UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q/A
AMENDMENT NO. 1
(MARK ONE)
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2005
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM ______________ TO _______________.
----------
Commission file number 1-31447
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
TEXAS 74-0694415
(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification No.)
1111 LOUISIANA
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 (713) 207-1111
(Address and zip code of (Registrant's telephone number,
principal executive offices) including area code)
----------
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No
----- -----
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as
defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes X No
----- -----
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes No X
----- -----
As of May 1, 2005, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. had 309,039,696 shares of common
stock outstanding, excluding 166 shares held as treasury stock.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (CenterPoint Energy or the Company) hereby amends
Items 1, 2, and 4 of Part I and Item 6 of Part II of its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as originally filed on May 9, 2005
(Form 10-Q) to reflect the restatement of the Company's unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements as discussed in Note 14. In addition, the
Company has modified the presentation of discontinued operations in its
condensed statements of consolidated cash flows as discussed in Note 1.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q on
this Form 10-Q/A, the Company is filing Amendment No. 2 to its Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004.
For purposes of this Form 10-Q/A, and in accordance with Rule 12b-15 under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, each item of the Form 10-Q that
was affected by the restatement has been amended to the extent affected and
restated in its entirety. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS FORM 10-Q/A TO UPDATE
OTHER DISCLOSURES AS PRESENTED IN THE FORM 10-Q EXCEPT AS REQUIRED TO REFLECT
THE EFFECTS OF THE RESTATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS FORM 10-Q/A SHOULD BE READ IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE
FORM 10-Q, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OF THOSE FILINGS. IN ADDITION, THIS FORM
10-Q/A INCLUDES UPDATED CERTIFICATIONS FROM THE COMPANY'S CEO AND CFO AS
EXHIBITS 31.1, 31.2, 32.1 AND 32.2.
i
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q/A
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements........................................ 1
Condensed Statements of Consolidated Income
Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 (unaudited)
(as restated).............................................. 1
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005 (unaudited)
(as restated).............................................. 2
Condensed Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows
Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 (unaudited)
(as restated).............................................. 4
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements... 5
Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries................................................. 27
Item 4. Controls and Procedures..................................... 42
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 6. Exhibits.................................................... 43
ii
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
From time to time, we make statements concerning our expectations, beliefs,
plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance and
underlying assumptions and other statements, that are not historical facts.
These statements are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ
materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. You can
generally identify our forward-looking statements by the words "anticipate,"
"believe," "continue," "could," "estimate," "expect," "forecast," "goal,"
"intend," "may," "objective," "plan," "potential," "predict," "projection,"
"should," "will," or other similar words.
We have based our forward-looking statements on our management's beliefs
and assumptions based on information available to our management at the time the
statements are made. We caution you that assumptions, beliefs, expectations,
intentions and projections about future events may and often do vary materially
from actual results. Therefore, we cannot assure you that actual results will
not differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking
statements.
The following are some of the factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements:
- the timing and amount of our recovery of the true-up components;
- state and federal legislative and regulatory actions or
developments, including deregulation, re-regulation, constraints
placed on our activities or business by the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended (1935 Act), changes in or
application of laws or regulations applicable to other aspects of
our business and actions with respect to:
- allowed rates of return;
- rate structures;
- recovery of investments; and
- operation and construction of facilities;
- industrial, commercial and residential growth in our service
territory and changes in market demand and demographic patterns;
- the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices,
particularly natural gas;
- changes in interest rates or rates of inflation;
- weather variations and other natural phenomena;
- the timing and extent of changes in the supply of natural gas;
- commercial bank and financial market conditions, our access to
capital, the cost of such capital, receipt of certain financing
approvals under the 1935 Act, and the results of our financing
and refinancing efforts, including availability of funds in the
debt capital markets;
- actions by rating agencies;
- inability of various counterparties to meet their obligations to
us;
- non-payment for our services due to financial distress of our
customers, including Reliant Energy, Inc. (formerly named Reliant
Resources, Inc.) (RRI);
- the outcome of the pending lawsuits against us, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated and RRI;
- the ability of RRI to satisfy its obligations to us, including
indemnity obligations;
- our ability to control costs;
iii
- the investment performance of our employee benefit plans;
- our internal restructuring or other restructuring options that
may be pursued;
- our potential business strategies, including acquisitions or
dispositions of assets or businesses, which cannot be assured to
be completed or beneficial to us; and
- other factors we discuss in "Risk Factors" beginning on page 24
of the CenterPoint Energy, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 16, 2005.
Additional risk factors are described in other documents we file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each
forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the particular
statement.
iv
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
(UNAUDITED)
THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31,
-----------------------
2004 2005
---------- ----------
(AS RESTATED,
SEE NOTE 14)
REVENUES ................................................ $2,401,288 $2,594,705
---------- ----------
EXPENSES:
Natural gas .......................................... 1,635,347 1,781,233
Operation and maintenance ............................ 315,842 313,071
Depreciation and amortization ........................ 116,218 129,773
Taxes other than income taxes ........................ 93,988 94,661
---------- ----------
Total ............................................. 2,161,395 2,318,738
---------- ----------
OPERATING INCOME ........................................ 239,893 275,967
---------- ----------
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
Loss on Time Warner investment ....................... (24,453) (41,114)
Gain on indexed debt securities ...................... 27,014 39,529
Interest and other finance charges ................... (182,973) (173,340)
Interest on transition bonds ......................... (9,674) (9,220)
Return on true-up balance ............................ -- 34,082
Other, net ........................................... 1,507 3,812
---------- ----------
Total ............................................. (188,579) (146,251)
---------- ----------
INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS BEFORE INCOME TAXES ... 51,314 129,716
Income Tax Expense ................................... (22,416) (63,064)
---------- ----------
INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS ....................... 28,898 66,652
---------- ----------
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS:
Income from Texas Genco, net of tax .................. 56,286 13,673
Minority Interest in Income from Texas Genco ......... (11,597) --
Loss on Disposal of Texas Genco, net of tax .......... -- (13,237)
---------- ----------
Total ............................................. 44,689 436
---------- ----------
NET INCOME .............................................. $ 73,587 $ 67,088
========== ==========
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Income from Continuing Operations .................... $ 0.09 $ 0.22
Discontinued Operations, net of tax .................. 0.15 --
---------- ----------
Net Income ........................................... $ 0.24 $ 0.22
========== ==========
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Income from Continuing Operations .................... $ 0.09 $ 0.20
Discontinued Operations, net of tax .................. 0.13 --
---------- ----------
Net Income ........................................... $ 0.22 $ 0.20
========== ==========
See Notes to the Company's Interim Financial Statements
1
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
(UNAUDITED)
ASSETS
DECEMBER 31, MARCH 31,
2004 2005
------------ -------------
(AS RESTATED,
SEE NOTE 14)
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalents ........................ $ 164,645 $ 305,293
Investment in Time Warner common stock ........... 420,882 379,767
Accounts receivable, net ......................... 674,355 659,495
Accrued unbilled revenues ........................ 576,252 380,860
Natural gas inventory ............................ 175,784 77,290
Materials and supplies ........................... 77,902 75,844
Non-trading derivative assets .................... 50,219 85,664
Current assets of discontinued operations ........ 513,768 122,908
Prepaid expenses and other current assets ........ 116,909 76,613
----------- -----------
Total current assets .......................... 2,770,716 2,163,734
----------- -----------
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT:
Property, plant and equipment .................... 10,963,569 11,037,100
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization ... (2,777,176) (2,836,087)
----------- -----------
Property, plant and equipment, net ............ 8,186,393 8,201,013
----------- -----------
OTHER ASSETS:
Goodwill, net .................................... 1,740,510 1,740,510
Other intangibles, net ........................... 58,068 57,565
Regulatory assets ................................ 3,349,944 3,389,785
Non-trading derivative assets .................... 17,682 44,153
Non-current assets of discontinued operations .... 1,051,158 1,044,483
Other ............................................ 921,678 842,330
----------- -----------
Total other assets ............................ 7,139,040 7,118,826
----------- -----------
TOTAL ASSETS ............................... $18,096,149 $17,483,573
=========== ===========
See Notes to the Company's Interim Financial Statements
2
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS - (CONTINUED)
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
(UNAUDITED)
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
DECEMBER 31, MARCH 31,
2004 2005
------------ -------------
(AS RESTATED,
SEE NOTE 14)
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Current portion of transition bond long-term debt ..................... $ 46,806 $ 49,352
Current portion of other long-term debt ............................... 1,789,182 1,784,772
Indexed debt securities derivative .................................... 341,575 302,046
Accounts payable ...................................................... 802,215 625,191
Taxes accrued ......................................................... 609,025 159,397
Interest accrued ...................................................... 151,365 137,227
Non-trading derivative liabilities .................................... 26,323 21,169
Regulatory liabilities ................................................ 225,158 225,159
Accumulated deferred income taxes, net ................................ 260,958 282,696
Current liabilities of discontinued operations ........................ 448,974 104,795
Other ................................................................. 419,811 438,861
----------- -----------
Total current liabilities .......................................... 5,121,392 4,130,665
----------- -----------
OTHER LIABILITIES:
Accumulated deferred income taxes, net ................................ 2,415,143 2,439,554
Unamortized investment tax credits .................................... 53,690 51,814
Non-trading derivative liabilities .................................... 6,413 4,425
Benefit obligations ................................................... 440,110 429,252
Regulatory liabilities ................................................ 1,081,370 1,042,580
Non-current liabilities of discontinued operations .................... 420,393 367,176
Other ................................................................. 259,120 239,785
----------- -----------
Total other liabilities ............................................ 4,676,239 4,574,586
----------- -----------
LONG-TERM DEBT:
Transition bonds ...................................................... 628,903 610,453
Other ................................................................. 6,564,113 7,032,735
----------- -----------
Total long-term debt ............................................... 7,193,016 7,643,188
----------- -----------
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (NOTES 1 AND 11)
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY:
Common stock (308,045,215 shares and 309,003,728 shares outstanding
at December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005, respectively) ............. 3,080 3,090
Additional paid-in capital ............................................ 2,891,335 2,900,793
Accumulated deficit ................................................... (1,727,571) (1,722,214)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss .................................. (61,342) (46,535)
----------- -----------
Total shareholders' equity ......................................... 1,105,502 1,135,134
----------- -----------
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY ...................... $18,096,149 $17,483,573
=========== ===========
See Notes to the Company's Interim Financial Statements
3
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
(UNAUDITED)
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
----------------------------
2004 2005
--------- ---------
(AS RESTATED, SEE NOTE 14)
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net income ....................................................... $ 73,587 $ 67,088
Discontinued operations, net of tax .............................. (44,689) (436)
--------- ---------
Income from continuing operations ................................ 28,898 66,652
Adjustments to reconcile income from continuing operations
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization ................................. 116,218 129,773
Amortization of deferred financing costs ...................... 21,759 20,124
Deferred income taxes ......................................... 20,403 49,500
Investment tax credit ......................................... (1,877) (1,877)
Unrealized loss on Time Warner investment ..................... 24,453 41,114
Unrealized gain on indexed debt securities .................... (27,014) (39,529)
Changes in other assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues, net ............. 190,901 215,196
Inventory .................................................. 92,131 100,552
Taxes receivable ........................................... 68,096 --
Accounts payable ........................................... (92,742) (177,326)
Fuel cost over (under) recovery/surcharge .................. 47,528 75,666
Non-trading derivatives, net ............................... 4,987 (55,829)
Interest and taxes accrued ................................. (62,279) (463,790)
Net regulatory assets and liabilities ...................... (54,965) (86,460)
Other current assets ....................................... 23,334 40,296
Other current liabilities .................................. (62,563) (58,057)
Other assets ............................................... (902) (591)
Other liabilities .......................................... (14,975) (39,696)
Other, net .................................................... 23,674 4,875
--------- ---------
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
of continuing operations ............................. 345,065 (179,407)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities of
discontinued operations .............................. 49,938 (22,178)
--------- ---------
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities ..... 395,003 (201,585)
--------- ---------
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Capital expenditures ............................................. (121,844) (130,604)
Decrease in restricted cash of Texas Genco ....................... -- 383,132
Purchase of minority interest in Texas Genco ..................... -- (383,132)
Decrease in cash of Texas Genco .................................. 44,249 10,849
Other, net ....................................................... (5,755) 1,465
--------- ---------
Net cash used in investing activities ................... (83,350) (118,290)
--------- ---------
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Increase (decrease) in short-term borrowings, net ................ (63,000) 75,000
Long-term revolving credit facilities, net ....................... 195,500 472,000
Proceeds from long-term debt ..................................... 229,050 --
Payments of long-term debt ....................................... (510,038) (23,580)
Debt issuance costs .............................................. (13,126) (5,659)
Payment of common stock dividends ................................ (30,657) (61,704)
Payment of common stock dividends by subsidiary .................. (3,807) --
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net ...................... 3,658 4,466
Other, net ....................................................... 4 --
--------- ---------
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities ..... (192,416) 460,523
--------- ---------
NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS ........................... 119,237 140,648
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD .................... 86,922 164,645
--------- ---------
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD .......................... $ 206,159 $ 305,293
========= =========
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:
Cash Payments:
Interest ......................................................... $ 202,263 $ 183,117
Income taxes ..................................................... 1,997 435,015
See Notes to the Company's Interim Financial Statements
4
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(1) BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
General. Included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Form 10-Q/A) of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. are the condensed consolidated interim financial
statements and notes (Interim Financial Statements) of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
and its subsidiaries (collectively, CenterPoint Energy, or the Company. The
Interim Financial Statements are unaudited, omit certain financial statement
disclosures and should be read with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
CenterPoint Energy for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 16, 2005
(CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K), as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto filed on
August 29, 2005, and as amended by Amendment No. 2 thereto filed on January 10,
2006 (CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K/A).
Background. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company,
created on August 31, 2002 as part of a corporate restructuring of Reliant
Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy) that implemented certain requirements of
the Texas Electric Choice Plan (Texas electric restructuring law).
The Company's operating subsidiaries own and operate electric transmission
and distribution facilities, natural gas distribution facilities, interstate
pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and treating facilities.
CenterPoint Energy is a registered public utility holding company under the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended (1935 Act). The 1935 Act
and related rules and regulations impose a number of restrictions on the
activities of the Company and those of its subsidiaries. The 1935 Act, among
other things, limits the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries to issue
debt and equity securities without prior authorization, restricts the source of
dividend payments to current and retained earnings without prior authorization,
regulates sales and acquisitions of certain assets and businesses and governs
affiliated service, sales and construction contracts.
As of March 31, 2005, the Company's indirect wholly owned subsidiaries
included:
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston),
which engages in the electric transmission and distribution
business in a 5,000-square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast that
includes Houston;
- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp., and, together
with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns gas distribution
systems. The operations of its local distribution companies are
conducted through three unincorporated divisions: Houston Gas,
Minnesota Gas and Southern Gas Operations. Through wholly owned
subsidiaries, CERC owns two interstate natural gas pipelines and
gas gathering systems, provides various ancillary services, and
offers variable and fixed price physical natural gas supplies to
commercial and industrial customers and natural gas distributors;
and
- Texas Genco Holdings, Inc. (Texas Genco), whose principal
remaining asset was its ownership interest in a nuclear
generating facility. Texas Genco was sold to Texas Genco LLC on
April 13, 2005 in exchange for a cash payment to the Company of
$700 million. See Note 3 for further discussion.
Basis of Presentation. The preparation of financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent
assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported
amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results
could differ from those estimates.
The Company's Interim Financial Statements reflect all normal recurring
adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present fairly
the financial position and results of operations for the respective periods.
Amounts reported in the Company's Condensed Statements of Consolidated Income
are not necessarily indicative of amounts expected for a full-year period due to
the effects of, among other things, (a) seasonal fluctuations in demand for
energy and energy services, (b) changes in energy commodity prices, (c) timing
of maintenance and other expenditures and (d) acquisitions and dispositions of
businesses, assets and other interests. In addition, certain
5
amounts from the prior year have been reclassified to conform to the Company's
presentation of financial statements in the current year. These
reclassifications do not affect net income. The Company has also modified the
presentation of its Condensed Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows to reflect
cash flows of discontinued operations within the respective categories of
operating, investing and financing activities to conform to the presentation in
its annual financial statements. This reclassification did not affect the
Company's total net change in cash and cash equivalents.
Note 2(d) (Long-Lived Assets and Intangibles), Note 2(e) (Regulatory Assets
and Liabilities), Note 4 (Regulatory Matters), Note 5 (Derivative Instruments),
Note 6 (Indexed Debt Securities (ZENS) and Time Warner Securities) and Note 11
(Commitments and Contingencies) to the consolidated annual financial statements
in the CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K/A (CenterPoint Energy 10-K/A Notes) relate
to certain contingencies. These notes, as updated herein, should be read with
this Form 10-Q/A.
For information regarding certain legal and regulatory proceedings and
environmental matters, see Note 11 to the Interim Financial Statements.
(2) STOCK-BASED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLANS AND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
(a) Stock-Based Incentive Compensation Plans.
