CNP
UtilitiesCenterPoint Energy
Price Chart
Market Data
Financials
XBRL · SEC EDGAR2007–2025(19yr)| Metric | FY 2007 | FY 2008 | FY 2009 | FY 2010 | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 | FY 2015 | FY 2016 | FY 2017 | FY 2018 | FY 2019 | FY 2020 | FY 2021 | FY 2022 | FY 2023 | FY 2024 | FY 2025Latest | YoY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.6B | $11.3B | $8.3B | $8.8B | $8.4B | $7.5B | $8.1B | $9.2B | $7.4B | $7.5B | $9.6B | $10.6B | $12.3B | $7.4B | $8.4B | $9.3B | $8.7B | $8.6B | $9.4B | +8.3% |
| Gross Profit | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | $5.5B | $5.8B | $6.2B | $8.3B | $7.2B | $8.1B | $9.1B | $8.6B | $8.6B | $9.4B | +8.3% |
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 73.7% | 60.6% | 58.8% | 67.2% | 96.5% | 97.5% | 97.8% | 98.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | -0.0pp |
| Operating Income | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.0B | $1.0B | $935.0M | $933.0M | $959.0M | $1.1B | $831.0M | $1.2B | $1.0B | $1.4B | $1.6B | $1.8B | $2.0B | $2.1B | +6.0% |
| Operating Margin | 12.3% | 11.2% | 13.6% | 14.2% | 15.4% | 13.9% | 12.5% | 10.1% | 12.6% | 12.7% | 11.2% | 7.8% | 10.0% | 14.0% | 16.3% | 16.8% | 20.2% | 23.0% | 22.5% | -0.5pp |
| Net Income | $395.0M | $446.0M | $372.0M | $442.0M | $1.4B | $417.0M | $311.0M | $611.0M | -$692.0M | $432.0M | $1.8B | $368.0M | $791.0M | -$773.0M | $1.5B | $1.1B | $917.0M | $1.0B | $1.1B | +3.2% |
| Net Margin | 4.1% | 3.9% | 4.5% | 5.0% | 16.1% | 5.6% | 3.8% | 6.6% | -9.4% | 5.7% | 18.6% | 3.5% | 6.4% | -10.4% | 17.8% | 11.3% | 10.5% | 11.8% | 11.2% | -0.5pp |
| Free Cash Flow | -$340.0M | -$169.0M | $681.0M | -$123.0M | $585.0M | $648.0M | — | — | $286.0M | $517.0M | -$5.0M | $485.0M | -$868.0M | -$601.0M | -$3.1B | -$2.6B | -$524.0M | -$2.4B | -$2.4B | -0.4% |
| FCF Margin | -3.5% | -1.5% | 8.2% | -1.4% | 6.9% | 8.7% | — | — | 3.9% | 6.9% | -0.1% | 4.6% | -7.1% | -8.1% | -37.6% | -28.0% | -6.0% | -27.5% | -25.5% | +2.0pp |
| EPS (Diluted) | $1.15 | $1.30 | $1.01 | $1.07 | $3.17 | $0.97 | $0.72 | $1.42 | $-1.61 | $1.00 | $4.13 | $0.74 | $1.33 | $-1.79 | $2.28 | $1.59 | $1.37 | $1.58 | $1.60 | +1.3% |
1. THE BIG PICTURE
CenterPoint Energy is attempting to transform from a traditional regulated utility into a high-growth infrastructure engine, evidenced by its decision to pull forward 10 gigawatts of new load demand by two full years. To meet this demand, CenterPoint Energy is engaging in a massive capital cycle that requires spending far in excess of its internal cash generation, making its success entirely dependent on the sympathy of state regulators.
2. WHERE THE RISKS HIT HARDEST
The "exclusive nature" of CenterPoint Energy’s service territories (Competitive Position) is directly threatened by "regulatory lag" (Risks) because CenterPoint Energy’s $4.23 billion in annual capital expenditures must be recovered through public proceedings. This tension was visible in the 2024 Houston Electric rate case, where the final settlement resulted in a 9.65% return on equity (ROEROEReturn on Equity — net income as a percentage of shareholder equity; how efficiently a company uses the capital investors have put in)—significantly lower than the 10.4% management initially sought (10-K). Furthermore, CenterPoint Energy’s commitment to reliability is physically threatened by "operational hazards" like Hurricane Beryl, which caused extensive damage to the Houston system and led to significant legal and repair liabilities (10-K).
3. WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY TOGETHER
The financial data reveals a stark disconnect between CenterPoint Energy’s earnings narrative and its cash reality. While CenterPoint Energy reported a net income of $264 million in the most recent quarter (8-K), its Free Cash Flow (FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders) margin of -27.4% is the lowest among its peer group (XBRL). This deficit is structural: Capital expenditures of $4.23 billion are more than double the $1.85 billion generated from operations (XBRL). While management targets 8% EPSEPSEarnings Per Share — the company's net profit divided by its share count; the most common per-share profitability metric growth for 2026, CenterPoint Energy is battling headwinds from rising interest expenses, which reduced earnings by $0.05 per share in the latest quarter (8-K). Investor skepticism regarding this capital-heavy path is reflected in the short interest, which stands at 7.1% of the float (Yahoo Finance).
4. IS IT WORTH IT AT THIS PRICE?
At 20.7x Forward P/EP/EPrice-to-Earnings ratio — share price divided by annual earnings per share; how much investors pay per dollar of profit. Higher P/E = higher growth expectations, CenterPoint Energy trades at a 15% premium to the peer median of 17.9x. This valuation is difficult to reconcile with CenterPoint Energy’s growth profile; its 8.3% revenue growth ranks 5th out of 6 peers, trailing significantly behind DTE (+18.6%) and AEE (+15.4%). According to the CAPM analysis, the current price implies a long-term growth rate of 2.6%. While this is consistent with CenterPoint Energy’s infrastructure ambitions, the 2.1% dividend yield is the lowest in its peer group, providing a thin margin of safety for a company with such high capital intensity. The stock is currently priced for near-perfect execution of its $65.5 billion investment plan.
5. WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS VIEW?
- Cautious if FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders margin continues to deteriorate below -30%, signaling that capital outlays are outstripping regulatory recovery at an unsustainable pace.
- Constructive if future rate filings in Texas or Indiana result in authorized ROEs closer to the 10.4% level, which would validate CenterPoint Energy’s premium valuation and ease the burden of its debt-heavy investment cycle.
6. BOTTOM LINE
Structural Advantage: Exclusive regulated monopolies in high-demand regions of Texas and Indiana with a mandated role in providing essential energy infrastructure.
Bottom Line: CenterPoint Energy is an expensive utility play that offers lower yields and higher cash-flow risks than its peers, requiring flawless regulatory outcomes to justify its premium price.
1. Top 5 Material Risks
- Operational Hazards and Service Interruptions: Houston Electric and Indiana Electric face risks from severe weather, mechanical failure, and cyberattacks. These hazards can cause prolonged outages, property damage, and the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. For example, Hurricane Beryl in 2024 caused significant damage to Houston Electric’s delivery system, leading to extended power outages.
- Regulatory Cost Recovery and Rate Lag: The ability of CenterPoint Energy to recover costs and earn an authorized return is subject to regulatory proceedings. Regulatory lag, where costs are incurred before they are recovered in rates, can be exacerbated by capital investments. In the 2024 Houston Electric rate case, the final settlement resulted in a revenue requirement decrease of approximately $47 million and a 9.65% ROEROEReturn on Equity — net income as a percentage of shareholder equity; how efficiently a company uses the capital investors have put in, below the 10.4% ROEROEReturn on Equity — net income as a percentage of shareholder equity; how efficiently a company uses the capital investors have put in initially requested.
- Generation Transition and Capital Project Execution: Indiana Electric’s generation transition plan and CenterPoint Energy’s 10-year capital plan (which plans for at least $65.5 billion in investment through 2035) are subject to risks including construction delays, cost overruns, and regulatory approval hurdles. Failure to execute these projects could materially affect financial results.
- Counterparty and Receivable Concentration: Houston Electric’s receivables are concentrated in a small number of Retail Electric Providers (REPs). As of December 31, 2025, the aggregate billed receivables balance from REPs was $279 million, with approximately 37% and 23% owed by affiliates of NRG and Vistra Energy Corp., respectively. Defaults by these REPs could adversely affect cash flows.
- TEEEF Procurement and Deployment: Houston Electric’s use of Temporary Emergency Electric Energy Facilities (TEEEF) has faced scrutiny, including inquiries following Hurricane Beryl. Government officials have argued that CenterPoint Energy should be responsible for paying approximately $800 million previously approved for recovery from ratepayers related to TEEEF leasing.
2. Company-Specific Risks
- ZENS Redemption Exposure: CenterPoint Energy has approximately $828 million principal amount of ZENS outstanding as of December 31, 2025. If redeemed, CenterPoint Energy would be required to pay deferred taxes; as of December 31, 2025, this liability would have been approximately $897 million, disregarding the availability of net operating loss or CAMT carryforwards.
- Coal Supply Dependency: Indiana Electric relies on a single, unrelated party for its coal supply. The loss of this supplier or transportation interruptions could adversely affect its ability to deliver electricity and impact results of operations.
- Energy Systems Group Guarantees: Although CenterPoint Energy sold its Energy Systems Group business in 2023, it remains the guarantor for certain performance and warranty obligations issued by that business prior to the sale.
- Workforce Retirement Eligibility: As of December 31, 2025, 17.1% of the CenterPoint Energy employee population was retirement eligible, creating potential risks related to the loss of historical knowledge and expertise.
3. Regulatory/Legal Risks
- Environmental Liability: CenterPoint Energy is subject to strict joint and several liability for environmental remediation costs. It faces potential fines and penalties for non-compliance with regulations regarding coal combustion residuals (CCR), wastewater discharges, and air emissions.
- Mandatory Reliability Standards: Houston Electric and Indiana Electric are subject to NERC reliability standards. Noncompliance can result in monetary penalties as high as over a million dollars per violation per day.
- Securitization Bond Delays: Houston Electric is seeking to recover system restoration costs from Hurricane Beryl through non-recourse system restoration bonds. Delays in the issuance of these bonds, which are subject to regulatory approval, could prevent timely cost recovery.
- Climate Policy and Environmental Justice: Evolving climate policies and environmental justice initiatives may lead to increased scrutiny of regulatory processes, project delays, or the cancellation of infrastructure investments.
4. Financial Impact Map
- Operational Hazards → Results of Operations and Cash Flows → Potential for unbudgeted repair costs, legal settlements, and civil penalties.
- Regulatory Cost Recovery → Revenue Requirement → Direct impact on the ability to collect authorized returns on invested capital.
- Capital Project Execution → Capital Expenditures / Net Income → Potential for cost overruns and asset impairments if projects are not completed or fail to produce desired returns.
- REP Receivable Concentration → Bad Debt Expense / Accounts Receivable → Risk of write-offs if REPs default on payment obligations.
- TEEEF Cost Recovery → Regulatory Assets / Revenue → Risk of disallowance of the $800 million previously approved for recovery from ratepayers.
Recent Filings
| Form | Filed | Period |
|---|---|---|
| 10-K | Feb 2026 | Dec 2025 |
| 8-K | Feb 2026 | — |
| 10-Q | Nov 2025 | Sep 2025 |