in support of federal operations and maintenance projects for which a maximum exposure cannot be estimated based on the nature of the projects.

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. CenterPoint Energy believes that, from Energy Systems Group’s inception in 1994 to the closing of the sale of Energy Systems Group on June 30, 2023, Energy Systems Group had a history of generally meeting its performance obligations and energy savings guarantees and its installed products operated effectively. CenterPoint Energy recorded no amounts on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022 related to its obligation under the outstanding guarantees.

Litigation Related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event. Various legal proceedings are still pending against numerous entities with respect to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, including against CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, Houston Electric, and CERC. Like other Texas energy companies and TDUs, CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric have become involved in certain investigations, litigation and other regulatory and legal proceedings regarding their efforts to restore power during the storm and their compliance with NERC, ERCOT and PUCT rules and directives. Additionally, like other natural gas market participants, CERC has been named in litigation alleging gas market manipulation.

CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, and Houston Electric, along with hundreds of other defendants (including ERCOT, power generation companies, other TDUs, natural gas producers, REPs, and other entities) have received claims and lawsuits filed by plaintiffs alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and other injuries and damages. As of December 31, 2023, there are approximately 220 pending lawsuits that are consolidated in Texas state court in Harris County, Texas, as part of the MDL proceeding related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, and CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, along with numerous other entities, have been named as defendants in approximately 155 of those lawsuits. One of the lawsuits in the MDL is a putative class action on behalf of everyone who received electric power via ERCOT grid and sustained a power outage between February 10, 2021 and February 28, 2021. Additionally, Utility Holding, LLC is currently named as a defendant in one lawsuit in which CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric are also named as defendants.

The judge overseeing the MDL issued an initial case management order and stayed all proceedings and discovery. Per the case management order, the judge entertained dispositive motions in five representative or “bellwether” cases and, in late January 2023, issued rulings on them. In a recent opinion in an unrelated matter, the Texas Supreme Court held that ERCOT is entitled to sovereign immunity. This ruling will apply to claims against ERCOT in the MDL. The MDL judge also dismissed all claims against the natural gas defendants (which list of natural gas defendants incorrectly included Utility Holding, LLC) and the REP defendants and some causes of action against the other defendants. CenterPoint Energy expects that the claims against Utility Holding, LLC will ultimately be dismissed in light of the judge’s initial rulings. As to the TDU and generator defendants, the judge dismissed some causes of action but denied the motions to dismiss claims for negligence, gross negligence, and nuisance, which denial the TDU defendants and generator defendants asked the courts of appeals to overturn. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas heard oral argument in the TDU mandamus proceeding on October 23, 2023. An opinion in that proceeding has not yet been issued. On December 14, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued an opinion in the generator mandamus proceeding, granting the generators’ mandamus request and ordering that plaintiffs’ remaining claims against the generators be dismissed. The plaintiffs are expected to seek rehearing before the entire First Court of Appeals of that panel’s ruling. The MDL judge is allowing defendants (including Houston Electric) to file several additional motions on preliminary legal issues, and otherwise the cases remain stayed. CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, LLC, and Houston Electric intends to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised.

gas utilities, and financial institutions. Plaintiffs named CERC as a defendant, along with “CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.,” incorrectly identifying it as CERC’s parent company (CenterPoint Energy previously divested CES). One lawsuit filed in Harris County is a putative class action on behalf of two classes of electric and natural gas customers (those who experienced a loss of electricity and/or natural gas, and those who were charged securitization-related surcharges on a utility bill or were otherwise charged higher rates for electricity and/or gas during the February 2021 Winter Storm Event), potentially including millions of class members. Two other lawsuits (one filed in Harris County and one in Tom Green County) are brought by an entity that purports to be an assignee of claims by tens of thousands of persons and entities that have assigned claims to the plaintiff. These, and nine other similar lawsuits filed in Harris County, generally allege that the defendants engaged in gas market manipulation and price gouging, including by intentionally withholding, suppressing, or diverting supplies of natural gas in connection with the February 2021 Winter Storm Event, Winter Storm Elliott, and other severe weather conditions, and through financial market manipulation. Plaintiffs allege that this manipulation impacted gas supply and prices as well as the market, supply, and price of electricity in Texas and caused blackouts and other damage. Plaintiffs assert claims for tortious interference with existing contract, private nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and allege a broad array of injuries and damages, including personal injury, property damage, and harm from certain costs being securitized and passed on to ratepayers. The lawsuits do not specify the amount of damages sought, but seek broad categories of actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential economic, and punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs and attorneys’ fees; and other relief. As of December 31, 2023, most of the lawsuits have not been served, but the three cases in which defendants were served were tagged for transfer to the existing MDL proceeding referenced above. The plaintiffs in those three cases filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to their original trial courts and out of the MDL. On August 1, 2023, the judge overseeing the MDL denied the motions to remand. On November 29, 2023, the MDL panel denied Plaintiffs’ joint motion for reconsideration of the MDL judge’s orders denying remand, and the time to appeal the MDL panel’s decision has passed. These lawsuits remain pending in the MDL, and CERC intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims raised, including by raising jurisdictional challenges to the plaintiffs’ claims. The nine other similar lawsuits filed in Harris County have also been tagged for transfer to the MDL proceeding, but the defendants, including CERC, have not been served. These gas market cases are in addition to the 220 cases noted above regarding electric market issues.