The Company has long-term incentive compensation plans (LICPs) that provide
for the issuance of stock-based incentives, including performance-based shares,
performance-based units, restricted shares and stock options to directors,
officers and key employees. A maximum of approximately 37 million shares of
CenterPoint Energy common stock are authorized to be issued under these plans.
Performance-based shares, performance-based units and restricted shares are
granted to employees without cost to the participants. The performance shares
and units vest three years after the grant date based upon the performance of
the Company over a three-year cycle. The restricted shares vest at various times
ranging from one-year to the end of a three-year period. Upon vesting, the
shares are issued to the plan participants.
Option awards are generally granted with an exercise price equal to the
average of the high and low sales price of the Company's stock at the date of
grant. These options awards generally become exercisable in one-third increments
on each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date and have
10-year contractual terms. No options were granted during the three months ended
March 31, 2005.
Effective January 1, 2005, the Company adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (Revised 2004), "Share-Based Payment" (SFAS
123(R)) using the modified prospective transition method. Under this method, the
Company records compensation expense at fair value for all awards it grants
after the date it adopts the standard. In addition, the Company is required to
record compensation expense at fair value (as previous awards continue to vest)
for the unvested portion of previously granted stock option awards that were
outstanding as of the date of adoption. Pre-adoption awards of time-based
restricted stock and performance-based restricted stock will continue to be
expensed using the guidance contained in SFAS No. 123. The adoption of SFAS
123(R) did not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.
During the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, the Company recorded
compensation expense of $2 million and $4 million, respectively, related to its
LICPs. The total income tax benefit recognized related to such arrangements was
less than $1 million for each of the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005.
No compensation cost was capitalized as a part of inventory and fixed assets in
either of the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2005.
6
Pro forma information for the three months ended March 31, 2004 is provided
to take into account the amortization of stock-based compensation to expense on
a straight-line basis over the vesting period. Had compensation costs been
determined as prescribed by SFAS No. 123, the Company's net income and earnings
per share would have been as follows (in millions, except per share amounts):
THREE MONTHS
ENDED
MARCH 31,
2004
------------
Net Income:
As reported....................................... $ 74
Add: stock-based compensation as recorded......... --
Less: total stock-based employee compensation
determined under the fair value based method... (2)
-----
Pro forma......................................... $ 72
=====
Basic Earnings Per Share:
As reported....................................... $0.24
Pro forma......................................... $0.24
Diluted Earnings Per Share:
As reported....................................... $0.22
Pro forma......................................... $0.21
The following table summarizes the methods used to measure compensation
cost for the various types of awards granted under the LICPs:
FOR AWARDS GRANTED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2005
AWARD TYPE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION COST
---------- ------------------------------------------
Performance shares Initially measured using fair value and expected
achievement levels on the date of grant.
Compensation cost is then periodically adjusted to
reflect changes in market prices and achievement
through the settlement date.
Performance units Initially measured using the award's target unit
value of $100 that reflects expected achievement
levels on the date on grant. Compensation cost is
then periodically adjusted to reflect changes in
achievement through the settlement date.
Time-based restricted stock Measured using fair value on the grant date.
Stock options Estimated using the Black-Scholes option valuation
method.
FOR AWARDS GRANTED AS OF AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2005
AWARD TYPE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION COST
---------- ------------------------------------------
Performance shares Measured using fair value and expected achievement
levels on the grant date.
Time-based restricted stock Measured using fair value on the grant date.
For awards granted before January 1, 2005, forfeitures of awards were
measured upon their occurrence. For awards granted as of and after January 1,
2005, forfeitures are estimated on the date of grant and are adjusted as
required through the remaining vesting period.
The following tables summarizes the Company's LICP activity for the three
months ended March 31, 2005:
7
STOCK OPTIONS
OUTSTANDING OPTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------
REMAINING
AVERAGE AGGREGATE
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE CONTRACTUAL INTRINSIC
SHARES EXERCISE LIFE VALUE
(THOUSANDS) PRICE (YEARS) (MILLIONS)
----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004... 16,159 $15.42
Canceled........................ (154) 13.95
Exercised....................... (312) 6.36
------
Outstanding at March 31, 2005...... 15,693 15.62 4.8 $25
======
Exercisable at March 31, 2005...... 13,699 16.57 4.2 19
======
NON-VESTED OPTIONS
------------------------------
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
OPTIONS GRANT DATE
(THOUSANDS) FAIR VALUE
----------- ----------------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004... 6,854 $1.61
Vested.......................... (2,770) 1.40
Canceled........................ (52) 1.90
------
Outstanding at March 31, 2005...... 4,032 1.76
======
PERFORMANCE SHARES
OUTSTANDING SHARES
--------------------------------------
REMAINING
AVERAGE AGGREGATE
CONTRACTUAL INTRINSIC
SHARES LIFE VALUE
(THOUSANDS) (YEARS) (MILLIONS)
----------- ----------- ----------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004... 1,169
Granted......................... 945
Canceled........................ (149)
Released to participants........ (371)
-----
Outstanding at March 31, 2005...... 1,594 1.9 $15
=====
NON-VESTED SHARES
------------------------------
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
SHARES GRANT DATE
(THOUSANDS) FAIR VALUE
----------- ----------------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004......... 756 $ 5.70
Granted............................... 945 12.13
Canceled.............................. (89) 10.41
Vested and released to participants... (18) 5.64
-----
Outstanding at March 31, 2005............ 1,594 9.25
=====
The non-vested and outstanding shares displayed in the above tables assume
that shares are issued at the maximum performance level (150%). In addition, the
aggregate intrinsic value reflects the impacts of current expectations of
achievement and stock price.
PERFORMANCE-BASED UNITS
OUTSTANDING AND NON-VESTED UNITS
---------------------------------------------------------
REMAINING
AVERAGE AGGREGATE
CONTRACTUAL INTRINSIC WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
UNITS LIFE VALUE GRANT DATE
(THOUSANDS) (YEARS) (MILLIONS) FAIR VALUE
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004......... 37 $100.00
Canceled.............................. (1) 100.00
Vested and released to participants... (1) 100.00
---
Outstanding at March 31, 2005............ 35 1.8 $3 100.00
===
8
The aggregate intrinsic value reflects the value of the performance units
given current expectations of performance through the end of the cycle.
TIME-BASED RESTRICTED STOCK
OUTSTANDING AND NON-VESTED SHARES
---------------------------------------------------
REMAINING WEIGHTED-
AVERAGE AGGREGATE AVERAGE
CONTRACTUAL INTRINSIC GRANT
SHARES LIFE VALUE DATE
(THOUSANDS) (YEARS) (MILLIONS) FAIR VALUE
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
Outstanding at December 31, 2004........... 769 $ 7.49
Granted................................. 277 12.13
Canceled................................ (40) 9.96
Vested and released to participants..... (20) 6.62
---
Outstanding at March 31, 2005.............. 986 1.7 $12 8.71
===
The weighted-average grant-date fair values of awards granted were as
follows for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, respectively:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
----------------
2004 2005
------- ------
Weighted-average fair value of options granted ....................... $ 1.86 $ --
Weighted-average fair value of performance units granted ............. 100.00 --
Weighted-average fair value of performance shares granted ............ -- 12.13
Weighted-average fair value of time-based restricted stock granted ... 10.90 12.13
The total intrinsic value of awards received by participants were as
follows for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, respectively:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
---- ----
(IN MILLIONS)
Options exercised........................ $1 $2
Performance shares....................... 7 5
As of March 31, 2005, there was $20 million of total unrecognized
compensation cost related to non-vested LICP arrangements. That cost is expected
to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2 years.
Cash received resulting from LICPs was $2 million for each of the three
months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005. The actual tax benefit realized for tax
deductions related to LICPs totaled $3 million for each of the three months
ended March 31, 2004 and 2005.
The Company has a policy of issuing new shares in order to satisfy
share-based payments related to LICPs.
For further information, please read Note 9 to the CenterPoint Energy
10-K/A/Notes.
9
(b) Employee Benefit Plans.
The Company's net periodic cost includes the following components relating
to pension and postretirement benefits:
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
-----------------------------------------------------
2004 2005
------------------------- -------------------------
PENSION POSTRETIREMENT PENSION POSTRETIREMENT
BENEFITS BENEFITS BENEFITS BENEFITS
-------- -------------- -------- --------------
(IN MILLIONS)
Service cost...................... $ 10 $ 1 $ 9 $ 1
Interest cost..................... 26 8 23 7
Expected return on plan assets.... (26) (3) (34) (3)
Net amortization.................. 9 3 10 2
Other............................. -- 2 -- --
---- --- ---- ---
Net periodic cost................. $ 19 $11 $ 8 $ 7
==== === ==== ===
Included in the net periodic cost for the three months ended March 31, 2004
is $4 million of expense related to Texas Genco's participants, which is
reflected in discontinued operations in the Statements of Consolidated Income.
On January 21, 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released final regulations governing
the Medicare prescription drug benefit and other key elements of the Medicare
Modernization Act (MNA) that will go into effect January 1, 2006. Under the
final regulations, it has been determined that a greater portion of benefits
offered under the Company's plans meets the definition of actuarial equivalence
and therefore qualifies for federal subsidies equal to 28% of allowable drug
costs. As a result, the Company has remeasured its obligations and costs to take
into account the new regulations.
Contributions to the pension plan are not required in 2005; however, the
Company expects to make a contribution. The Company previously disclosed in its
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, that it
expected to contribute $29 million to its postretirement benefits plan in 2005.
As of March 31, 2005, $9 million of contributions have been made.
In addition to the Company's non-contributory pension plan, the Company
maintains a non-qualified benefit restoration plan. The net periodic cost
associated with this plan for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 was
$1 million and $2 million, respectively.
(3) DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND QUASI-REORGANIZATION
Texas Genco. In July 2004, the Company announced its agreement to sell its
majority owned subsidiary, Texas Genco, to Texas Genco LLC. On December 15,
2004, Texas Genco completed the sale of its fossil generation assets (coal,
lignite and gas-fired plants) to Texas Genco LLC for $2.813 billion in cash.
Following the sale, Texas Genco distributed $2.231 billion in cash to the
Company. Following that sale, Texas Genco's principal remaining asset was its
ownership interest in a nuclear generating facility. The final step of the
transaction, the merger of Texas Genco with a subsidiary of Texas Genco LLC in
exchange for an additional cash payment to the Company of $700 million, was
completed on April 13, 2005, following receipt of approval from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
The Company recorded after-tax income of $45 million in the first quarter
of 2004 related to the operations of Texas Genco. Texas Genco recorded after-tax
income of $13.6 million in the first quarter of 2005. The Company recorded a
loss of $13.2 million to offset these earnings in the first quarter of 2005.
General corporate overhead of $0.4 million previously allocated to Texas Genco
from the Company, which will not be eliminated by the sale of Texas Genco, was
excluded from income from discontinued operations in the first quarter of 2005
and is reflected as general corporate overhead of the Company in income from
continuing operations in accordance with SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for the
Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets" (SFAS No. 144). The Interim
Financial Statements present these operations as discontinued operations in
accordance with SFAS No. 144.
Revenues related to Texas Genco included in discontinued operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 were $439 million and $57 million,
respectively. Income from these discontinued operations for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 is reported net of income tax expense of $30
million and $6 million, respectively.
10
Quasi-Reorganization. On December 30, 2004, the Board of Directors of the
Company adopted a plan for an accounting reorganization of the Company, to be
effective as of January 1, 2005. At the same time, the Manager of CenterPoint
Houston adopted a similar plan for CenterPoint Houston. These plans were adopted
in order to eliminate the accumulated deficit that exists at both companies.
The plan adopted by the Company, as amended by the Board on February 23,
2005, required: (1) a report to be presented to and reviewed by the Company's
Board of Directors on or before February 28, 2005 as to the completion of the
valuation analysis of the accounting reorganization and the effects of the
accounting reorganization on the Company's financial statements, (2) a
determination that the accounting reorganization is in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and (3) that
there be no determination by the Company's Board of Directors on or before May
10, 2005 that the accounting reorganization is inconsistent with the Company's
regulatory obligations.
On April 27, 2005, the Board of Directors of the Company concluded that it
will not implement the accounting reorganization it had expected to implement as
of January 1, 2005. The accounting reorganization would have extinguished the
Company's accumulated deficit in order to facilitate the payment of dividends
under constraints imposed by the 1935 Act. After receiving management's report
on the accounting effects of the proposed reorganization, the Board of Directors
concluded that the action, if taken, would have negatively impacted the
Company's common equity and would have adversely affected its schedule for
achieving the 30 percent common equity level generally expected to be maintained
by registered holding companies. The Manager of CenterPoint Houston also
determined that an accounting reorganization should not be implemented.
(4) NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In March 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB
Interpretation No. (FIN) 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations" (FIN 47). FIN 47 clarifies that an entity must record a liability
for a "conditional" asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the
obligation can be reasonably estimated. FIN 47 is effective no later than the
end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005. The Company does not expect
the adoption of this standard to have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
(5) REGULATORY MATTERS
(a) Recovery of True-Up Balance.
During 2004, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas Utility
Commission) issued its final determination of the stranded costs and other
amounts CenterPoint Houston will be entitled to recover from customers under the
Texas electric restructuring law (True-Up Order). In that True-Up Order, the
Texas Utility Commission authorized recovery of approximately $2.3 billion,
including interest through August 31, 2004, and provided for adjustment of the
amount to be recovered to reflect interest on the balance until recovery, the
principal portion of additional excess mitigation credits (EMCs) returned to
customers after August 31, 2004, and certain other matters. CenterPoint Houston
had filed for recovery of $3.7 billion, not including interest. Both CenterPoint
Houston and other parties filed appeals of the True-Up Order, and those appeals
remain pending before a state district court in Travis County, Texas. A hearing
on the True-Up Order appeal is scheduled for August 2005. In view of the Texas
Utility Commission's ruling that EMCs must continue, even after the
determination of stranded costs, CenterPoint Houston also filed with the Supreme
Court of Texas a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a ruling that the EMCs
should terminate and that CenterPoint Houston should be allowed to recover fully
the EMCs previously issued. The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or reject
the petition, and it has requested the parties to file briefs on issues raised
in the petition, but it is still unknown whether the court will grant the relief
requested or when it might complete its consideration of the petition.
As a result of a settlement reached in a separate proceeding involving
Reliant Energy, Inc.'s (RRI) Price-to Beat, EMCs were terminated as of April 29,
2005. Nevertheless, CenterPoint Houston will continue to pursue its writ of
mandamus to recover the portion of EMCs CenterPoint Houston is not permitted to
recover under the True-Up Order.
11
CenterPoint Houston expects to recover the amounts authorized in the
True-Up Order either through proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds
under the Texas electric restructuring law or through the imposition of a
non-bypassable charge called a Competition Transition Charge (CTC). On March 16,
2005, the Texas Utility Commission issued its written financing order to
CenterPoint Houston. The financing order authorized the issuance of transition
bonds under the terms of the Texas electric restructuring law in the amount of
approximately $1.8 billion so that CenterPoint Houston could begin to recover
its stranded costs and certain other amounts authorized under the Texas electric
restructuring law.
Several parties have filed appeals of the financing order with the district
court in Travis County, Texas. Those appeals include, among other claims,
assertions that transition bonds cannot be issued until after pending appeals of
the True-Up Order are finally resolved, that the amount of transition bonds
authorized was excessive based on the parties' views of the stranded costs that
the Texas Utility Commission should have authorized CenterPoint Houston to
recover, and that the Texas Utility Commission was in error in ordering that the
effects of certain accumulated deferred federal income taxes be reflected in a
reduction in the proposed CTC instead of as a reduction of the amount of
transition bonds.
The Texas electric restructuring law provides for expedited appeals from a
financing order. Appeals were required to be filed with the district court in
Travis County, Texas, within 15 days of the issuance of a financing order by the
Texas Utility Commission, and any further appeals from a decision of the
district court must be made directly to the Texas Supreme Court, bypassing
review by the court of appeals. The Texas electric restructuring law also limits
appeals to whether the financing order conforms to the Texas Constitution and
law and is within the authority of the Texas Utility Commission. The Texas
Supreme Court has previously held that securitization is constitutional.
Expedited securitization appeals are based on the Texas Utility Commission
record and appellate briefs.
While it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
appeals of the financing order or the timing of their ultimate resolution,
CenterPoint Houston intends to vigorously oppose them and to seek expedited
consideration of them as directed by the statute. CenterPoint Houston intends to
argue that the financing order should be affirmed because plaintiffs'
contentions do not satisfy the statutory requirements for an appeal, and the
financing order is within the authority of the Texas Utility Commission.
CenterPoint Houston will not be able to issue transition bonds while the
appeals of the financing order are pending. Prior to the appeals, it had been
expected that approximately $1.8 billion in transition bonds could be issued by
mid-2005 under the terms of the financing order. A hearing on the appeals is
scheduled for August 2005.
In January 2005, CenterPoint Houston filed an application with the Texas
Utility Commission for a CTC under which it would recover its adjusted true-up
balance that has not been securitized. Hearings were conducted in early April
2005 on that application, with an order expected from the Texas Utility
Commission in late May 2005.
