Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal Proceedings Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings 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. Consumer Lawsuits Similar to other energy service companies (“ESCOs”) operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions where the Company sells natural gas and electricity. Variable Rate Cases In the cases referred to as Variable Rate Cases, such actions involve consumers alleging they paid higher rates than they would have if they stayed with their default utility. The underlying claims of each case are similar; however, because numerous cases have been brought in several different jurisdictions, the varying applicable case law, the varying facts and stages of each case, the Company agreed to mediate in two aggregated mediations to avoid duplicative defense costs in numerous jurisdictions. The Company continues to deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend these matters. In August 2020, the Company participated in mediation which covered three Spark brand matters: (1) Janet Rolland et al v. Spark Energy, LLC (D.N.J. Apr. 2017); (2) Burger v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2019); and (3) Local 901 v. Spark Energy, LLC (Sup .Ct. Allen County, Indiana Aug. 2019). The Company is working with the mediator to find a mediated resolution to these cases, but is simultaneously continuing to defend the cases in the respective courts, which includes the case Panzer v. Verde Energy, USA Inc. and Oasis Power, LLC (E.D. Pa Aug. 2019) brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel participating in mediation. Given the ongoing mediation, discovery and current stage of these matters, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time. In December of 2020, the Company participated in mediation which covered five Verde brand matters: (1) Marshall v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Jan. 2018); (2) Mercado v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2018); (3) Davis v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., et al. (D. Mass. Apr. 2019); (4) LaQua v. Verde Energy USA New York, LLC (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2020); and (5) Abbate v. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (S.D. Ohio Jun. 2020). The parties continue to work on a mediation resolution and the litigation has been stayed in these matters. Given the ongoing mediation, discovery and current stage of these matters, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time. On January 14, 2021, a purported variable rate class action was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. The Company believes there is no merit to this case and plans to vigorously defend this matter; however, given the current early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time. Corporate Matter Lawsuits 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., is a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and Spark, and tortious interference with contract against Spark related to a membership interest purchase agreement, subsequent dropdown, 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. This case went to trial during the first two weeks of March 2020 and all material has been submitted to the Judge for his decision. Given the trial was in Manhattan, New York, which was previously under a shelter-in-place order and is currently re-opening in phases, we are not able to predict when we receive a final decision on this matter. Spark and NG&E deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and have vigorously defended this matter; however, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. In addition, several smaller, related cases involving the same facts are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the Major Energy escrowed indemnification monies and three Major Energy executive compensation agreements. In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Regulatory Matters Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, license renewal reviews, and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are 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 these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Connecticut. The Company worked with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”) regarding compliance with requirements implemented in 2016 that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. PURA approved all of Company’s proposed settlements for all operating brands in Connecticut and refunds have been issued to all Connecticut customers. In addition, PURA is reviewing two of the Company’s brands in Connecticut, Spark and Verde, focusing on marketing, billing and enrollment practices. The Company is cooperating with PURA’s reviews of Spark and Verde. Illinois. Spark Energy, LLC received a verbal inquiry from the Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”) and the Illinois Attorney General (“IAG”) on January 1, 2020 seeking to understand an increase in complaints from Illinois consumers. The Company met with the ICC and the IAG in February 2020 and plan to discuss a compliance plan to ensure its sales are in compliance with Illinois regulations. The parties also discussed possible restitution payments to any customers impacted by sales not in compliance with Illinois regulations. Maine. In early 2018, Staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (“Maine PUC”) issued letters to Electricity Maine seeking information about customer complaints principally associated with historical door-to-door (“D2D”) sales practices. In late July 2018, the Maine PUC issued an Order to Show Cause and Electricity Maine responded in mid-August 2018. The Commission scheduled a procedural conference in early 2019 that resulted in no intervenors other than participation as a party by the Maine Office of Public Advocate. At the conference, the parties agreed on a procedural schedule, including a one-day evidentiary hearing. Following post-hearing discovery, Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on August 30, 2019 and September 10, 2019, respectively. The Maine PUC hearing examiner released its report in April 2020 alleging failures of compliance related to enrollment and marketing practices by Electricity Maine. The Company has been cooperatively working with the Maine Office of Public Advocate and the staff of the Maine PUC. The Company proposed a resolution of this matter which was presented to the Maine PUC for approval. In December 2020, the Maine PUC did not approve the settlement; however, the Company worked cooperatively with the Maine Office of Public Advocate and the staff of the Maine PUC on a revised settlement which was approved by the Maine PUC in February 2021. New York. New York Attorney General. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General and recently agreed to respond to additional questions via remote proceedings in October of 2020. The parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General. The Parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action. Ohio. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (“Verde Ohio”) was the subject of a formal investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) initiated on April 16, 2019. The investigation asserted that Verde Ohio may have violated Ohio’s retail energy supplier regulations. Verde Ohio voluntary suspended door-to-door marketing in Ohio in furtherance of settlement negotiations with the PUCO Staff. On September 6, 2019, Verde Ohio and PUCO Staff executed and filed with PUCO a Joint Stipulation and Recommendation for PUCO’s review and approval, which sets forth agreed settlement terms, which included approximately $1.9 million in refunds to customers and a penalty of $0.7 million. The settlement was approved by PUCO on February 26, 2020, and the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation resolves all of the issues raised in the investigation. The Company has provided all refunds to customers and received final approval of its license recertifications in December 2020. Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) is the subject of a formal investigation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (“PPUC”) initiated on January 30, 2020. The investigation asserts that Verde may have violated Pennsylvania retail energy supplier regulations. The Company met with the PPUC in February 2020 to discuss the matter and to work with the PPUC cooperatively. Verde reached a settlement, which includes a civil penalty of $1.0 million and a $0.1 million contribution to the PPL hardship fund. On June 30, 2020, Verde and PPUC Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement filed a Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement and Statements in Support of that Joint Petition with the Commission. Verde is currently awaiting final approval of this settlement. In addition to the matters disclosed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may from time to time be subject to regulators initiating informal reviews or issuing subpoenas for information as means to evaluate the Company and its subsidiaries’ compliance with applicable laws, rule, regulations and practices. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those regulatory reviews to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Indirect Tax Audits We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2014 to 2020 for which additional liabilities may arise. At the time of filing these 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 December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 we had accrued $26.6 million and $29.2 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and $1.2 million and $1.8 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.