To date, there have not been demands, quantification, disclosure or discovery of damages by any party to any of the above legal matters that are sufficient to enable CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries to estimate exposure. Given that, as well as the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the numerosity of parties and complexity of issues involved, and the uncertainties of litigation, CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome or consequences of any of the foregoing matters or to estimate a range of potential losses. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries have general and excess liability insurance policies that provide coverage for third-party bodily injury and property damage claims. As CenterPoint Energy previously noted, given the nature of certain of the plaintiffs’ allegations, insurance coverage may not be available other than for third party bodily injury and property damage claims caused by an accident, and one of CenterPoint Energy’s insurers recently denied coverage for intentional injury as alleged by plaintiffs in the gas market cases. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries intend to continue to pursue any and all available insurance coverage for all of these matters.

Jefferson Parish. Several parishes and the State of Louisiana filed 42 suits under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SCLRMA) against hundreds of oil and gas companies seeking compensatory damages for contamination and erosion of the Louisiana coastline allegedly caused by historical oil and gas operations. One of the defendants in one of the lawsuits (filed in 2013 only by the Parish of Jefferson) is Primary Fuels, Inc., a predecessor company of CenterPoint Energy, which operated in Louisiana from 1983-1989. All 42 suits were removed to Louisiana federal courts twice and were stayed for several years pending the district courts’ consideration of various motions to remand and multiple appeals of remand orders. Recently, several cases involving other parishes that had been remanded to Louisiana state court have begun to resume proceedings in state court. However, as of December 31, 2023, the federal district court had not ruled on Jefferson Parish’s motion to remand to state court the lawsuit which includes Primary Fuels among the defendants.

MGP Sites. CenterPoint Energy, CERC and their predecessors, including predecessors of Vectren, operated MGPs in the past. The costs CenterPoint Energy or CERC, as applicable, expect to incur to fulfill their respective obligations are estimated by management using assumptions based on actual costs incurred, the timing of expected future payments and inflation factors, among others. While CenterPoint Energy and CERC have recorded obligations for all costs which are probable and estimable, including amounts they are presently obligated to incur in connection with activities at these sites, it is possible that future

(ii)Indiana MGPs (CenterPoint Energy and CERC). In the Indiana Gas service territory, the existence, location and certain general characteristics of 26 gas manufacturing and storage sites have been identified for which CenterPoint Energy and CERC may have some remedial responsibility. A remedial investigation/feasibility study was completed at one of the sites under an agreed upon order between Indiana Gas and the IDEM, and a Record of Decision was issued by the IDEM in January 2000. The remaining sites have been submitted to the IDEM’s VRP. CenterPoint Energy has also identified its involvement in 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. 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 Part A amendments do not restrict Indiana Electric’s current beneficial reuse of its fly ash. On May 18, 2023, the EPA issued a proposed revision to the CCR rule that could potentially expand the scope of units regulated under the federal CCR rule (the CCR “Legacy” rule). The CCR Legacy rule seeks to include legacy CCR surface impoundments (inactive surface impoundments at inactive generating facilities) as well as new “CCR management units” at active or inactive facilities otherwise subject to federal CCR regulations. The potential impact of the CCR Legacy rule is uncertain at this time, and if finalized could require Registrant to conduct additional CCR investigations.

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 were 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. Groundwater monitoring indicates potential groundwater impacts adjacent 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 filed timely extension requests available under the CCR Rule that would allow Indiana Electric to continue to use the ponds through October 15, 2023. On October 5, 2022, the EPA issued a proposed conditional approval of the Part A extension request for the A.B. Brown pond. Both the Culley East and A.B. Brown facility have been taken out of service in a timely manner per the commitments made to the EPA in the extension requests filed for both ponds. On April 24, 2019, Indiana Electric received an order from the IURC approving recovery in rates of costs associated with the closure of the Culley West pond, which has already completed closure activities. On August 14, 2019, Indiana Electric filed its petition with the IURC for recovery of costs associated with the closure of the A.B. Brown ash pond, which would include costs associated with the excavation and recycling of ponded ash. This petition was subsequently approved by the IURC on May 13, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the IURC approved Indiana Electric’s ECA proceeding, which included the initiation of recovery of the federally mandated project costs.

As of December 31, 2023, CenterPoint Energy has recorded an approximate $116 million ARO, which represents the discounted value of future cash flow estimates to close the ponds at A.B. Brown and F.B. Culley. This estimate is subject to change due to the contractual arrangements; continued assessments of the ash, closure methods, and the timing of closure; implications of Indiana Electric’s generation transition plan; changing environmental regulations; and proceeds received from the settlements in the aforementioned insurance proceeding. In addition to these AROs, Indiana Electric also anticipates equipment purchases of between $60 million and $80 million to complete the A.B. Brown closure project.

Clean Water Act Permitting of Groundwater Discharges. In April 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion providing that indirect discharges via groundwater or other non-point sources are subject to permitting and liability under the Clean Water Act when they are the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. On November 27, 2023, the EPA published draft guidance regarding the application of the “functional equivalent” analysis as related to permitting of certain discharges through groundwater to surface waters. The Registrants are evaluating the extent to which this decision and the proposed EPA guidance will affect Clean Water Act permitting requirements and/or liability for their operations.

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

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.