The Company recorded as a regulatory asset a return of $62 million on the
true-up balance for the first quarter of 2005 as allowed by the True-Up Order.
The Company, under the True-Up Order, will continue to accrue a return until the
true-up balance is recovered by the Company. The rate of return is based on
CenterPoint Houston's cost of capital, established in the Texas Utility
Commission's final order issued in October 2001, which is derived from
CenterPoint Houston's cost to finance assets (debt return) and an allowance for
earnings on shareholders' investment (equity return). Consequently, in
accordance with SFAS No. 92, "Regulated Enterprises -- Accounting for Phase-in
Plans," the rate of return has been bifurcated into a debt return component and
an equity return component. The debt return of $34 million is included in other
income in the Company's Statements of Consolidated Income. The debt return will
continue to be recognized as earned going forward. The equity return of $28
million has been deferred and will be recognized in income as it is collected
through rates in the future. As of March 31, 2005, the Company has recognized a
regulatory asset of $260 million related to the debt return on its true-up
balance and has deferred an equity return of $176 million.
(b) Final Fuel Reconciliation.
The results of the Texas Utility Commission's final decision related to
CenterPoint Houston's final fuel reconciliation are a component of the True-Up
Order. The Company has appealed certain portions of the True-Up Order involving
a disallowance of approximately $67 million relating to the final fuel
reconciliation plus interest of $10 million. A hearing on this issue was held
before a district court in Travis County on April 22, 2005.
12
(c) Rate Cases.
In April 2005, the Railroad Commission of Texas (Railroad Commission)
approved a settlement that increased Southern Gas Operations' base rate and
service charge revenues by a combined $2 million in its East Texas and South
Texas Divisions.
(d) City of Tyler, Texas Dispute.
In July 2002, the City of Tyler, Texas, asserted that Southern Gas
Operations had overcharged residential and small commercial customers in that
city for gas costs under supply agreements in effect since 1992. That dispute
has been referred to the Railroad Commission by agreement of the parties for a
determination of whether Southern Gas Operations has properly charged and
collected for gas service to its residential and commercial customers in its
Tyler distribution system in accordance with lawful filed tariffs during the
period beginning November 1, 1992, and ending October 31, 2002. In December
2004, the Railroad Commission conducted a hearing on the matter. On April 15,
2005, the Railroad Commission hearing examiners issued a preliminary finding
that the Company had complied with its tariffs, acted prudently in entering into
its gas supply contracts, and prudently managed those contracts. The Railroad
Commission is expected to issue a final ruling in May 2005. In a parallel action
now in the Court of Appeals in Austin, Southern Gas Operations is challenging
the scope of the Railroad Commission's inquiry which goes beyond the issue of
whether Southern Gas Operations had properly followed its tariffs to include a
review of Southern Gas Operations' historical gas purchases. The Company
believes such a review is not permitted by law and is beyond what the parties
requested in the joint petition that initiated the proceeding at the Railroad
Commission. The Company believes that all costs for Southern Gas Operations'
Tyler distribution system have been properly included and recovered from
customers pursuant to Southern Gas Operations' filed tariffs.
(6) DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
The Company is exposed to various market risks. These risks arise from
transactions entered into in the normal course of business. The Company utilizes
derivative financial instruments such as physical forward contracts, swaps and
options to mitigate the impact of changes in cash flows of its natural gas
businesses on its operating results and cash flows.
Cash Flow Hedges. During the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005,
hedge ineffectiveness was less than $1 million from derivatives that qualify for
and are designated as cash flow hedges. No component of the derivative
instruments' gain or loss was excluded from the assessment of effectiveness. If
it becomes probable that an anticipated transaction will not occur, the Company
realizes in net income the deferred gains and losses recognized in accumulated
other comprehensive loss. Once the anticipated transaction occurs, the
accumulated deferred gain or loss recognized in accumulated other comprehensive
loss is reclassified and included in the Company's Statements of Consolidated
Operations under the caption "Natural Gas." Cash flows resulting from these
transactions in non-trading energy derivatives are included in the Statements of
Consolidated Cash Flows in the same category as the item being hedged. As of
March 31, 2005, the Company expects $14 million in accumulated other
comprehensive income to be reclassified into net income during the next twelve
months.
Other Derivative Financial Instruments. The Company also has natural gas
contracts that are derivatives which are not hedged. Load following services
that the Company offers its natural gas customers create an inherent tendency
for the Company to be either long or short natural gas supplies relative to
customer purchase commitments. The Company measures and values all of its
volumetric imbalances on a real-time basis to minimize its exposure to commodity
price and volume risk. The aggregate Value at Risk (VaR) associated with these
operations is calculated daily and averaged $0.3 million with a high of $1
million during the first quarter of 2005. The Company does not engage in
proprietary or speculative commodity trading. Unhedged positions are accounted
for by adjusting the carrying amount of the contracts to market and recognizing
any gain or loss in operating income, net. During the three months ended March
31, 2004 and 2005, the Company recognized net gains (losses) related to unhedged
positions amounting to $(1) million and $6 million, respectively. As of December
31, 2004, the Company had recorded short-term risk management assets and
liabilities of $4 million and $5 million, respectively, included in other
current assets and other current liabilities, respectively. As of March 31,
2005, the Company had recorded short-term risk management assets and liabilities
of $4 million and $3 million, respectively, included in other current assets and
other current liabilities, respectively.
13
Interest Rate Swaps. During 2002, the Company settled forward-starting
interest rate swaps having an aggregate notional amount of $1.5 billion at a
cost of $156 million, which was recorded in other comprehensive income and is
being amortized into interest expense over the life of the designated fixed-rate
debt. Amortization of amounts deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income
for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, was $6 million and $8
million, respectively.
Embedded Derivative. The Company's $575 million of convertible senior
notes, issued May 19, 2003 and $255 million of convertible senior notes, issued
December 17, 2003, contain contingent interest provisions. The contingent
interest component is an embedded derivative as defined by SFAS No. 133, and
accordingly, must be split from the host instrument and recorded at fair value
on the balance sheet. The value of the contingent interest components was not
material at issuance or at March 31, 2005.
(7) GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLES
Goodwill as of December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005 by reportable business
segment is as follows (in millions):
Natural Gas Distribution....... $1,085
Pipelines and Gathering........ 601
Other Operations............... 55
------
Total....................... $1,741
======
The Company reviews the carrying value of goodwill annually and at such
times when events or changes in circumstances indicate that it may not be
recoverable. The Company completed its annual evaluation of goodwill for
impairment as of January 1, 2005 and no impairment was indicated.
The components of the Company's other intangible assets consist of the
following:
DECEMBER 31, 2004 MARCH 31, 2005
----------------------- -----------------------
CARRYING ACCUMULATED CARRYING ACCUMULATED
AMOUNT AMORTIZATION AMOUNT AMORTIZATION
-------- ------------ -------- ------------
(IN MILLIONS)
Land use rights ... $55 $(12) $55 $(13)
Other ............. 21 (6) 21 (6)
--- ---- --- ----
Total .......... $76 $(18) $76 $(19)
=== ==== === ====
The Company recognizes specifically identifiable intangibles, including
land use rights and permits, when specific rights and contracts are acquired.
The Company has no intangible assets with indefinite lives recorded as of March
31, 2005. The Company amortizes other acquired intangibles on a straight-line
basis over the lesser of their contractual or estimated useful lives that range
from 40 to 75 years for land use rights and 4 to 25 years for other intangibles.
Amortization expense for other intangibles for both the three months ended
March 31, 2004 and 2005 was $1 million. Estimated amortization expense for the
remainder of 2005 and the five succeeding fiscal years is as follows (in
millions):
2005...... $ 2
2006...... 2
2007...... 3
2008...... 3
2009...... 3
2010...... 2
---
Total... $15
===
14
(8) COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
The following table summarizes the components of total comprehensive income
(net of tax):
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31,
--------------------------
2004 2005
---- ----
(IN MILLIONS)
Net income ..................................... $74 $67
--- ---
Other comprehensive income:
Net deferred gain from cash flow hedges ...... 8 9
Reclassification of deferred loss from cash
flow hedges realized in net income ........ 1 6
--- ---
Other comprehensive income ..................... 9 15
--- ---
Comprehensive income ........................... $83 $82
=== ===
The following table summarizes the components of accumulated other
comprehensive loss:
DECEMBER 31, MARCH 31,
2004 2005
------------ ---------
(IN MILLIONS)
Minimum pension liability adjustment .................... $ (6) $ (6)
Net deferred loss from cash flow hedges ................. (52) (37)
Other comprehensive loss from discontinued operations ... (3) (3)
---- ----
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss .............. $(61) $(46)
==== ====
(9) CAPITAL STOCK
CenterPoint Energy has 1,020,000,000 authorized shares of capital stock,
comprised of 1,000,000,000 shares of $0.01 par value common stock and 20,000,000
shares of $0.01 par value preferred stock. At December 31, 2004, 308,045,381
shares of CenterPoint Energy common stock were issued and 308,045,215 shares of
CenterPoint Energy common stock were outstanding. At March 31, 2005, 309,003,894
shares of CenterPoint Energy common stock were issued and 309,003,728 shares of
CenterPoint Energy common stock were outstanding. Outstanding common shares
exclude 166 treasury shares at both December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005.
CenterPoint Energy declared a dividend of $0.10 per share in the first quarter
of 2004.
On January 26, 2005, the Company's board of directors declared a dividend
of $0.10 per share of common stock payable on March 10, 2005 to shareholders of
record as of the close of business on February 16, 2005. On March 3, 2005, the
Company's board of directors declared a dividend of $0.10 per share of common
stock payable on March 31, 2005 to shareholders of record as of the close of
business on March 16, 2005. This additional first quarter dividend was declared
in lieu of the regular second quarter dividend to address technical restrictions
that might limit the Company's ability to pay a regular dividend during the
second quarter of this year. Due to the limitations imposed under the 1935 Act,
the Company may declare and pay dividends only from earnings in the specific
quarter in which the dividend is paid, absent specific authorization from the
SEC. As a result of the seasonal nature of the Company's utility businesses, the
second quarter historically provides the smallest contribution to the Company's
annual earnings, while the first quarter is generally the strongest quarter for
the Company's gas distribution business. If the Company's earnings for
subsequent quarters are insufficient to pay dividends from current earnings,
additional authority would be required from the SEC for payment of the quarterly
dividend from capital or unearned surplus, but there can be no assurance that
the SEC would authorize such payments.
(10) LONG-TERM DEBT AND RECEIVABLES FACILITY
(a) Long-term Debt.
As of March 31, 2005, CERC Corp. had a revolving credit facility that
provided for an aggregate of $250 million in committed credit. The revolving
credit facility terminates on March 23, 2007. Borrowings under this facility may
be made at the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) plus 137.5 basis points,
including the facility fee, based on current credit ratings and the applicable
pricing grid. An additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points applies to
borrowings whenever more than 33% of the facility is utilized. Changes in credit
ratings would lower or
15
raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings improved or were
lowered. As of March 31, 2005, such credit facility was not utilized.
In March 2005, the Company replaced its $750 million revolving credit
facility with a $1 billion five-year revolving credit facility. Borrowings may
be made under the facility at LIBOR plus 100 basis points based on current
credit ratings. An additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points applies to
borrowings whenever more than 50% of the facility is utilized. Changes in credit
ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings
improved or were lowered. As of March 31, 2005, borrowings of $656 million were
outstanding under the revolving credit facility.
In March 2005, CenterPoint Houston established a $200 million five-year
revolving credit facility. Borrowings may be made under the facility at LIBOR
plus 75 basis points based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit rating. An
additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points applies to borrowings whenever
more than 50% of the facility is utilized. Changes in credit ratings would lower
or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings improved or were
lowered. As of March 31, 2005, borrowings of $55 million were outstanding under
the revolving credit facility.
CenterPoint Houston also established a $1.31 billion credit facility in
March 2005. This facility is available to be utilized only to refinance
CenterPoint Houston's $1.31 billion term loan maturing in November 2005 in the
event that proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds are not sufficient to
repay such term loan. Drawings may be made under this credit facility until
November 2005, at which time any outstanding borrowings are converted to term
loans maturing in November 2007. Under this facility, (i) 100% of the net
proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds and (ii) the proceeds, in excess
of $200 million, from certain other new net indebtedness for borrowed money
incurred by CenterPoint Houston must be used to repay borrowings under the
facility. Based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit ratings, borrowings
under the facility may be made at LIBOR plus 75 basis points. Changes in credit
ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings
improved or were lowered. Any drawings under this facility must be secured by
CenterPoint Houston's general mortgage bonds in the same principal amount and
bearing the same interest rate as such drawings.
Convertible Debt. In March 2005, the Company filed a registration statement
relating to an offer to exchange its $575 million aggregate principal amount of
3.75% convertible senior notes due 2023 for a new series of 3.75% convertible
senior notes due 2023. This registration statement has not yet been declared
effective by the SEC. The Company expects to conduct the exchange offer in
response to the guidance set forth in Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue
No. 04-8, "Accounting Issues Related to Certain Features of Contingently
Convertible Debt and the Effect on Diluted Earnings Per Share" (EITF 04-8).
Under that guidance, because settlement of the principal portion of new notes
will be made in cash rather than stock, exchanging new notes for old notes will
allow the Company to exclude the portion of the conversion value of the new
notes attributable to their principal amount from its computation of diluted
earnings per share from continuing operations. See Note 12 for the impact on
diluted earnings per share related to these securities.
Junior Subordinated Debentures (Trust Preferred Securities). In February
1997, a Delaware statutory business trust created by CenterPoint Energy (HL&P
Capital Trust II) issued to the public $100 million aggregate amount of capital
securities. The trust used the proceeds of the offering to purchase junior
subordinated debentures issued by CenterPoint Energy having an interest rate and
maturity date that correspond to the distribution rate and the mandatory
redemption date of the capital securities. The amount of outstanding junior
subordinated debentures discussed above was included in long-term debt as of
December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005.
The junior subordinated debentures are the trust's sole assets and their
entire operations. CenterPoint Energy considers its obligations under the
Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, Indenture, Guaranty Agreement and,
where applicable, Agreement as to Expenses and Liabilities, relating to the
capital securities, taken together, to constitute a full and unconditional
guarantee by CenterPoint Energy of the trust's obligations with respect to the
capital securities.
The capital securities are mandatorily redeemable upon the repayment of the
related series of junior subordinated debentures at their stated maturity or
earlier redemption. Subject to some limitations, CenterPoint Energy has the
option of deferring payments of interest on the junior subordinated debentures.
During any deferral or event of default, CenterPoint Energy may not pay
dividends on its capital stock. As of March 31, 2005, no interest payments on
the junior subordinated debentures had been deferred.
16
The outstanding aggregate liquidation amount, distribution rate and
mandatory redemption date of the capital securities of the trust described above
and the identity and similar terms of the related series of junior subordinated
debentures are as follows:
AGGREGATE LIQUIDATION
AMOUNTS AS OF DISTRIBUTION MANDATORY
------------------------ RATE/ REDEMPTION
DECEMBER 31, MARCH 31, INTEREST DATE/
TRUST 2004 2005 RATE MATURITY DATE JUNIOR SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES
----- ------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ------------------------------
(IN MILLIONS)
HL&P Capital Trust II............ $100 $100 8.257% February 2037 8.257% Junior Subordinated
Deferrable Interest Debentures
Series B
In June 1996, a Delaware statutory business trust created by CERC Corp.
(CERC Trust) issued $173 million aggregate amount of convertible preferred
securities to the public. CERC Trust used the proceeds of the offering to
purchase convertible junior subordinated debentures issued by CERC Corp. having
an interest rate and maturity date that correspond to the distribution rate and
mandatory redemption date of the convertible preferred securities. The
convertible junior subordinated debentures represent CERC Trust's sole asset and
its entire operations. CERC Corp. considers its obligation under the Amended and
Restated Declaration of Trust, Indenture and Guaranty Agreement relating to the
convertible preferred securities, taken together, to constitute a full and
unconditional guarantee by CERC Corp. of CERC Trust's obligations with respect
to the convertible preferred securities. The amount of outstanding junior
subordinated debentures discussed above was included in long-term debt as of
December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005.
The convertible preferred securities are mandatorily redeemable upon the
repayment of the convertible junior subordinated debentures at their stated
maturity or earlier redemption. Effective January 7, 2003, the convertible
preferred securities are convertible at the option of the holder into $33.62 of
cash and 2.34 shares of CenterPoint Energy common stock for each $50 of
liquidation value. As of both December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005, the
liquidation amount of convertible preferred securities outstanding was $0.3
million. The securities, and their underlying convertible junior subordinated
debentures, bear interest at 6.25% and mature in June 2026. Subject to some
limitations, CERC Corp. has the option of deferring payments of interest on the
convertible junior subordinated debentures. During any deferral or event of
default, CERC Corp. may not pay dividends on its common stock to CenterPoint
Energy. As of March 31, 2005, no interest payments on the convertible junior
subordinated debentures had been deferred.
(b) Receivables Facility.