From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings 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.

In the cases referred to as Variable Rate Cases, such actions involve consumers alleging they paid higher rates than they would have if they stayed with their default utility. The underlying claims of each case are similar; however, because numerous cases have been brought in several different jurisdictions, the varying applicable case law, the varying facts and stages of each case, the Company agreed to mediate in two aggregated mediations to avoid duplicative defense costs in numerous jurisdictions. The Company continues to deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend these matters.

Local 901 v. Spark Energy, LLC (Sup .Ct. Allen County, Indiana Aug. 2019). The Company is working with the mediator to find a mediated resolution to these cases, but is simultaneously continuing to defend the cases in the respective courts, which includes the case Panzer v. Verde Energy, USA Inc. and Oasis Power, LLC (E.D. Pa Aug. 2019) brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel participating in mediation. Given the ongoing mediation, discovery and current stage of these matters, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time.

In December of 2020, the Company participated in mediation which covered five Verde brand matters: (1) Marshall v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Jan. 2018); (2) Mercado v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2018); (3) Davis v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., et al. (D. Mass. Apr. 2019); (4) LaQua v. Verde Energy USA New York, LLC (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2020); and (5) Abbate v. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (S.D. Ohio Jun. 2020). The parties continue to work on a mediation resolution and the litigation has been stayed in these matters. Given the ongoing mediation, discovery and current stage of these matters, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time.

