Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Other than proceedings discussed below, management does not believe that we are a party to any litigation, claims or proceedings that will have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigations or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Indirect Tax Audits We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2009 to 2017 for which we may have additional liabilities arise. At the time of filing these condensed consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses. As of September 30, 2018, we have accrued $1.0 million related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of these indirect tax audits may result in additional expense. Legal Proceedings We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. We are also subject of the following lawsuits. At the time of filing these combined and consolidated financial statements, this litigation is at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of this litigation or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, except as described below. Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs further allege that some improper enrollment and re-enrollment practices have continued to the present date. Plaintiffs alleged claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees. By order dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the claims for violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment. Discovery is limited to issues relevant to class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have recently filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to reassert RICO claims against Spark, in addition to claims for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices. The proposed amended complaint involves allegations relating to Spark’s and Electricity Maine’s door-to-door sales practices in Maine. Spark and Electricity Maine opposed the motion and the Court has not yet ruled on these motions. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein, including the request to certify a class. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. We believe we are fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations. Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power, LLC’s variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers’ local utility company. The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers’ local utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The district court ordered briefing on defendant’s motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2018, the court granted Respond Power LLCs motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class action claims. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August 7, 2018. The final appellate briefing has not yet been completed. The Third Circuit has not yet ruled or set any hearings on this appeal. We currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. We believe we are fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations. Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. The parties have exchanged initial discovery. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ class certification motion. However, the Court opted not to send out class notices, and instead directed the parties to submit briefing on legal issues that could result in a modification or decertification of the class. On June 21, 2018, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Court granted the motion as to liability on a limited and discrete issue (whether Verde’s terms of service complied with a Connecticut statute’s requirement of sufficient clarity regarding rates). The full implications of that ruling are not yet clear. The Court has questioned whether such a statutory violation could justify an award of any compensatory damages. In its order, the Court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ principal theory that Verde’s Terms of Service obligated Verde to track Verde’s wholesale costs in setting its retail rates. Verde filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to decertify the class in August 2018 and plaintiffs filed their reply to that motion in September 2018. No hearing has been set on these motions. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations. Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members’ cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct. Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on November 10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs’ claims were filed on November 24, 2017. The parties are now awaiting the Court’s decision on the pending dispositive motions. The case was recently reassigned to a new judge and the first status conference was held on October 12, 2018. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Saul Horowitz, as Sellers’ Representative for the former owners of the Major Energy Companies v. National Gas & Electric, LLC (NG&E) and Spark Energy, Inc. (Spark), has filed a lawsuit asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and us, and tortious interference with contract against us related to the membership interest purchase, subsequent transfer, and associated earnout agreements with the Major Energy Companies' former owners. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit was filed on October 10, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and after the Company and NG&E filed a motion to dismiss, Horowitz filed an Amended Complaint, asserting the same four claims. The Company and NG&E filed a motion to dismiss the fraud and tortious interference claims on January 15, 2018. Briefing on the motion to dismiss concluded on March 1, 2018, On September 24, 2018. the court granted the motion in part and dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claims but allowed the tortious interference claims to remain as well as the claims for consequential damages and punitive damages. NG&E and Spark filed their affirmative defenses and answer to the remaining claims on October 15, 2018. Discovery has commenced and written discovery requests have been exchanged between the parties. This case is currently set for trial on September 9, 2019. The Company and NG&E deny the allegations asserted and intend to vigorously defend this matter. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Regulatory Matters On April 9, 2018 the Attorney General for the State of Illinois filed a complaint against Major Energy Electric Services, LLC (Major) asserting claims that Major engaged in a pattern and practice of deceptive conduct intended to defraud Illinois consumers through door-to-door and telephone solicitations, in-person solicitations at retail establishments, advertisements on its website and direct mail advertisements to sign up for electricity services. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages representing the amounts Illinois consumers have allegedly lost due to fraudulent marketing activities. The Attorney General also requests civil penalties under the Consumer Fraud Act and to revoke Major’s authority to operate in the state. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division. Major filed its motion to dismiss on August 1, 2018. On October 10, 2018, the court denied Major’s Motion to Dismiss. A status conference is set with the judge on October 24, 2018. Major denies the allegations asserted and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Spark Energy, LLC is the subject of two current investigations by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”). The first investigation constitutes a notice of violation and assessment of a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $0.9 million primarily for Spark Energy, LLC’s alleged failure to comply with regulations implemented in 2016 requiring that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. PURA has granted a motion by the Office of Consumer Counsel of the State of Connecticut to postpone briefing on this matter pending settlement negotiations. The second investigation involves a notice of violation into the marketing practices of one of Spark Energy, LLC’s former outbound telemarketing vendors and assessment of a proposed civil penalty of $0.8 million. Certain agents managed by this vendor were allegedly using an unauthorized script in outbound marketing calls. Spark Energy, LLC has already responded to several interrogatories regarding this matter and is awaiting further instruction from PURA. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings but have accrued $0.2 million as of September 30, 2018, which represents our current estimate for a negotiated penalty for the matter. While investigations of this nature have become common and are often resolved in a manner that allows the retailer to continue operating in Connecticut, there can be no assurance that PURA will not take more severe action.

13. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Other than proceedings discussed below, management does not believe that we are a party to any litigation, claims or proceedings that will have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigations or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Indirect Tax Audits

We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2009 to 2017 for which we may have additional liabilities arise. At the time of filing these condensed consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses. As of September 30, 2018, we have accrued $1.0 million related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of these indirect tax audits may result in additional expense.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. We are also subject of the following lawsuits. At the time of filing these combined and consolidated financial statements, this litigation is at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of this litigation or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, except as described below.

Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs further allege that some improper enrollment and re-enrollment practices have continued to the present date. Plaintiffs alleged claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees. By order dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the claims for violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment. Discovery is limited to issues relevant to class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have recently filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to reassert RICO claims against Spark, in addition to claims for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices. The proposed amended complaint involves allegations relating to Spark’s and Electricity Maine’s door-to-door sales practices in Maine. Spark and Electricity Maine opposed the motion and the Court has not yet ruled on these motions. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein, including the request to certify a class. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. We believe we are fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power, LLC’s variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers’ local utility company. The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers’ local utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The district court ordered briefing on defendant’s motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2018, the court granted Respond Power LLCs motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class action claims. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August 7, 2018. The final appellate briefing has not yet been completed. The Third Circuit has not yet ruled or set any hearings on this appeal. We currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. We believe we are fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. The parties have exchanged initial discovery. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ class certification motion. However, the Court opted not to send out class notices, and instead directed the parties to submit briefing on legal issues that could result in a modification or decertification of the class. On June 21, 2018, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Court granted the motion as to liability on a limited and discrete issue (whether Verde’s terms of service complied with a Connecticut statute’s requirement of sufficient clarity regarding rates). The full implications of that ruling are not yet clear. The Court has questioned whether such a statutory violation could justify an award of any compensatory damages. In its order, the Court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ principal theory that Verde’s Terms of Service obligated Verde to track Verde’s wholesale costs in setting its retail rates. Verde filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to decertify the class in August 2018 and plaintiffs filed their reply to that motion in September 2018. No hearing has been set on these motions. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations. Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members’ cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct. Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on November 10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs’ claims were filed on November 24, 2017. The parties are now awaiting the Court’s decision on the pending dispositive motions. The case was recently reassigned to a new judge and the first status conference was held on October 12, 2018. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Saul Horowitz, as Sellers’ Representative for the former owners of the Major Energy Companies v. National Gas & Electric, LLC (NG&E) and Spark Energy, Inc. (Spark), has filed a lawsuit asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and us, and tortious interference with contract against us related to the membership interest purchase, subsequent transfer, and associated earnout agreements with the Major Energy Companies' former owners. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit was filed on October 10, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and after the Company and NG&E filed a motion to dismiss, Horowitz filed an Amended Complaint, asserting the same four claims. The Company and NG&E filed a motion to dismiss the fraud and tortious interference claims on January 15, 2018. Briefing on the motion to dismiss concluded on March 1, 2018, On September 24, 2018. the court granted the motion in part and dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claims but allowed the tortious interference claims to remain as well as the claims for consequential damages and punitive damages. NG&E and Spark filed their affirmative defenses and answer to the remaining claims on October 15, 2018. Discovery has commenced and written discovery requests have been exchanged between the parties. This case is currently set for trial on September 9, 2019. The Company and NG&E deny the allegations asserted and intend to vigorously defend this matter. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Regulatory Matters

On April 9, 2018 the Attorney General for the State of Illinois filed a complaint against Major Energy Electric Services, LLC (Major) asserting claims that Major engaged in a pattern and practice of deceptive conduct intended to defraud Illinois consumers through door-to-door and telephone solicitations, in-person solicitations at retail establishments, advertisements on its website and direct mail advertisements to sign up for electricity services. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages representing the amounts Illinois consumers have allegedly lost due to fraudulent marketing activities. The Attorney General also requests civil penalties under the Consumer Fraud Act and to revoke Major’s authority to operate in the state. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division. Major filed its motion to dismiss on August 1, 2018. On October 10, 2018, the court denied Major’s Motion to Dismiss. A status conference is set with the judge on October 24, 2018. Major denies the allegations asserted and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Spark Energy, LLC is the subject of two current investigations by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”). The first investigation constitutes a notice of violation and assessment of a proposed civil penalty in the amount of $0.9 million primarily for Spark Energy, LLC’s alleged failure to comply with regulations implemented in 2016 requiring that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. PURA has granted a motion by the Office of Consumer Counsel of the State of Connecticut to postpone briefing on this matter pending settlement negotiations. The second investigation involves a notice of violation into the marketing practices of one of Spark Energy, LLC’s former outbound telemarketing vendors and assessment of a proposed civil penalty of $0.8 million. Certain agents managed by this vendor were allegedly using an unauthorized script in outbound marketing calls. Spark Energy, LLC has already responded to several interrogatories regarding this matter and is awaiting further instruction from PURA. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings but have accrued $0.2 million as of September 30, 2018, which represents our current estimate for a negotiated penalty for the matter. While investigations of this nature have become common and are often resolved in a manner that allows the retailer to continue operating in Connecticut, there can be no assurance that PURA will not take more severe action.