In January 2005, CERC's $250 million receivables facility was extended to
January 2006 and temporarily increased, for the period from January 2005 to June
2005, to $375 million to provide additional liquidity to CERC during the peak
heating season of 2005, in view of recent levels of, and volatility in, gas
prices. As of March 31, 2005, CERC had $181 million of advances under its
receivables facility.
(11) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Legal Matters.
RRI Indemnified Litigation
The Company, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor, Reliant Energy, and
certain of their former subsidiaries are named as defendants in several lawsuits
described below. Under a master separation agreement between the Company and
RRI, the Company and its subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI for
any losses, including attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of the
lawsuits described below under Electricity and Gas Market Manipulation Cases and
Other Class Action Lawsuits. Pursuant to the indemnification obligation, RRI is
defending the Company and its subsidiaries to the extent named in these
lawsuits. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this
time.
Electricity and Gas Market Manipulation Cases. A large number of lawsuits
have been filed against numerous market participants and remain pending in both
federal and state courts in California and Nevada in connection with
17
the operation of the electricity and natural gas markets in California and
certain other western states in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and
significant increases in prices. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed
as class actions, are based on a number of legal theories, including violation
of state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and unlawful business
practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, false
claims statutes and similar theories and breaches of contracts to supply power
to governmental entities. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state
officials and governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking a
variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil
penalties and fines, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.
To date, several of the electricity complaints have been dismissed by the trial
court and are on appeal, and several of the dismissals have been affirmed by
appellate courts. Others remain in the early procedural stages. One of the gas
complaints has also been dismissed, but the time for appeal of that decision has
not yet passed. The other gas cases remain in the early procedural stages. The
Company's former subsidiary, RRI, was a participant in the California markets,
owning generating plants in the state and participating in both electricity and
natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets generally. RRI,
some of its subsidiaries and, in some cases, former corporate officers or
employees of some of those companies have been named as defendants in these
suits.
The Company or its predecessor, Reliant Energy, has been named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2001 and 2004
and are pending in California state courts in Alameda County, Los Angeles
County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County and San Diego County, in Nevada
state court in Clark County, in federal district courts in San Francisco, San
Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento and Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. However, the Company, CenterPoint Houston and Reliant Energy
were not participants in the electricity or natural gas markets in California.
The Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain of the lawsuits,
either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of the court and the Company
believes it is not a proper defendant in the remaining cases and will continue
to seek dismissal from such remaining cases. On July 6, 2004 and on October 12,
2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Company's removal to federal district court
of two electric cases brought by the California Attorney General and affirmed
the federal court's dismissal of these cases based upon the filed rate doctrine
and federal preemption. On April 18, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United
States denied the Attorney General's petition for certiorari in one of these
cases. No petition for certiorari was filed in the other case, and both of these
cases are now finally resolved in favor of the defendants.
Other Class Action Lawsuits. Fifteen class action lawsuits filed in May,
June and July 2002 on behalf of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or Reliant
Energy have been consolidated in federal district court in Houston. RRI and
certain of its former and current executive officers are named as defendants.
The consolidated complaint also names RRI, Reliant Energy, the underwriters of
the initial public offering of RRI's common stock in May 2001 (RRI Offering),
and RRI's and Reliant Energy's independent auditors as defendants. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Reliant Energy or RRI during certain time periods
ranging from February 2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can
be traced to the RRI Offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants misrepresented their revenues and trading volumes by engaging in
round-trip trades and improperly accounted for certain structured transactions
as cash-flow hedges, which resulted in earnings from these transactions being
accounted for as future earnings rather than being accounted for as earnings in
fiscal year 2001. In January 2004, the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims based on
alleged misrepresentations in the registration statement issued in the RRI
Offering remain. In June 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court granted in February 2005. The defendants have
appealed the court's order certifying the class and have asked the trial court
to reconsider its ruling certifying the class. The case is currently scheduled
for trial in early 2006.
In May 2002, three class action lawsuits were filed in federal district
court in Houston on behalf of participants in various employee benefits plans
sponsored by the Company. Two of the lawsuits have been dismissed without
prejudice. The Company and certain current and former members of its benefits
committee are the remaining defendants in the third lawsuit. That lawsuit
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to various employee
benefits plans, directly or indirectly sponsored by the Company, in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants permitted the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the
Company when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such
securities became artificially inflated because of alleged securities fraud
engaged in by the defendants. The complaint seeks monetary damages for losses
suffered on behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants whose
accounts held CenterPoint Energy or RRI securities, as well as restitution.
18
In October 2002, a derivative action was filed in the federal district
court in Houston against the directors and officers of the Company. The
complaint set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Specifically, the shareholder
plaintiff alleged that the defendants caused the Company to overstate its
revenues through so-called "round trip" transactions. The plaintiff also alleged
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the spin-off of RRI and the RRI
Offering. The complaint sought monetary damages on behalf of the Company as well
as equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust on the compensation paid
to the defendants. The Company's board of directors investigated that demand and
similar allegations made in a June 28, 2002 demand letter sent on behalf of a
Company shareholder. The second letter demanded that the Company take several
actions in response to alleged round-trip trades occurring in 1999, 2000, and
2001. In June 2003, the board determined that these proposed actions would not
be in the best interests of the Company. In March 2003, the court dismissed this
case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not make an adequate demand on the
Company before filing suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent another demand
asserting the same claims.
The Company believes that none of the lawsuits described under Other Class
Action Lawsuits has merit because, among other reasons, the alleged
misstatements and omissions were not material and did not result in any damages
to the plaintiffs.
Other Legal Matters
Texas Antitrust Actions. In July 2003, Texas Commercial Energy filed in
federal court in Corpus Christi, Texas a lawsuit against Reliant Energy, the
Company and CenterPoint Houston, as successors to Reliant Energy, Genco LP, RRI,
Reliant Energy Solutions, LLC, several other RRI subsidiaries and a number of
other participants in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) power
market. The plaintiff, a retail electricity provider with the ERCOT market,
alleged that the defendants conspired to illegally fix and artificially increase
the price of electricity in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and
committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The lawsuit sought damages in
excess of $500 million, exemplary damages, treble damages, interest, costs of
suit and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff's principal allegations had previously
been investigated by the Texas Utility Commission and found to be without merit.
In June 2004, the federal court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and in July
2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company is vigorously
contesting the appeal. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted
at this time.
In February 2005, Utility Choice Electric filed in federal court in
Houston, Texas a lawsuit against the Company, CenterPoint Houston, CenterPoint
Energy Gas Services, Inc., CenterPoint Energy Alternative Fuels, Inc., Genco LP
and a number of other participants in the ERCOT power market. The plaintiff, a
retail electricity provider with the ERCOT market, alleged that the defendants
conspired to illegally fix and artificially increase the price of electricity in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws, intentionally interfered with
prospective business relationships and contracts, and committed fraud and
negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff's principal allegations had
previously been investigated by the Texas Utility Commission and found to be
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case. The ultimate
outcome of this matter cannot be predicted at this time.
Municipal Franchise Fee Lawsuits. In February 1996, the cities of Wharton,
Galveston and Pasadena (Three Cities) filed suit in state district court in
Harris County, Texas for themselves and a proposed class of all similarly
situated cities in Reliant Energy's electric service area, against Reliant
Energy and Houston Industries Finance, Inc. (formerly a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company's predecessor, Reliant Energy) alleging underpayment of municipal
franchise fees. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 4% of all
receipts of any kind for business conducted within these cities over the
previous four decades. After a jury trial involving the Three Cities' claims
(but not the class of cities), the trial court entered a judgment on the Three
Cities' breach of contract claims for $1.7 million, including interest, plus an
award of $13.7 million in legal fees. It also decertified the class. Following
this ruling, 45 cities filed individual suits against Reliant Energy in the
District Court of Harris County.
On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston rendered an
opinion reversing the judgment against the Company and rendering judgment that
the Three Cities take nothing by their claims. The court of appeals held that
all of the Three Cities' claims were barred by the jury's finding of laches, a
defense similar to the statute of limitations, due to the Three Cities' having
unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during the more than 30 years since
the alleged wrongs began. The court also held that the Three Cities were not
entitled to recover any attorneys' fees. The Three Cities filed a petition for
review to the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the
19
case. Thus, the Three Cities' claims have been finally resolved in the Company's
favor, but the individual claims of the remaining 45 cities remain pending in
the same court.
Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits. CERC Corp. and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in a suit filed in 1997 under the Federal False
Claims Act alleging mismeasurement of natural gas produced from federal and
Indian lands. The suit seeks undisclosed damages, along with statutory
penalties, interest, costs, and fees. The complaint is part of a larger series
of complaints filed against 77 natural gas pipelines and their subsidiaries and
affiliates. An earlier single action making substantially similar allegations
against the pipelines was dismissed by the federal district court for the
District of Columbia on grounds of improper joinder and lack of jurisdiction. As
a result, the various individual complaints were filed in numerous courts
throughout the country. This case has been consolidated, together with the other
similar False Claims Act cases, in the federal district court in Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
In addition, CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in
two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies
and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas. In one
case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the defendants
have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more
than 25 years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003
in response to an order from the judge denying certification of the plaintiffs'
alleged class. In the amendment the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants (including two CERC 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 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. CERC and its
subsidiaries believe that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of gas and
that the suits are without merit. CERC does not expect the ultimate outcome to
have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows of either the Company or CERC.
Gas Cost Recovery Litigation. In October 2002, a suit was filed in state
district court in Wharton County, Texas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas
Marketing Company, and certain non-affiliated companies alleging fraud,
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the Texas
Utilities Code, civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and
Antitrust Act with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas
in the State of Texas. Subsequently the plaintiffs added as defendants
CenterPoint Energy Marketing Inc., CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,
United Gas, Inc., Louisiana Unit Gas Transmission Company, CenterPoint Energy
Pipeline Services, Inc., and CenterPoint Energy Trading and Transportation
Group, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that defendants inflated the prices charged to
certain consumers of natural gas. In February 2003, a similar suit was filed in
state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana against CERC with respect to rates
charged to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas service
in the State of Louisiana. In February 2004, another suit was filed in state
court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover alleged
overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Southern Gas
Operations to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas
service without advance approval by the Louisiana Public Service Commission
(LPSC). In October 2004, a similar case was filed in district court in Miller
County, Arkansas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas Marketing Company,
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, CenterPoint Energy Field Services,
CenterPoint Energy Pipeline Services, Inc., Mississippi River Transmission Corp.
and other non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and civil
conspiracy with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in
at least the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. At
the time of the filing of each of the Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases, the
plaintiffs in those cases filed petitions with the LPSC relating to the same
alleged rate overcharges. The Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases have been stayed
pending the resolution of the respective proceedings by the LPSC. The plaintiffs
in the Miller County case seek class certification, but the proposed class has
not been certified. In November 2004, the Miller County case was removed to
federal district court in Texarkana, Arkansas. In February 2005, the Wharton
County case was removed to federal district court in Houston, Texas, and in
March 2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily moved to dismiss the case and agreed not
to refile the claims asserted unless the Miller County case is not certified as
a class action or is later decertified. The range of relief sought by the
plaintiffs in these cases includes injunctive and declaratory relief,
restitution for the alleged overcharges, exemplary damages or trebling of actual
damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees. In these cases, the Company, CERC
and their affiliates deny that they have overcharged any of their customers for
natural gas and believe that the amounts recovered for purchased gas have been
in accordance with what is permitted by
20
state regulatory authorities. The Company and CERC do not expect the outcome of
these matters to have a material impact on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of either the Company or CERC.
(b) Environmental Matters.
Hydrocarbon Contamination. CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are
among the defendants in lawsuits filed beginning in August 2001 in Caddo Parish
and Bossier Parish, Louisiana. The suits allege that, at some unspecified date
prior to 1985, the defendants allowed or caused hydrocarbon or chemical
contamination of the Wilcox Aquifer, which lies beneath property owned or leased
by certain of the defendants and which is the sole or primary drinking water
aquifer in the area. The primary source of the contamination is alleged by the
plaintiffs to be a gas processing facility in Haughton, Bossier Parish,
Louisiana known as the "Sligo Facility," which was formerly operated by a
predecessor in interest of CERC Corp. This facility was purportedly used for
gathering natural gas from surrounding wells, separating gasoline and
hydrocarbons from the natural gas for marketing, and transmission of natural gas
for distribution.
Beginning about 1985, the predecessors of certain CERC Corp. defendants
engaged in a voluntary remediation of any subsurface contamination of the
groundwater below the property they owned or leased. This work has been done in
conjunction with and under the direction of the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for alleged damage
to the aquifer underlying their property, unspecified alleged personal injuries,
alleged fear of cancer, alleged property damage or diminution of value of their
property, and, in addition, seek damages for trespass, punitive, and exemplary
damages. The Company does not expect the ultimate cost associated with resolving
this matter to have a material impact on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of either the Company or CERC.
Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. CERC and its predecessors operated
manufactured gas plants (MGP) 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.
At March 31, 2005, CERC had accrued $18 million for remediation of certain
Minnesota sites. At March 31, 2005, the estimated range of possible remediation
costs for these sites was $7 million to $42 million based on remediation
continuing for 30 to 50 years. The cost estimates are based on studies of a site
or industry average costs for remediation of sites of similar size. The actual
remediation costs will be dependent upon the number of sites to be remediated,
the participation of other potentially responsible parties (PRP), if any, and
the remediation methods used. CERC has utilized an environmental expense tracker
mechanism in its rates in Minnesota to recover estimated costs in excess of
insurance recovery. As of March 31, 2005, CERC has collected or accrued $13
million from insurance companies and ratepayers 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 has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits under which
contribution is sought by private parties for the cost to remediate former MGP
sites based on the previous ownership of such sites by former affiliates of CERC
or its divisions. CERC has also been identified as a PRP by the State of Maine
for a site that is the subject of one of the lawsuits. In March 2005, the court
considering the other suit for contribution granted CERC's motion to dismiss on
the grounds that CERC was not an "operator" of the site as had been alleged. The
plaintiff in that case has filed an appeal of the court's dismissal of CERC. The
Company is investigating details regarding these sites and the range of
environmental expenditures for potential remediation. However, CERC believes it
is not liable as a former owner or operator of those sites under the
Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended, and applicable state statutes, and is vigorously contesting those
suits and its designation as a PRP.
Mercury Contamination. The Company's pipeline and distribution operations
have in the past employed elemental mercury in measuring and regulating
equipment. It is possible that small amounts of mercury may have been spilled in
the course of normal maintenance and replacement operations and that these
spills may have contaminated the immediate area with elemental mercury. This
type of contamination has been found by the Company at some sites in the past,
and the Company has conducted remediation at these sites. It is possible that
other contaminated sites may exist and that remediation costs may be incurred
for these sites. Although the total amount of these costs cannot be known at
this time, based on experience by the Company and that of others in the
21
natural gas industry to date and on the current regulations regarding
remediation of these sites, the Company does not expect the costs of any
remediation of these sites to be material to the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.
Asbestos. A number of facilities owned by the Company contain significant
amounts of asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The
Company or its subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous others, as a
defendant in lawsuits filed by a large number of individuals who claim injury
due to exposure to asbestos. Most claimants in such litigation have been workers
who participated in construction of various industrial facilities, including
power plants. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by the
Company but currently owned by Texas Genco LLC. The Company anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Under the
terms of the separation agreement between the Company and Texas Genco, ultimate
financial responsibility for uninsured losses relating to these claims has been
assumed by Texas Genco, but under the terms of its agreement to sell Texas Genco
to Texas Genco LLC, the Company has agreed to continue to defend such claims to
the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the Company, subject to
reimbursement of the costs of such defense from Texas Genco LLC. Although their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Company intends to
continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit
and does not expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Other Environmental. From time to time the Company 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, the Company 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, the Company does not
expect, based on its experience to date, these matters, either individually or
in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
(c) Other Proceedings.
In 2005, CERC received a communication from the Minnesota Office of
Pipeline Safety indicating that the agency had ordered a predecessor company to
remove certain components from a portion of its distribution system prior to the
date CERC acquired it. Those components are not in compliance with current state
and federal codes, and it is possible that some of those components remain in
CERC's system. CERC has not completed its analysis of the cost to locate and
replace such components; however, the Company does not expect the disposition of
this matter to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows of either the Company or CERC.
The Company 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. The Company's management
regularly analyzes current information and, as necessary, provides accruals for
probable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters. The Company's
management does not expect the disposition of these matters to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.
(d) Tax Contingencies.
As discussed in Note 10 to the CenterPoint Energy 10-K/A Notes, in the 1997
through 2000 audit, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed all deductions
for original issue discount (OID) relating to the Company's 2.0% Zero-Premium
Exchangeable Subordinated Notes due 2029 (ZENS) and 7% Automatic Common Exchange
Securities (ACES). It is the contention of the IRS that (1) those instruments,
in combination with the Company's long position in Time Warner common stock (TW
Common), constitute a straddle under Section 1092 and 246 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and (2) the indebtedness underlying those
instruments was incurred to carry the TW Common. If the IRS prevails on both of
these positions, all OID (including interest actually paid) on the ZENS and ACES
would not be currently deductible, but would instead be added to the Company's
basis in the TW Common it holds. The capitalization of OID to the TW Common
basis would have the effect of recharacterizing ordinary interest deductions to
capital losses or reduced capital gains.