On January 14, 2021, a purported variable rate class action was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. The Company believes there is no merit to this case and plans to vigorously defend this matter; however, given the current early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome 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., is a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and Spark, and tortious interference with contract against Spark related to a membership interest purchase agreement, subsequent dropdown, 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. This case went to trial during the first two weeks of March 2020 and all material has been submitted to the Judge for his decision. Given the trial was in Manhattan, New York, which was previously under a shelter-in-place order and is currently re-opening in phases, we are not able to predict when we receive a final decision on this matter. Spark and NG&E deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and have vigorously defended this matter; however, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. In addition, several smaller, related cases involving the same facts are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the Major Energy escrowed indemnification monies and three Major Energy executive compensation agreements.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, license renewal reviews, and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are 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 these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Connecticut. The Company worked with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”) regarding compliance with requirements implemented in 2016 that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. PURA approved all of Company’s proposed settlements for all operating brands in Connecticut and refunds have been issued to all Connecticut customers. In addition, PURA is reviewing two of the Company’s brands in Connecticut, Spark and Verde, focusing on marketing, billing and enrollment practices. The Company is cooperating with PURA’s reviews of Spark and Verde.

Illinois. Spark Energy, LLC received a verbal inquiry from the Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”) and the Illinois Attorney General (“IAG”) on January 1, 2020 seeking to understand an increase in complaints from Illinois consumers. The Company met with the ICC and the IAG in February 2020 and plan to discuss a compliance plan to ensure its sales are in compliance with Illinois regulations. The parties also discussed possible restitution payments to any customers impacted by sales not in compliance with Illinois regulations.

Maine. In early 2018, Staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (“Maine PUC”) issued letters to Electricity Maine seeking information about customer complaints principally associated with historical door-to-door (“D2D”) sales practices. In late July 2018, the Maine PUC issued an Order to Show Cause and Electricity Maine responded in mid-August 2018. The Commission scheduled a procedural conference in early 2019 that resulted in no intervenors other than participation as a party by the Maine Office of Public Advocate. At the conference, the parties agreed on a procedural schedule, including a one-day evidentiary hearing. Following post-hearing discovery, Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on August 30, 2019 and September 10, 2019, respectively. The Maine PUC hearing examiner released its report in April 2020 alleging failures of compliance related to enrollment and marketing practices by Electricity Maine. The Company has been cooperatively working with the Maine Office of Public Advocate and the staff of the Maine PUC. The Company proposed a resolution of this matter which was presented to the Maine PUC for approval. In December 2020, the Maine PUC did not approve the settlement; however, the Company worked cooperatively with the Maine Office of Public Advocate and the staff of the Maine PUC on a revised settlement which was approved by the Maine PUC in February 2021.

New York Attorney General. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General and recently agreed to respond to additional questions via remote proceedings in October of 2020. The parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General. The Parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action.

Ohio. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (“Verde Ohio”) was the subject of a formal investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) initiated on April 16, 2019. The investigation asserted that Verde Ohio may have violated Ohio’s retail energy supplier regulations. Verde Ohio voluntary suspended door-to-door marketing in Ohio in furtherance of settlement negotiations with the PUCO Staff. On September 6, 2019, Verde Ohio and PUCO Staff executed and filed with PUCO a Joint Stipulation and Recommendation for PUCO’s review and approval, which sets forth agreed settlement terms, which included approximately $1.9 million in refunds to customers and a penalty of $0.7 million. The settlement was approved by PUCO on February 26, 2020, and the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation resolves all of the issues raised in the investigation. The Company has provided all refunds to customers and received final approval of its license recertifications in December 2020.

Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) is the subject of a formal investigation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (“PPUC”) initiated on January 30, 2020. The investigation asserts that Verde may have violated Pennsylvania retail energy supplier regulations. The Company met with the PPUC in February 2020 to discuss the matter and to work with the PPUC cooperatively. Verde reached a settlement, which includes a civil penalty of $1.0 million and a $0.1 million contribution to the PPL hardship fund. On June 30, 2020, Verde and PPUC Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement filed a Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement and Statements in Support of that Joint Petition with the Commission. Verde is currently awaiting final approval of this settlement.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may from time to time be subject to regulators initiating informal reviews or issuing subpoenas for information as means to evaluate the Company and its subsidiaries’ compliance with applicable laws, rule, regulations and practices. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those regulatory reviews to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2014 to 2020 for which additional liabilities may arise. At the time of filing these 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.