22
The Company's ability to realize the tax benefit of future capital losses,
if any, from the sale of the 21.6 million shares of TW Common currently held
will depend on the timing of those sales, the value of TW Common stock when
sold, and the extent of any other capital gains and losses.
Although the Company is protesting the contention of the IRS, at December
31, 2004, the Company had established a tax reserve for this issue of $79
million, which was increased to $90 million at March 31, 2005. The Company has
also reserved for other significant tax items including issues relating to
acquisitions, capital cost recovery and certain positions taken with respect to
state tax filings. The total amount reserved for the other items is
approximately $31 million.
(e) Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts.
CenterPoint Houston, as collection agent for the nuclear decommissioning
charge assessed on its transmission and distribution customers, contributed $2.9
million in 2004 to trusts established to fund Texas Genco's share of the
decommissioning costs for the South Texas Project, and expects to contribute
$2.9 million in 2005. There are various investment restrictions imposed upon
Texas Genco by the Texas Utility Commission and the NRC relating to Texas
Genco's nuclear decommissioning trusts. Pursuant to the provisions of both a
separation agreement and the Texas Utility Commission's final order, CenterPoint
Houston and Texas Genco are presently jointly administering the decommissioning
funds through the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investment Committee. Texas
Genco and CenterPoint Houston have each appointed two members to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Trust Investment Committee which establishes the investment
policy of the trusts and oversees the investment of the trusts' assets. As
administrators of the decommissioning funds, CenterPoint Houston and Texas Genco
are jointly responsible for assuring that the funds are prudently invested in a
manner consistent with the rules of the Texas Utility Commission. CenterPoint
Houston and Texas Genco expect to file a request with the Texas Utility
Commission in 2005 to name Texas Genco as the sole fund administrator. The
securities held by the trusts for decommissioning costs had an estimated fair
value of $217 million as of March 31, 2005. In May 2004, an outside consultant
estimated Texas Genco's portion of decommissioning costs to be approximately
$456 million. While the funding levels currently exceed minimum NRC
requirements, no assurance can be given that the amounts held in trust will be
adequate to cover the actual decommissioning costs of the South Texas Project.
Such costs may vary because of changes in the assumed date of decommissioning
and changes in regulatory requirements, technology and costs of labor, materials
and equipment. Pursuant to the Texas electric restructuring law, costs
associated with nuclear decommissioning that were not recovered as of January 1,
2002, will continue to be subject to cost-of-service rate regulation and will be
charged to transmission and distribution customers of CenterPoint Houston or its
successor.
23
(12) EARNINGS PER SHARE
The following table reconciles numerators and denominators of the Company's
basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) calculations:
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31,
---------------------------
2004 2005
------------ ------------
(IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT SHARE
AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
Basic EPS Calculation:
Income from continuing operations ............................. $ 29 $ 67
Discontinued operations, net of tax ........................... 45 --
------------ ------------
Net income .................................................... $ 74 $ 67
============ ============
Weighted average shares outstanding .............................. 306,012,000 308,470,000
============ ============
Basic EPS:
Income from continuing operations ............................. $ 0.09 $ 0.22
Discontinued operations, net of tax ........................... 0.15 --
------------ ------------
Net income .................................................... $ 0.24 $ 0.22
============ ============
Diluted EPS Calculation:
Net income .................................................... $ 74 $ 67
Plus: Income impact of assumed conversions:
Interest on 3 3/4% convertible senior notes ................ 4 4
Interest on 6 1/4% convertible trust preferred securities .. -- --
------------ ------------
Total earnings effect assuming dilution .......................... $ 78 $ 71
============ ============
Weighted average shares outstanding .............................. 306,012,000 308,470,000
Plus: Incremental shares from assumed conversions (1):
Stock options .............................................. 1,261,000 1,293,000
Restricted stock ........................................... 861,000 1,189,000
3 3/4% convertible senior notes ............................ 49,655,000 49,655,000
6 1/4% convertible trust preferred securities .............. 17,000 16,000
------------ ------------
Weighted average shares assuming dilution ..................... 357,806,000 360,623,000
============ ============
Diluted EPS:
Income from continuing operations ............................. $ 0.09 $ 0.20
Discontinued operations, net of tax ........................... 0.13 --
------------ ------------
Net income .................................................... $ 0.22 $ 0.20
============ ============
----------
(1) For the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, the computation of
diluted EPS excludes options to purchase 12,051,118 and 9,851,111 shares of
common stock, respectively, that have exercise prices (ranging from $10.92
to $32.26 per share and $14.01 to $32.26 per share for the first quarter of
2004 and 2005, respectively) greater than the per share average market
price for the period and would thus be anti-dilutive if exercised.
The Company's $575 million contingently convertible notes are included in
the calculation of diluted earnings per share pursuant to EITF 04-8. The
Company's $255 million contingently convertible notes are not included in the
calculation of diluted earnings per share because the terms of this debt
instrument were modified prior to December 31, 2004 to provide for only cash
settlement of the principal amount upon conversion as required by EITF 04-8.
Diluted earnings per share for the three months ended March 31, 2004 have been
restated for the adoption of EITF 04-8 effective December 31, 2004. The impact
on the Company's diluted EPS for each of the three months ended March 31, 2004
and 2005 was a decrease of $0.02 per share.
(13) REPORTABLE BUSINESS SEGMENTS
The Company's determination of reportable business segments considers the
strategic operating units under which the Company manages sales, allocates
resources and assesses performance of various products and services to
24
wholesale or retail customers in differing regulatory environments. The
Company's Electric Generation business segment is presented as discontinued
operations within these Interim Financial Statements.
The Company has identified the following reportable business segments:
Electric Transmission & Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution, Pipelines and
Gathering and Other Operations. The Company's generation operations, which were
previously reported in the Electric Generation business segment, are presented
as discontinued operations within these Interim Financial Statements.
Financial data for the Company's reportable business segments are as
follows:
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2004
--------------------------------------------
REVENUES FROM NET TOTAL ASSETS
EXTERNAL INTERSEGMENT OPERATING AS OF DECEMBER
CUSTOMERS REVENUES INCOME (LOSS) 31, 2004
------------- ------------ ------------- --------------
(IN MILLIONS)
Electric Transmission & Distribution .. $ 330(1) $ -- $ 85 $ 8,783
Natural Gas Distribution .............. 2,004(2) 1 117 4,732
Pipelines and Gathering ............... 66(3) 36 45 2,637
Other Operations ...................... 2 1 (7) 2,794
Discontinued Operations ............... -- -- -- 1,565
Eliminations .......................... -- (38) -- (2,415)
------ ---- ---- -------
Consolidated .......................... $2,402 $ -- $240 $18,096
====== ==== ==== =======
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2005
--------------------------------------------
REVENUES FROM NET TOTAL ASSETS
EXTERNAL INTERSEGMENT OPERATING AS OF MARCH
CUSTOMERS REVENUES INCOME (LOSS) 31, 2005
------------- ------------ ------------- ------------
(IN MILLIONS)
Electric Transmission & Distribution .. $ 345(1) $ -- $ 80 $ 8,774
Natural Gas Distribution .............. 2,161 2 139 4,818
Pipelines and Gathering ............... 84 37 64 2,692
Other Operations ...................... 5 2 (7) 2,327
Discontinued Operations ............... -- -- -- 1,167
Eliminations .......................... -- (41) -- (2,294)
------ ---- ---- -------
Consolidated .......................... $2,595 $ -- $276 $17,484
====== ==== ==== =======
----------
(1) Sales to subsidiaries of RRI for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and
2005 represented approximately $199 million and $183 million, respectively,
of CenterPoint Houston's transmission and distribution revenues from
external customers.
(2) Sales to Texas Genco for the three months ended March 31, 2004 of $6
million have been reclassified from intersegment revenues to revenues from
external customers due to the sale of Texas Genco.
(3) Sales to Texas Genco for the three months ended March 31, 2004 of $1
million have been reclassified from intersegment revenues to revenues from
external customers due to the sale of Texas Genco.
(14) RESTATEMENT
Subsequent to the issuance of its condensed consolidated financial
statements for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, the
Company determined that, during 2004 and 2005, certain transactions involving
purchases and sales of natural gas among divisions within the Company's Natural
Gas Distribution segment were not properly eliminated in the Company's
consolidated financial statements. Consequently, revenues and natural gas
expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 were each overstated
by approximately $126 million and $167 million, respectively. As a result, the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been restated from
the amounts previously reported to reflect the elimination of interdivision
purchases and sales of natural gas. There was no effect on the Company's
previously reported operating income, net income, earnings per share or net cash
flows for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005.
25
A summary of the significant effects of the restatements is as follows:
THREE MONTHS ENDED THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2004 MARCH 31, 2005
--------------------------- ---------------------------
AS PREVIOUSLY AS PREVIOUSLY
AS RESTATED REPORTED AS RESTATED REPORTED
----------- ------------- ----------- -------------
(IN MILLIONS)
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME:
Revenues ................................ $2,402 $2,528 $2,595 $2,762
Expenses: Natural gas ................... 1,636 1,762 1,781 1,948
Total Expenses Natural gas .............. 2,162 2,288 2,319 2,486
AS OF MARCH 31, 2005
---------------------------
AS PREVIOUSLY
AS RESTATED REPORTED
----------- -------------
(IN MILLIONS)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS:
Accounts receivable, net .................... $ 660 $ 733
Total current assets ........................ 2,164 2,235
Total assets ................................ 17,484 17,555
Accounts payable ............................ 626 697
Total current liabilities ................... 4,131 4,202
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity .. 17,484 17,555
26
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
The following discussion and analysis should be read in combination with
our Interim Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q/A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESTATEMENT
The following management discussion and analysis gives effect to the
restatement discussed in Note 14 to our unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements.
RECENT EVENTS
RECOVERY OF TRUE-UP BALANCE
During 2004, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas Utility
Commission) issued its final determination (True-Up Order) of the stranded costs
and other amounts CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston)
will be entitled to recover from customers under the Texas Electric Choice Plan
(Texas electric restructuring law). In that True-Up Order, the Texas Utility
Commission authorized recovery of approximately $2.3 billion, including interest
through August 31, 2004, and provided for adjustment of the amount to be
recovered to reflect interest on the balance until recovery, the principal
portion of additional excess mitigation credits (EMCs) returned to customers
after August 31, 2004, and certain other matters. CenterPoint Houston had filed
for recovery of $3.7 billion, not including interest. Both CenterPoint Houston
and other parties filed appeals of the True-Up Order, and those appeals remain
pending before a state district court in Travis County, Texas. A hearing on the
True-Up Order appeal is scheduled for August 2005. In view of the Texas Utility
Commission's ruling that EMCs must continue, even after the determination of
stranded costs, CenterPoint Houston also filed with the Supreme Court of Texas a
petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a ruling that the EMCs should terminate
and that CenterPoint Houston should be allowed to recover fully the EMCs
previously issued. The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or reject the
petition, and it has requested the parties to file briefs on issues raised in
the petition, but it is still unknown whether the court will grant the relief
requested or when it might complete its consideration of the petition.
As a result of a settlement reached in a separate proceeding involving
Reliant Energy, Inc.'s (RRI) Price-to Beat, EMCs were terminated as of April 29,
2005. Nevertheless, CenterPoint Houston will continue to pursue its writ of
mandamus to recover the portion of EMCs it is not permitted to recover under the
True-Up Order.
CenterPoint Houston expects to recover the amounts authorized in the
True-Up Order either through proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds
under the Texas electric restructuring law or through the imposition of a
non-bypassable charge called a Competition Transition Charge (CTC). On March 16,
2005, the Texas Utility Commission issued its written financing order to
CenterPoint Houston. The financing order authorized the issuance of transition
bonds under the terms of the Texas electric restructuring law in the amount of
approximately $1.8 billion so that CenterPoint Houston could begin to recover
its stranded costs and certain other amounts authorized under the Texas electric
restructuring law.
Several parties have filed appeals of the financing order with the district
court in Travis County, Texas. Those appeals include, among other claims,
assertions that transition bonds cannot be issued until after pending appeals of
the True-Up Order are finally resolved, that the amount of transition bonds
authorized was excessive based on the parties' views of the stranded costs that
the Texas Utility Commission should have authorized CenterPoint Houston to
recover, and that the Texas Utility Commission was in error in ordering that the
effects of certain accumulated deferred federal income taxes be reflected in a
reduction in the proposed CTC instead of as a reduction of the amount of
transition bonds.
The Texas electric restructuring law provides for expedited appeals from a
financing order. Appeals were required to be filed with the district court in
Travis County, Texas, within 15 days of the issuance of a financing
27
order by the Texas Utility Commission, and any further appeals from a decision
of the district court must be made directly to the Texas Supreme Court,
bypassing review by the court of appeals. The Texas electric restructuring law
also limits appeals to whether the financing order conforms to the Texas
Constitution and law and is within the authority of the Texas Utility
Commission. The Texas Supreme Court has previously held that securitization is
constitutional. Expedited securitization appeals are based on the Texas Utility
Commission record and appellate briefs.
While it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
appeals of the financing order or the timing of their ultimate resolution,
CenterPoint Houston intends to vigorously oppose them and to seek expedited
consideration of them as directed by the statute. CenterPoint Houston intends to
argue that the financing order should be affirmed because plaintiffs'
contentions do not satisfy the statutory requirements for an appeal, and the
financing order is within the authority of the Texas Utility Commission.
CenterPoint Houston will not be able to issue transition bonds while the
appeals of the financing order are pending. Prior to the appeals, it had been
expected that approximately $1.8 billion in transition bonds could be issued by
mid-2005 under the terms of the financing order. A hearing on the appeals is
scheduled for August 2005.
In January 2005, CenterPoint Houston filed an application with the Texas
Utility Commission for a CTC under which it would recover its adjusted true-up
balance that has not been securitized. Hearings were conducted in early April
2005 on that application, with an order expected from the Texas Utility
Commission in late May 2005.
CenterPoint Houston is entitled to accrue a return on the true-up balance
until it is fully recovered.
CenterPoint Houston may rely on its existing $1.31 billion senior secured
backstop credit facility to refinance its $1.31 billion term loan when it
matures in November 2005. That credit facility was obtained specifically to
address such a situation and will effectively provide a two-year term loan at
significantly lower interest rates to refinance the existing loan on maturity.
COMPLETION OF SALE OF TEXAS GENCO
On April 13, 2005, we completed the sale of our nuclear generation assets,
consisting of a 30.8% undivided interest in the South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station, to Texas Genco LLC (formerly known as GC Power Acquisition
LLC) for $700 million in cash. The sale was effected through the merger of our
wholly owned subsidiary, Texas Genco Holdings, Inc. (Texas Genco), with a wholly
owned subsidiary of Texas Genco LLC. As a result of the merger, Texas Genco
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas Genco LLC and we received $700 million
in cash. We used the proceeds primarily to repay outstanding indebtedness. The
merger was the second and final step of the transaction announced in July 2004
in which Texas Genco LLC agreed to acquire Texas Genco. In the first step of the
transaction, involving the sale of Texas Genco's fossil generation assets (coal,
lignite and gas-fired plants), we received $2.231 billion in December 2004,
which was used primarily to pay down debt. In 2004, we recorded a loss of $214
million related to the sale of Texas Genco and recorded additional losses to
offset subsequent earnings of Texas Genco. We have continued to record
additional losses in 2005 until the closing of the final step of the sale
transaction to offset Texas Genco's 2005 earnings.
DEBT FINANCING TRANSACTIONS
In March 2005, we replaced our $750 million revolving credit facility with
a $1 billion five-year revolving credit facility. Borrowings may be made under
the facility at the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) plus 100 basis points
based on current credit ratings. An additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis
points applies to borrowings whenever more than 50% of the facility is utilized.
Changes in credit ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending
on whether ratings improved or were lowered.
In March 2005, CenterPoint Houston established a $200 million five-year
revolving credit facility. Borrowings may be made under the facility at LIBOR
plus 75 basis points based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit rating. An
additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points applies to borrowings whenever
more than 50% of the facility is utilized. Changes in credit ratings would lower
or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings improved or were
lowered.
28
CenterPoint Houston also established a $1.31 billion credit facility in
March 2005. This facility is available to be utilized only to refinance
CenterPoint Houston's $1.31 billion term loan maturing in November 2005 in the
event that proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds are not sufficient to
repay such term loan. Drawings may be made under this credit facility until
November 2005, at which time any outstanding borrowings are converted to term
loans maturing in November 2007. Under this facility, (i) 100% of the net
proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds and (ii) the proceeds, in excess
of $200 million, from certain other new net indebtedness for borrowed money
incurred by CenterPoint Houston must be used to repay borrowings under the
facility. Based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit ratings, borrowings
under the facility may be made at LIBOR plus 75 basis points. Changes in credit
ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings
improved or were lowered. Any drawings under this facility must be secured by
CenterPoint Houston's general mortgage bonds in the same principal amount and
bearing the same interest rate as such drawings.
In March 2005, we filed a registration statement relating to an offer to
exchange our $575 million aggregate principal amount of 3.75% convertible senior
notes due 2023 for a new series of 3.75% convertible senior notes due 2023. This
registration statement has not yet been declared effective by the SEC. We expect
to conduct the exchange offer in response to the guidance set forth in Emerging
Issues Task Force Issue No. 04-8, "The Effect of Contingently Convertible
Instruments on Diluted Earnings Per Share." Under that guidance, because the
terms of the new notes provide for settlement of the principal amount on
conversion in cash rather than our common stock, exchanging new notes for old
notes will allow us to exclude the portion of the conversion value of the new
notes attributable to their principal amount from our computation of diluted
earnings per share from continuing operations.
1ST QUARTER 2005 HIGHLIGHTS
Our operating performance for the first quarter of 2005 compared to the
first quarter of 2004 was affected by:
- increased operating income of $22 million in our Natural Gas
Distribution business segment primarily due to rate increases, higher
contributions from our competitive natural gas sales business and the
absence of $8 million in severance costs incurred in 2004 associated
with staff reductions;
- increased operating income of $19 million in our Pipelines and
Gathering business segment primarily from increased demand for certain
transportation and ancillary services related to natural gas price
volatility as well as increased throughput and demand for services
related to our core gas gathering operations;
- continued customer growth, with the addition of 86,000 metered
electric and gas customers;
- an increase in other income of $34 million for the first quarter of
2005 related to the return on our true-up balance; and
- a decrease in interest expense of $21 million.
29
CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
All dollar amounts in the tables that follow are in millions, except for
per share amounts.
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
------ ------
Revenues .................................................. $2,402 $2,595
Expenses .................................................. 2,162 2,319
------ ------
Operating Income .......................................... 240 276
Interest and Other Finance Charges ........................ (193) (182)
Other Income, net ......................................... 4 36
------ ------
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes ..... 51 130
Income Tax Expense ........................................ (22) (63)
------ ------
Income From Continuing Operations ......................... 29 67
Discontinued Operations, net of tax ....................... 45 --
------ ------
Net Income ................................................ $ 74 $ 67
====== ======
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Income From Continuing Operations ...................... $ 0.09 $ 0.22
Discontinued Operations, net of tax .................... 0.15 --
------ ------
Net Income ............................................. $ 0.24 $ 0.22
====== ======
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Income From Continuing Operations ...................... $ 0.09 $ 0.20
Discontinued Operations, net of tax .................... 0.13 --
------ ------
Net Income ............................................. $ 0.22 $ 0.20
====== ======
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2005 COMPARED TO THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2004
Income from Continuing Operations. We reported income from continuing
operations of $67 million ($0.20 per diluted share) for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 as compared to $29 million ($0.09 per diluted share) for the same
period in 2004. The increase in income from continuing operations of $38 million
was primarily due to increased operating income of $22 million in our Natural
Gas Distribution business segment primarily due to rate increases and higher
contributions from our competitive natural gas sales business, increased
operating income of $19 million in our Pipelines and Gathering business segment
primarily from increased demand for certain transportation and ancillary
services related to natural gas price volatility as well as increased throughput
and demand for services related to our core gas gathering operations, $34
million of other income related to a return on the true-up balance of our
Electric Transmission & Distribution business segment as a result of the True-Up
Order, and a $10 million decrease in interest expense due to lower borrowing
costs, partially offset by lower operating income in our Electric Transmission &
Distribution business segment and increased income tax expense as discussed
below.
Income Tax Expense. During the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004,
our effective tax rates were 48.6% and 43.7%, respectively. The most significant
item affecting our effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2005 is an
addition to the tax reserve of approximately $11 million relating to the
contention of the Internal Revenue Service that the current deductions for
original issue discount (OID) on our 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable Subordinated
Notes due 2029 (ZENS) be capitalized, potentially converting what would be
ordinary deductions into capital losses at the time the ZENS are settled.
Assuming no change in the price of Time Warner common stock, the addition to the
tax reserve for this item in the second quarter will approximate $12 million.
Quarterly adjustments of this magnitude are expected for the foreseeable future.
The most significant items affecting our effective tax rate in the first quarter
of 2004 were state income taxes, which increased the effective rate, and the
amortization of deferred investment tax credits, which reduced the effective
rate. These items had a larger impact on the effective tax rate in 2004 than
2005 because pre-tax income was lower in 2004, which amplified their effect on
the effective tax rate.
Interest Expense and Other Finance Charges. In accordance with Emerging
Issues Task Force Issue No. 87-24 "Allocation of Interest to Discontinued
Operations," we have reclassified interest to discontinued operations of
30
Texas Genco based on net proceeds received from the sale of Texas Genco of $2.5
billion, and have applied the proceeds to the amount of debt assumed to be paid
down in 2004 according to the terms of the respective credit facilities in
effect for that period. In periods where only the term loan was assumed to be
repaid, the actual interest paid on the term loan was reclassified. In periods
where a portion of the revolver was assumed to be repaid, the percentage of that
portion of the revolver to the total outstanding balance was calculated, and
that percentage was applied to the actual interest paid in those periods to
compute the amount of interest reclassified.
Total interest expense incurred was $205 million in the first quarter of
2004. We have reclassified $12 million of interest expense in the first quarter
of 2004 based upon interest expense associated with debt that would have been
required to be repaid as a result of our disposition of Texas Genco.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS BY BUSINESS SEGMENT
The following table presents operating income for each of our business
segments for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005. Some amounts from
the previous year have been reclassified to conform to the 2005 presentation of
the financial statements. These reclassifications do not affect consolidated net
income.
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
---- ----
(IN MILLIONS)
Electric Transmission & Distribution ...... $ 85 $ 80
Natural Gas Distribution .................. 117 139
Pipelines and Gathering ................... 45 64
Other Operations .......................... (7) (7)
---- ----
Total Consolidated Operating Income .... $240 $276
==== ====
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
For information regarding factors that may affect the future results of
operations of our Electric Transmission & Distribution business segment, please
read "Business -- Risk Factors -- Risk Factors Affecting Our Electric
Transmission & Distribution Business," "-- Risk Factors Associated with Our
Consolidated Financial Condition" and "-- Other Risks" in Item 1 of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy for the year ended December 31, 2004
(CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K), each of which is incorporated herein by
reference.
The following tables provide summary data of our Electric Transmission &
Distribution business segment for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and
2005:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
-----------------
2004 2005
------- -------
(IN MILLIONS)
Electric transmission and distribution revenues ........................ $ 315 $ 323
------- -------
Electric transmission and distribution expenses:
Operation and maintenance ........................................... 133 138
Depreciation and amortization ....................................... 60 64
Taxes other than income taxes ....................................... 47 50
------- -------
Total electric transmission and distribution expenses ............ 240 252
------- -------
Operating Income - Electric transmission and distribution utility ...... 75 71
Operating Income - Transition bond company ............................. 10 9
------- -------
Total Segment Operating Income ......................................... $ 85 $ 80
======= =======
Actual gigawatt-hours (GWh) delivered:
Residential ......................................................... 4,402 4,142
Total(1) ............................................................ 15,520 15,826
----------
(1) Usage volumes for commercial and industrial customers are included in total
GWh delivered; however, the majority of these customers are billed on a
peak demand (KW) basis and, as a result, revenues do not vary based on
consumption.
31
Our Electric Transmission & Distribution business segment reported
operating income of $80 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005,
consisting of $71 million for the regulated electric transmission and
distribution utility and $9 million for the transition bond company. For the
three months ended March 31, 2004, operating income totaled $85 million,
consisting of $75 million for the regulated electric transmission and
distribution utility and $10 million for the transition bond company. The
transition bond company's operating income represents the amount necessary to
pay interest on the transition bonds. Operating revenues increased $8 million
primarily from continued customer growth with the addition of 43,000 metered
customers since March 2004 and higher transmission cost recovery. Additionally,
operating expenses in 2005 increased primarily due to higher net transmission
costs of $5 million, higher property and state franchise taxes of $5 million and
increased depreciation and amortization of $4 million, partially offset by
reduced pension expense of $4 million.
NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION
For information regarding factors that may affect the future results of
operations of our Natural Gas Distribution business segment, please read
"Business -- Risk Factors -- Risk Factors Affecting Our Natural Gas Distribution
and Pipelines and Gathering Businesses," " -- Risk Factors Associated with Our
Consolidated Financial Condition" and "-- Other Risks" in Item 1 of the
CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.
The following table provides summary data of our Natural Gas Distribution
business segment for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
------ ------
(IN MILLIONS)
Revenues ................................... $2,005 $2,163
------ ------
Expenses:
Natural gas ............................. 1,664 1,808
Operation and maintenance ............... 149 140
Depreciation and amortization ........... 35 38
Taxes other than income taxes ........... 40 38
------ ------
Total expenses ....................... 1,888 2,024
------ ------
Operating Income ........................... $ 117 $ 139
====== ======
Throughput (in billion cubic feet (Bcf)):
Residential ............................. 85 77
Commercial and industrial ............... 83 77
Non-rate regulated ...................... 139 183
Eliminations (1) ........................ (10) (49)
------ ------
Total Throughput ..................... 297 288
====== ======
----------
(1) Elimination of intrasegment sales.
Our Natural Gas Distribution business segment reported operating income of
$139 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005 as compared to $117
million for the same period in 2004. Increases in operating income of $2 million
from continued customer growth with the addition of approximately 43,000
customers since March 2004, $11 million from rate increases and increased
contributions of $3 million from our competitive natural gas sales business were
partially offset by the $7 million impact of milder weather and decreased usage.
Operation and maintenance expense decreased $9 million. Excluding an $8 million
charge recorded in the first quarter of 2004 for severance costs associated with
staff reductions, which has reduced costs in later periods, operation and
maintenance expenses decreased by $1 million.
PIPELINES AND GATHERING
For information regarding factors that may affect the future results of
operations of our Pipelines and Gathering business segment, please read
"Business -- Risk Factors -- Risk Factors Affecting Our Natural Gas Distribution
and Pipelines and Gathering Businesses," "-- Risk Factors Associated with Our
Consolidated Financial Condition"
32
and "-- Other Risks" in Item 1 of the CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K, each of
which is incorporated herein by reference.
The following table provides summary data of our Pipelines and Gathering
business segment for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
---- ----
(IN MILLIONS)
Revenues ........................... $102 $121
---- ----
Expenses:
Natural gas ..................... 9 7
Operation and maintenance ....... 33 34
Depreciation and amortization ... 11 11
Taxes other than income taxes ... 4 5
---- ----
Total expenses ............... 57 57
---- ----
Operating Income ................... $ 45 $ 64
==== ====
Throughput (in Bcf):
Natural Gas Sales ............... 2 1
Transportation .................. 270 271
Gathering ....................... 75 83
Eliminations (1) ................ (2) (1)
---- ----
Total Throughput ............. 345 354
==== ====
----------
(1) Elimination of volumes both transported and sold.
Our Pipelines and Gathering business segment reported operating income of
$64 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005 compared to $45 million
for the same period in 2004. Operating margins (revenues less fuel costs)
increased by $21 million primarily due to increased demand for certain
transportation and ancillary services related to natural gas price volatility
($13 million) and increased throughput and demand for services related to our
core gas gathering operations ($5 million).
OTHER OPERATIONS
The following table shows the operating loss of our Other Operations
business segment for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
---- ----
(IN MILLIONS)
Revenues ......... $ 3 $ 7
Expenses ......... 10 14
--- ---
Operating Loss ... $(7) $(7)
=== ===
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
In July 2004, we announced our agreement to sell our majority owned
subsidiary, Texas Genco, to Texas Genco LLC. On December 15, 2004, Texas Genco
completed the sale of its fossil generation assets (coal, lignite and gas-fired
plants) to Texas Genco LLC for $2.813 billion in cash. Following the sale, Texas
Genco distributed $2.231 billion in cash to us. Following that sale, Texas
Genco's principal remaining asset was its ownership interest in a nuclear
generating facility. The final step of the transaction, the merger of Texas
Genco with a subsidiary of Texas Genco LLC in exchange for an additional cash
payment to us of $700 million, was completed on April 13, 2005, following
receipt of approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We recorded
after-tax income of $45 million in the first quarter of 2004 related to the
operations of Texas Genco. Texas Genco recorded after-tax income of $13.6
million in the first quarter of 2005. We recorded a loss of $13.2 million to
offset these earnings in the first quarter of 2005. General corporate overhead
of $0.4 million previously allocated to Texas Genco from CenterPoint
33
Energy, which will not be eliminated by the sale of Texas Genco, was excluded
from income from discontinued operations in the first quarter of 2005 and is
reflected as general corporate overhead of CenterPoint Energy in income from
continuing operations in accordance with SFAS No. 144. The Interim Financial
Statements present these operations as discontinued operations in accordance
with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144, "Accounting for
the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets".
CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE EARNINGS
For information on other developments, factors and trends that may have an
impact on our future earnings, please read "Management's Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Certain Factors Affecting
Future Earnings" in Item 7 of Part II of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
CenterPoint Energy for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 16, 2005
(CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K), and "Risk Factors" in Item 1 of Part I of the
CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
HISTORICAL CASH FLOWS
The following table summarizes the net cash provided by (used in)
operating, investing and financing activities for the three months ended March
31, 2004 and 2005:
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31,
---------------
2004 2005
------ ------
(IN MILLIONS)
Cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities....... $ 395 $(202)
Investing activities....... (83) (118)
Financing activities....... (192) 461
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net cash provided by operating activities in the first quarter of 2005
decreased $597 million compared to the same period in 2004 primarily due to
increased tax payments of $433 million, the majority of which related to the
expected tax payment associated with the sale of Texas Genco and decreased cash
provided by Texas Genco's operations of $72 million. Additionally, the amount of
advances for the purchase of receivables under CERC Corp.'s receivables facility
decreased by $69 million in the first quarter of 2005 as compared to the same
period in 2004.
CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Net cash used in investing activities increased $35 million in the first
quarter of 2005 as compared to the same period in 2004 primarily due to
increased capital expenditures of $20 million related to our Electric
Transmission & Distribution and Pipelines and Gathering business segments and a
smaller decrease in cash of Texas Genco of $33 million, offset by decreased
capital expenditures related to Texas Genco.
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
In the first quarter of 2005, net loan proceeds exceeded debt payments by
$518 million. As of March 31, 2005, we had borrowings of $656 million under our
revolving credit facility which were used primarily to fund the income tax
payment related to the sale of Texas Genco. As of March 31, 2005, Texas Genco
had borrowed $75 million under its revolving credit facility. During the first
quarter of 2004, debt payments exceeded net loan proceeds by $162 million.
FUTURE SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
Our liquidity and capital requirements are affected primarily by our
results of operations, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, tax
payments, working capital needs, various regulatory actions and appeals relating
to such regulatory actions. Our principal cash requirements for the remainder of
2005 include the following:
34
- approximately $533 million of capital expenditures;
- an estimated $10 million in refunds by CenterPoint Houston of excess
mitigation credits through April 29, 2005, the date of termination of
the credits;
- dividend payments on CenterPoint Energy common stock and debt service
payments; and
- $1.7 billion of maturing long-term debt, including $31 million of
transition bonds.
Cash proceeds of $700 million from the sale of Texas Genco were received on
April 13, 2005.
We expect that borrowings under our credit facilities and anticipated cash
flows from operations will be sufficient to meet our cash needs for 2005. Cash
needs may also be met by issuing securities in the capital markets. CenterPoint
Houston's $1.31 billion term loan, maturing in November 2005, requires the
proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds to be used to reduce the term
loan unless refused by the lenders. CenterPoint Houston's $1.31 billion credit
facility may be utilized to refinance the $1.31 billion term loan at maturity.
Under this facility, (i) 100% of the net proceeds from the issuance of
transition bonds and (ii) the proceeds, in excess of $200 million, from certain
other new net indebtedness for borrowed money incurred by CenterPoint Houston
must be used to repay borrowings under the facility.
The 1935 Act regulates our financing ability, as more fully described in
"-- Certain Contractual and Regulatory Limits on Ability to Issue Securities and
Pay Dividends on Our Common Stock" below.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements. Other than operating leases, we have no
off-balance sheet arrangements. However, we do participate in a receivables
factoring arrangement. CERC Corp. has a bankruptcy remote subsidiary, which we
consolidate, which was formed for the sole purpose of buying receivables created
by CERC and selling those receivables to an unrelated third-party. This
transaction is accounted for as a sale of receivables under the provisions of
SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and
Extinguishments of Liabilities," and, as a result, the related receivables are
excluded from the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In January 2005, the $250 million
facility was extended to January 2006 and temporarily increased, for the period
from January 2005 to June 2005, to $375 million. As of March 31, 2005, CERC had
$181 million of advances under its receivables facility.
Credit Facilities. In March 2005, we replaced our $750 million revolving
credit facility with a $1 billion five-year revolving credit facility.
Borrowings may be made under the facility at LIBOR plus 100 basis points based
on current credit ratings. An additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points
applies to borrowings whenever more than 50% of the facility is utilized.
Changes in credit ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending
on whether ratings improved or were lowered. The facility contains covenants,
including a debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) covenant and an EBITDA to interest covenant.
Borrowings under our credit facility are available upon customary terms and
conditions for facilities of this type, including a requirement that we
represent, except as described below, that no "material adverse change" has
occurred at the time of a new borrowing under this facility. A "material adverse
change" is defined as the occurrence of a material adverse change in our ability
to perform our obligations under the facility but excludes any litigation
related to the True-Up Order. The base line for any determination of a relative
material adverse change is our most recently audited financial statements. At
any time after the first time our credit ratings reach at least BBB by Standard
& Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw Hill Companies (S&P), and
Baa2 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Moody's), BBB+ by S&P and Baa3 by
Moody's, or BBB- by S&P and Baa1 by Moody's, or if the drawing is to retire
maturing commercial paper, we are not required to represent as a condition to
such drawing that no material adverse change has occurred or that no litigation
expected to have a material adverse effect has occurred.
Also in March 2005, CenterPoint Houston established a $200 million
five-year revolving credit facility. Borrowings may be made under the facility
at LIBOR plus 75 basis points based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit
rating. An additional utilization fee of 12.5 basis points applies to borrowings
whenever more than 50% of the facility is utilized. Changes in credit ratings
would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings
improved or were lowered.
35
CenterPoint Houston also established a $1.31 billion credit facility in
March 2005. This facility is available to be utilized only to refinance
CenterPoint Houston's $1.31 billion term loan maturing in November 2005 in the
event that proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds are not sufficient to
repay such term loan. Drawings may be made under this credit facility until
November 2005, at which time any outstanding borrowings are converted to term
loans maturing in November 2007. Under this facility, (i) 100% of the net
proceeds from the issuance of transition bonds and (ii) the proceeds, in excess
of $200 million, from certain other new net indebtedness for borrowed money
incurred by CenterPoint Houston must be used to repay borrowings under the
facility. Based on CenterPoint Houston's current credit ratings, borrowings
under the facility may be made at LIBOR plus 75 basis points. Changes in credit
ratings would lower or raise the increment to LIBOR depending on whether ratings
improved or were lowered. Any drawings under this facility must be secured by
CenterPoint Houston's general mortgage bonds in the same principal amount and
bearing the same interest rate as such drawings.
CenterPoint Houston's $200 million and $1.31 billion credit facilities each
contain covenants, including a debt (excluding transition bonds) to total
capitalization covenant of 68% and an EBITDA to interest covenant. Borrowings
under CenterPoint Houston's $200 million credit facility and its $1.31 billion
credit facility are available notwithstanding that a material adverse change has
occurred or litigation that could be expected to have a material adverse effect
has occurred, so long as other customary terms and conditions are satisfied.
In February 2005, Texas Genco also established a $75 million term loan
facility. In connection with the completion of the sale of Texas Genco on April
13, 2005, the amounts outstanding under the facility were repaid and the
facility was terminated.
As of May 1, 2005, we had the following credit facilities (in millions):
AMOUNT UTILIZED AT
DATE EXECUTED COMPANY SIZE OF FACILITY MAY 1, 2005 TERMINATION DATE
------------- ------- ---------------- ------------------ ----------------
March 23, 2004 CERC Corp. $ 250 $ -- March 23, 2007
March 7, 2005 CenterPoint Energy 1,000 251 (1) March 7, 2010
March 7, 2005 CenterPoint Houston 200 -- March 7, 2010
March 7, 2005 CenterPoint Houston 1,310 -- (2)
----------
(1) Includes $29 million of outstanding letters of credit.
(2) Revolver until November 2005 with two-year term-out of borrowed moneys.
Securities Registered with the SEC. At March 31, 2005, CenterPoint Energy
had a shelf registration statement covering senior debt securities, preferred
stock and common stock aggregating $1 billion and CERC Corp. had a shelf
registration statement covering $50 million principal amount of debt securities.
Temporary Investments. On March 31, 2005, we had temporary investments of
$242 million, of which $13 million were investments of Texas Genco and are
included in current assets of discontinued operations in the Consolidated
Balance Sheets.
Money Pools. We have a "money pool" through which our participating
subsidiaries can borrow or invest on a short-term basis. Funding needs are
aggregated and external borrowing or investing is based on the net cash
position. The net funding requirements of the money pool are expected to be met
with borrowings under CenterPoint Energy's revolving credit facility.
The terms of the money pool are in accordance with requirements applicable
to registered public utility holding companies under the 1935 Act and under an
order from the SEC relating to our financing activities and those of our
subsidiaries on June 30, 2003 (June 2003 Financing Order). This order expires in
June 2005; however, we are seeking a new order providing appropriate approval
for the money pool by the end of June 2005.
36
Impact on Liquidity of a Downgrade in Credit Ratings. As of May 1, 2005,
Moody's, S&P, and Fitch, Inc. (Fitch) had assigned the following credit ratings
to senior debt of CenterPoint Energy and certain subsidiaries:
MOODY'S
------------------ S&P FITCH
OUTLOOK/ ------------------- -------------------
COMPANY/INSTRUMENT RATING REVIEW(1) RATING OUTLOOK(2) RATING OUTLOOK(3)
------------------ ------ --------- ------ ---------- ------ ----------
CenterPoint Energy Senior Unsecured Debt... Ba2 Possible BBB- Negative BBB- Stable
Upgrade
CenterPoint Houston Senior Secured Debt
(First Mortgage Bonds).................. Baa2 Stable BBB Negative BBB+ Stable
CERC Corp. Senior Debt..................... Ba1 Possible BBB Negative BBB Stable
Upgrade
----------
(1) A "stable" outlook from Moody's indicates that Moody's does not expect to
put the rating on review for an upgrade or downgrade within 18 months from
when the outlook was assigned or last affirmed. A "review for possible
upgrade" from Moody's indicates that a rating is under review for possible
change in the short-term, usually within 90 days.
(2) An S&P rating outlook assesses the potential direction of a long-term
credit rating over the intermediate to longer term.
(3) A "stable" outlook from Fitch encompasses a one-to-two-year horizon as to
the likely ratings direction.
We cannot assure you that these ratings will remain in effect for any given
period of time or that one or more of these ratings will not be lowered or
withdrawn entirely by a rating agency. We note that these credit ratings are not
recommendations to buy, sell or hold our securities and may be revised or
withdrawn at any time by the rating agency. Each rating should be evaluated
independently of any other rating. Any future reduction or withdrawal of one or
more of our credit ratings could have a material adverse impact on our ability
to obtain short- and long-term financing, the cost of such financings and the
execution of our commercial strategies.
A decline in credit ratings would increase borrowing costs under our $1
billion credit facility, CenterPoint Houston's $200 million credit facility and
its $1.31 billion credit facility and CERC's $250 million revolving credit
facility. A decline in credit ratings would also increase the interest rate on
long-term debt to be issued in the capital markets and would negatively impact
our ability to complete capital market transactions. If we were unable to
maintain an investment-grade rating from at least one rating agency, as a
registered public utility holding company we would be required to obtain further
approval from the SEC for any additional capital markets transactions as more
fully described in "-- Certain Contractual and Regulatory Limits on Ability to
Issue Securities and Pay Dividends on Our Common Stock" below. Additionally, a
decline in credit ratings could increase cash collateral requirements and reduce
margins of our Natural Gas Distribution business segment.
As described above under "-- Credit Facilities," our revolving credit
facility contains a "material adverse change" clause that could impact our
ability to make new borrowings under this facility. CERC Corp.'s credit facility
also contains a "material adverse change" clause which relates to CERC Corp.'s
ability to perform its obligations under the credit agreement. Borrowings under
CenterPoint Houston's $200 million credit facility and its $1.3 billion facility
are available notwithstanding that a material adverse change has occurred or
litigation that could be expected to have a material adverse effect has
occurred.
In September 1999, we issued 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable Subordinated
Notes due 2029 (ZENS) having an original principal amount of $1.0 billion. Each
ZENS note is exchangeable at the holder's option at any time for an amount of
cash equal to 95% of the market value of the reference shares of Time Warner
Inc. (TW Common) attributable to each ZENS note. If our creditworthiness were to
drop such that ZENS note holders thought our liquidity was adversely affected or
the market for the ZENS notes were to become illiquid, some ZENS note holders
might decide to exchange their ZENS notes for cash. Funds for the payment of
cash upon exchange could be obtained from the sale of the shares of TW Common
that we own or from other sources. We own shares of TW Common equal to 100% of
the reference shares used to calculate our obligation to the holders of the ZENS
notes. ZENS note exchanges result in a cash outflow because deferred tax
liabilities related to the ZENS notes and TW Common shares become current tax
obligations when ZENS notes are exchanged and TW Common shares are sold.
37
CenterPoint Energy Gas Services, Inc. (CEGS), a wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp., provides comprehensive natural gas sales and services to industrial
and commercial customers, electric generators and natural gas utilities
throughout the central United States. In order to hedge its exposure to natural
gas prices, CEGS has agreements with provisions standard for the industry that
establish credit thresholds and require a party to provide additional collateral
on two business days' notice when that party's rating or the rating of a credit
support provider for that party (CERC Corp. in this case) falls below those
levels. We estimate that as of March 31, 2005, unsecured credit limits extended
to CEGS by counterparties could aggregate $100 million; however, utilized credit
capacity is significantly lower. In addition, CERC and its subsidiaries purchase
natural gas under supply agreements that contain an aggregate credit threshold
of $100 million based on CERC's S&P Senior Unsecured Long-Term Debt rating of
BBB. Upgrades and downgrades from this BBB rating will increase and decrease the
aggregate credit threshold accordingly.
Cross Defaults. Under our revolving credit facility, a payment default on,
or a non-payment default that permits acceleration of, any indebtedness
exceeding $50 million by us or any of our significant subsidiaries will cause a
default. Pursuant to the indenture governing our senior notes, a payment default
by us, CERC Corp. or CenterPoint Houston in respect of, or an acceleration of,
borrowed money and certain other specified types of obligations, in the
aggregate principal amount of $50 million will cause a default. As of May 1,
2005, we had issued five series of senior notes aggregating $1.4 billion in
principal amount under this indenture. A default by CenterPoint Energy would not
trigger a default under our subsidiaries' debt instruments or bank credit
facilities.
Other Factors that Could Affect Cash Requirements. In addition to the above
factors, our liquidity and capital resources could be affected by:
- cash collateral requirements that could exist in connection with
certain contracts, including gas purchases, gas price hedging and gas
storage activities of our Natural Gas Distribution business segment,
particularly given gas price levels and volatility;
- acceleration of payment dates on certain gas supply contracts under
certain circumstances, as a result of increased gas prices and
concentration of suppliers;
- increased costs related to the acquisition of gas for storage;
- increases in interest expense in connection with debt refinancings and
borrowings under credit facilities;
- various regulatory actions;
- the ability of RRI and its subsidiaries to satisfy their obligations
as the principal customers of CenterPoint Houston and in respect of
RRI's indemnity obligations to us and our subsidiaries; and
- various other risks identified in "Risk Factors" in Item 1 of the
CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K.
Certain Contractual and Regulatory Limits on Ability to Issue Securities
and Pay Dividends on Our Common Stock. Limitations imposed on us as a registered
public utility holding company under the 1935 Act affect our ability to issue
securities, pay dividends on our common stock or take other actions that affect
our capitalization.
The secured term loan and each of the credit facilities of CenterPoint
Houston limits CenterPoint Houston's debt, excluding transition bonds, as a
percentage of its total capitalization to 68%. CERC Corp.'s bank facility and
its receivables facility limit CERC's debt as a percentage of its total
capitalization to 60% and contain an EBITDA to interest covenant. Our $1 billion
credit facility contains a debt to EBITDA covenant and an EBITDA to interest
covenant. CenterPoint Houston's $1.31 billion and $200 million credit facilities
also contain EBITDA to interest covenants.
We are a registered public utility holding company under the 1935 Act. The
1935 Act and related rules and regulations impose a number of restrictions on
our activities and those of our subsidiaries. The 1935 Act, among other things,
limits our ability and the ability of our regulated subsidiaries to issue debt
and equity securities without prior authorization, restricts the source of
dividend payments to current and retained earnings without prior authorization,
regulates sales and acquisitions of certain assets and businesses and governs
affiliated service, sales and construction contracts.
38
The June 2003 Financing Order and the several subsequent orders we have
received that provide additional financing authority are effective until June
30, 2005. These orders establish limits on the amount of external debt and
equity securities that can be issued by us and our regulated subsidiaries
without additional authorization but generally permit us to refinance our
existing obligations and those of our regulated subsidiaries. Each of us and our
subsidiaries is in compliance with the authorized limits. Discussed below are
the incremental amounts of debt and equity that we are authorized to issue. The
orders also permit utilization of undrawn credit facilities at CenterPoint
Energy, CenterPoint Houston and CERC. As of April 30, 2005:
- CenterPoint Energy is authorized to issue an additional aggregate $1.4
billion of debt securities and $875 million of preferred stock and
preferred securities;
- CenterPoint Houston is authorized to issue an additional aggregate $89
million of debt and an aggregate $250 million of preferred stock and
preferred securities; and
- CERC is authorized to issue an additional $7 million of debt and an
additional aggregate $250 million of preferred stock and preferred
securities.
The SEC has reserved jurisdiction over, and must take further action to
permit, the issuance of $478 million of additional debt at CenterPoint Energy,
$430 million of additional debt at CERC and $250 million of additional debt at
CenterPoint Houston.
The orders require that if we or any of our regulated subsidiaries issue
securities that are rated by a nationally recognized statistical rating
organization (NRSRO), the security to be issued must obtain an investment grade
rating from at least one NRSRO and, as a condition to such issuance, all
outstanding rated securities of the issuer and of CenterPoint Energy must be
rated investment grade by at least one NRSRO. The orders also contain certain
requirements for interest rates, maturities, issuance expenses and use of
proceeds.
We have an application currently pending with the SEC for a new financing
order which would govern financing by CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries
after the expiration of the June 2003 Financing Order. We anticipate that the
new order will be issued at or before the expiration of the existing order.
The 1935 Act limits the payment of dividends to payment from current and
retained earnings unless specific authorization is obtained to pay dividends
from other sources. The SEC has reserved jurisdiction over payment of $500
million of dividends from CenterPoint Energy's unearned surplus or capital.
Further authorization would be required to make those payments. As of March 31,
2005, we had an accumulated deficit on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
On January 26, 2005, our board of directors declared a dividend of $0.10 per
share of common stock payable on March 10, 2005 to shareholders of record as of
the close of business on February 16, 2005. On March 3, 2005, our board of
directors declared a dividend of $0.10 per share of common stock payable on
March 31, 2005 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on March
16, 2005. This additional first quarter dividend was declared in lieu of the
regular second quarter dividend to address technical restrictions that might
limit our ability to pay a regular dividend during the second quarter of this
year. Due to the limitations imposed under the 1935 Act, we may declare and pay
dividends only from earnings in the specific quarter in which the dividend is
paid, absent specific authorization from the SEC. As a result of the seasonal
nature of our utility businesses, the second quarter historically provides the
smallest contribution to our annual earnings, while the first quarter generally
provides a significant contribution to our annual earnings. If our earnings for
subsequent quarters are insufficient to pay dividends from current earnings,
additional authority would be required from the SEC for payment of the quarterly
dividend from capital or unearned surplus, but there can be no assurance that
the SEC would authorize such payments.
In addition, the SEC generally expects registered holding companies to
achieve a ratio of common equity to total capitalization of 30%. At March 31,
2005, our ratio was 11%. Accordingly, we may issue equity and take other actions
to achieve a future equity capitalization of 30%. The June 2003 Financing Order
also requires that CenterPoint Houston and CERC maintain a ratio of common
equity to total capitalization of 30%, although the SEC has permitted the
percentage to be below this level for other companies taking into account
non-recourse securitization debt as a component of capitalization. At March 31,
2005, their ratios were 41% (excluding transition bonds) and 53%, respectively.
39
Other Factors Affecting the Upstreaming of Cash from Subsidiaries.
CenterPoint Houston's term loan, subject to certain exceptions, limits the
application of proceeds, in excess of $200 million, from capital markets
transactions and certain other borrowing transactions by CenterPoint Houston to
repayment of debt existing in November 2002.
CenterPoint Houston plans to distribute recovery of the true-up components
not used to repay CenterPoint Houston's indebtedness to us through the payment
of dividends. CenterPoint Houston requires SEC action to approve any dividends
in excess of its current and retained earnings. To maintain CenterPoint
Houston's capital structure at the appropriate levels, we may reinvest funds in
CenterPoint Houston in the form of equity contributions or intercompany loans.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A critical accounting policy is one that is both important to the
presentation of our financial condition and results of operations and requires
management to make difficult, subjective or complex accounting estimates. An
accounting estimate is an approximation made by management of a financial
statement element, item or account in the financial statements. Accounting
estimates in our historical consolidated financial statements measure the
effects of past business transactions or events, or the present status of an
asset or liability. The accounting estimates described below require us to make
assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time the estimate is
made. Additionally, different estimates that we could have used or changes in an
accounting estimate that are reasonably likely to occur could have a material
impact on the presentation of our financial condition or results of operations.
The circumstances that make these judgments difficult, subjective and/or complex
have to do with the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are
inherently uncertain. Estimates and assumptions about future events and their
effects cannot be predicted with certainty. We base our estimates on historical
experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable
under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making
judgments. These estimates may change as new events occur, as more experience is
acquired, as additional information is obtained and as our operating environment
changes. Our significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 2 to our
consolidated financial statements in Amendment No. 2 to the CenterPoint Energy
Form 10-K filed on January 10, 2006. We believe the following accounting
policies involve the application of critical accounting estimates. Accordingly,
these accounting estimates have been reviewed and discussed with the audit
committee of the board of directors.
ACCOUNTING FOR RATE REGULATION
SFAS No. 71, "Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation"
(SFAS No. 71), provides that rate-regulated entities account for and report
assets and liabilities consistent with the recovery of those incurred costs in
rates if the rates established are designed to recover the costs of providing
the regulated service and if the competitive environment makes it probable that
such rates can be charged and collected. Application of SFAS No. 71 to the
electric generation portion of our business was discontinued as of June 30,
1999. Our Electric Transmission & Distribution business continues to apply SFAS
No. 71 which results in our accounting for the regulatory effects of recovery of
stranded costs and other regulatory assets resulting from the unbundling of the
transmission and distribution business from our electric generation operations
in our consolidated financial statements. Certain expenses and revenues subject
to utility regulation or rate determination normally reflected in income are
deferred on the balance sheet and are recognized in income as the related
amounts are included in service rates and recovered from or refunded to
customers. Significant accounting estimates embedded within the application of
SFAS No. 71 with respect to our Electric Transmission & Distribution business
segment relate to $2.1 billion of recoverable electric generation-related
regulatory assets as of March 31, 2005. These costs are recoverable under the
provisions of the Texas electric restructuring law. Based on our analysis of the
True-Up Order, we recorded an after-tax charge to earnings in 2004 of
approximately $977 million to write-down our electric generation-related
regulatory assets to their realizable value, which was reflected as an
extraordinary loss.
40
IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS AND INTANGIBLES
We review the carrying value of our long-lived assets, including goodwill
and identifiable intangibles, whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that such carrying values may not be recoverable, and annually for
goodwill as required by SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets." No
impairment of goodwill was indicated based on our analysis as of January 1,
2005. Unforeseen events and changes in circumstances and market conditions and
material differences in the value of long-lived assets and intangibles due to
changes in estimates of future cash flows, regulatory matters and operating
costs could negatively affect the fair value of our assets and result in an
impairment charge.
Fair value is the amount at which the asset could be bought or sold in a
current transaction between willing parties and may be estimated using a number
of techniques, including quoted market prices or valuations by third parties,
present value techniques based on estimates of cash flows, or multiples of
earnings or revenue performance measures. The fair value of the asset could be
different using different estimates and assumptions in these valuation
techniques.
UNBILLED ENERGY REVENUES
Revenues related to the sale and/or delivery of electricity or natural gas
(energy) are generally recorded when energy is delivered to customers. However,
the determination of energy sales to individual customers is based on the
reading of their meters, which is performed on a systematic basis throughout the
month. At the end of each month, amounts of energy delivered to customers since
the date of the last meter reading are estimated and the corresponding unbilled
revenue is estimated. Unbilled electricity delivery revenue is estimated each
month based on daily supply volumes, applicable rates and analyses reflecting
significant historical trends and experience. Unbilled natural gas sales are
estimated based on estimated purchased gas volumes, estimated lost and
unaccounted for gas and tariffed rates in effect. As additional information
becomes available, or actual amounts are determinable, the recorded estimates
are revised. Consequently, operating results can be affected by revisions to
prior accounting estimates.
PENSION AND OTHER RETIREMENT PLANS
We sponsor pension and other retirement plans in various forms covering all
employees who meet eligibility requirements. We use several statistical and
other factors which attempt to anticipate future events in calculating the
expense and liability related to our plans. These factors include assumptions
about the discount rate, expected return on plan assets and rate of future
compensation increases as estimated by management, within certain guidelines. In
addition, our actuarial consultants use subjective factors such as withdrawal
and mortality rates to estimate these factors. The actuarial assumptions used
may differ materially from actual results due to changing market and economic
conditions, higher or lower withdrawal rates or longer or shorter life spans of
participants. These differences may result in a significant impact to the amount
of pension expense recorded. Please read "Management's Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-- Other Significant Matters --
Pension Plan" in Item 7 of the CenterPoint Energy Form 10-K, which is
incorporated herein by reference, for further discussion.
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
See Note 4 to the Interim Financial Statements for a discussion of new
accounting pronouncements that affect us.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT MATTERS
Quasi-Reorganization. On December 30, 2004, our Board of Directors adopted
a plan for an accounting reorganization of the company, to be effective as of
January 1, 2005. At the same time, the Manager of CenterPoint Houston adopted a
similar plan for CenterPoint Houston. These plans were adopted in order to
eliminate the accumulated deficit that exists at both companies.
The plan we adopted, as amended by the Board on February 23, 2005,
required: (1) a report to be presented to and reviewed by our Board of Directors
on or before February 28, 2005 as to the completion of the valuation analysis of
the accounting reorganization and the effects of the accounting reorganization
on our financial
41
statements, (2) a determination that the accounting reorganization is in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States,
and (3) that there be no determination by our Board of Directors on or before
May 10, 2005 that the accounting reorganization is inconsistent with our
regulatory obligations.
On April 27, 2005, our Board of Directors concluded that it will not
implement the accounting reorganization it had expected to implement as of
January 1, 2005. The accounting reorganization would have extinguished our
current accumulated deficit in order to facilitate the payment of dividends
under constraints imposed by the 1935 Act. After receiving management's report
on the accounting effects of the proposed reorganization, the Board of Directors
concluded that the action, if taken, would have negatively impacted our common
equity and would have adversely affected our schedule for achieving the 30
percent common equity level generally expected to be maintained by registered
holding companies. The Manager of CenterPoint Houston also determined that an
accounting reorganization should not be implemented.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
In accordance with Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15, we have
re-evaluated, under the supervision and with the participation of management,
including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined
in Rule 13(a)-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of
the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that,
solely because of the material weakness described below, our disclosure controls
and procedures were not effective as of March 31, 2005. This conclusion is
different than the conclusion disclosed in the original filing of our Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 in which management
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. As a
result of the material weakness described below, which was identified subsequent
to the original filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005, management has re-evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure
controls and procedures.
We determined that, during 2004 and 2005, certain transactions involving
purchases and sales of natural gas among divisions within our Natural Gas
Distribution segment were not properly eliminated in the consolidated financial
statements. Consequently, revenues and natural gas expenses during the three
months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005 were each overstated by approximately $126
million and $167 million, respectively, and management concluded that a
restatement of the consolidated financial statements for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 and 2005 was necessary to correct this error. Subsequent to the
period covered by this report, in connection with the discovery of the error
described above and the conclusion that we had a material weakness in our
internal control over financial reporting related to ineffective controls over
the process of eliminating certain interdivision purchases and sales of natural
gas within our Natural Gas Distribution segment in the consolidation process, we
improved procedures related to the recording and reporting of purchases and
sales of natural gas, including increased review and approval controls by senior
financial personnel over the personnel that will prepare the accruals and
enhanced analysis of the recorded activity, including ensuring that intercompany
activity is properly eliminated in consolidation.
There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the three months ended March 31, 2005 that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting. However, subsequent to the date of filing our original
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, we took the
remedial action described above.
42
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are filed herewith:
Exhibits included with this report are designated by a cross (+); exhibits
previously filed with our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed on May 9, 2005 are designated by two crosses (++); all
exhibits not so designated are incorporated by reference to a prior filing of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
SEC FILE
OR
EXHIBIT REGISTRATION EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION REPORT OR REGISTRATION STATEMENT NUMBER REFERENCE
------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ ---------
3.1.1 -- Amended and Restated Articles CenterPoint Energy's Registration 3-69502 3.1
of Incorporation of CenterPoint Statement on Form S-4
Energy
3.1.2 -- Articles of Amendment to CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.1.1
Amended and Restated Articles year ended December 31, 2001
of Incorporation of CenterPoint
Energy
3.2 -- Amended and Restated Bylaws of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.2
CenterPoint Energy year ended December 31, 2001
3.3 -- Statement of Resolution CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.3
Establishing Series of Shares year ended December 31, 2001
designated Series A Preferred
Stock of CenterPoint Energy
4.1 -- Form of CenterPoint Energy CenterPoint Energy's Registration 3-69502 4.1
Stock Certificate Statement on Form S-4
4.2 -- Rights Agreement dated CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4.2
January 1, 2002, between year ended December 31, 2001
CenterPoint Energy and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Rights Agent
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, CenterPoint Energy
has not filed as exhibits to this Form 10-Q certain long-term debt instruments,
including indentures, under which the total amount of securities authorized does
not exceed 10% of the total assets of CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries on
a consolidated basis. CenterPoint Energy hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any
such instrument to the SEC upon request.
SEC FILE
OR
EXHIBIT REGISTRATION EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION REPORT OR REGISTRATION STATEMENT NUMBER REFERENCE
------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ ---------
4.1.1 -- $1,310,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(g)(1)
dated as of November 12, 2002, year ended December 31, 2002
among CenterPoint Houston and
the banks named therein
4.1.2 -- First Amendment to CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-Q for the 1-31447 10.7
Exhibit 4.1.1, dated as of quarter ended September 30, 2003
September 3, 2003
4.1.3 -- Pledge Agreement, dated as of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(g)(2)
November 12, 2002 executed in year ended December 31, 2002
connection with Exhibit 4.1.1
4.2 -- $1,000,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.1
dated as of March 7, 2005, March 7, 2005
among CenterPoint Energy and
the banks named therein
43
SEC FILE
OR
EXHIBIT REGISTRATION EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION REPORT OR REGISTRATION STATEMENT NUMBER REFERENCE
------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ ---------
4.3.1 -- $75,000,000 revolving credit CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(p)(1)
facility dated as of February 3, year ended December 31, 2004
2005 among Texas Genco Holdings,
Inc., Texas Genco GP, LLC, Texas
Genco LP, LLC, Texas Genco, LP
and the banks named therein
4.3.2 -- Pledge Agreement, dated as of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(p)(2)
February 3, 2005, executed in year ended December 31, 2004
connection with Exhibit 4.3.1
4.4 -- $250,000,000 Credit Agreement, CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.1
dated as of March 23, 2004, March 31, 2004
among CERC Corp., as Borrower,
and the Initial Lenders named
therein, as Initial Lenders
4.5 -- $200,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.2
dated as of March 7, 2005 among March 7, 2005
CenterPoint Houston and the
banks named therein
4.6 -- 1,310,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.3
dated as of March 7, 2005 among March 7, 2005
CenterPoint Houston and the
banks named therein
4.7 -- Sixth Amendment to CenterPoint CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 10(t)(7)
Energy, Inc. Savings Plan, year ended December 31, 2004
effective January 1, 2005
4.8 -- Tenth Amendment to CenterPoint CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 10(t)(21)
Energy, Inc. Retirement Plan, year ended December 31, 2004
effective as of January 1, 2005
+31.1 -- Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification of David M.
McClanahan
+31.2 -- Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification of Gary L. Whitlock
+32.1 -- Section 1350 Certification of
David M. McClanahan
+32.2 -- Section 1350 Certification of
Gary L. Whitlock
++99.1 -- Items incorporated by reference
from the CenterPoint Energy Form
10-K. Item 1
"Business--Regulation,"
"--Environmental Matters," "--Risk
Factors," Item 3 "Legal
Proceedings," Item 7
"Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of
Operations--Certain Factors
Affecting Future Earnings" and "
-- Other Significant Matters --
Pension Plan" and Notes 2(d)
(Long-Lived Assets and
Intangibles), 2(e) (Regulatory
Assets and Liabilities), 4
(Regulatory Matters), 5
(Derivative Instruments), 6
(Indexed Debt Securities (ZENS)
and Time Warner Securities),
9(b) (Pension and Postretirement
Benefits) and 11 (Commitments
and Contingencies)
44
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
By: /s/ James S. Brian
------------------------------------
James S. Brian
Senior Vice President and
Chief Accounting Officer
Date: January 10, 2006
45
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibits included with this report are designated by a cross (+); exhibits
previously filed with our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed on May 9, 2005 are designated by two crosses (++); all
exhibits not so designated are incorporated by reference to a prior filing of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
SEC FILE
OR
EXHIBIT REGISTRATION EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION REPORT OR REGISTRATION STATEMENT NUMBER REFERENCE
------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ ---------
3.1.1 -- Amended and Restated Articles CenterPoint Energy's Registration 3-69502 3.1
of Incorporation of CenterPoint Statement on Form S-4
Energy
3.1.2 -- Articles of Amendment to CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.1.1
Amended and Restated Articles year ended December 31, 2001
of Incorporation of CenterPoint
Energy
3.2 -- Amended and Restated Bylaws of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.2
CenterPoint Energy year ended December 31, 2001
3.3 -- Statement of Resolution CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 3.3
Establishing Series of Shares year ended December 31, 2001
designated Series A Preferred
Stock of CenterPoint Energy
4.1 -- Form of CenterPoint Energy CenterPoint Energy's Registration 3-69502 4.1
Stock Certificate Statement on Form S-4
4.2 -- Rights Agreement dated CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4.2
January 1, 2002, between year ended December 31, 2001
CenterPoint Energy and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Rights Agent
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, CenterPoint Energy
has not filed as exhibits to this Form 10-Q certain long-term debt instruments,
including indentures, under which the total amount of securities authorized does
not exceed 10% of the total assets of CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries on
a consolidated basis. CenterPoint Energy hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any
such instrument to the SEC upon request.
SEC FILE
OR
EXHIBIT REGISTRATION EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION REPORT OR REGISTRATION STATEMENT NUMBER REFERENCE
------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ ---------
4.1.1 -- $1,310,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(g)(1)
dated as of November 12, 2002, year ended December 31, 2002
among CenterPoint Houston and
the banks named therein
4.1.2 -- First Amendment to CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-Q for the 1-31447 10.7
Exhibit 4.1.1, dated as of quarter ended September 30, 2003
September 3, 2003
4.1.3 -- Pledge Agreement, dated as of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(g)(2)
November 12, 2002 executed in year ended December 31, 2002
connection with Exhibit 4.1.1
4.2 -- $1,000,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.1
dated as of March 7, 2005, March 7, 2005
among CenterPoint Energy and
the banks named therein
4.3.1 -- $75,000,000 revolving credit CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(p)(1)
facility dated as of February 3, year ended December 31, 2004
2005 among Texas Genco Holdings,
Inc., Texas Genco GP, LLC, Texas
Genco LP, LLC, Texas Genco, LP
and the banks named therein
4.3.2 -- Pledge Agreement, dated as of CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 4(p)(2)
February 3, 2005, executed in year ended December 31, 2004
connection with Exhibit 4.3.1
4.4 -- $250,000,000 Credit Agreement, CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.1
dated as of March 23, 2004, March 31, 2004
among CERC Corp., as Borrower,
and the Initial Lenders named
therein, as Initial Lenders
4.5 -- $200,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.2
dated as of March 7, 2005 among March 7, 2005
CenterPoint Houston and the
banks named therein
4.6 -- 1,310,000,000 Credit Agreement CenterPoint Energy's Form 8-K dated 1-31447 4.3
dated as of March 7, 2005 among March 7, 2005
CenterPoint Houston and the
banks named therein
4.7 -- Sixth Amendment to CenterPoint CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 10(t)(7)
Energy, Inc. Savings Plan, year ended December 31, 2004
effective January 1, 2005
4.8 -- Tenth Amendment to CenterPoint CenterPoint Energy's Form 10-K for the 1-31447 10(t)(21)
Energy, Inc. Retirement Plan, year ended December 31, 2004
effective as of January 1, 2005
+31.1 -- Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification of David M.
McClanahan
+31.2 -- Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification of Gary L. Whitlock
+32.1 -- Section 1350 Certification of
David M. McClanahan
+32.2 -- Section 1350 Certification of
Gary L. Whitlock
++99.1 -- Items incorporated by reference
from the CenterPoint Energy Form
10-K. Item 1
"Business--Regulation,"
"--Environmental Matters," "--Risk
Factors," Item 3 "Legal
Proceedings," Item 7
"Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of
Operations--Certain Factors
Affecting Future Earnings" and "
-- Other Significant Matters --
Pension Plan" and Notes 2(d)
(Long-Lived Assets and
Intangibles), 2(e) (Regulatory
Assets and Liabilities), 4
(Regulatory Matters), 5
(Derivative Instruments), 6
(Indexed Debt Securities (ZENS)
and Time Warner Securities),
9(b) (Pension and Postretirement
Benefits) and 11 (Commitments
and Contingencies)