Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
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. 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 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 January 2022, 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 an independent mediator to find a resolution to these cases, and the parties have suspended litigation pending a mutually agreed settlement. Given the ongoing mediation we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time. In December of 2020, the Company participated in mediation which covered several 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) Panzer v. Verde Energy, USA Inc. and Oasis Power, LLC (E.D. Pa Aug. 2019); (5) LaQua v. Verde Energy USA New York, LLC (E.D.N Y. Jan. 2020); and (6) Abbate v. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (S.D. Ohio Jun. 2020). The parties agreed to a global settlement that would resolve all of these Verde cases on a nationwide basis. On December 17, 2021, the class action settlement agreement was granted final approval in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division and the deadline for consumers to file a claim is March 31, 2022. On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 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., was a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the Company's purchase of Major Energy and structure of the earn-out in connection therewith ("Major Earn-Out Case") 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. On September 30, 2021, the Court held in favor of the Company on all claims and entered judgment in favor of the Company to close this case. On October 29, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company will continue to aggressively defend this matter. Several smaller, related cases to the Major Earn-Out Case involving the same facts are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These are regarding Major Energy executive compensation agreements. The Company believes there is no merit to these cases and is vigorously defending these matters; however, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time. 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, such at the state Public Utility Commissions and Attorney Generals, have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, which include subpoenas, 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. In 2019, PURA initiated review of 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 requests to review Spark and Verde practices in Connecticut. New York. 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. In January 2022, New York State Attorney General filed a complaint against Major Energy regarding the historical acts of Major Energy (a pre-acquisition matter). Via Renewables, Inc. was also named in the action due to current ownership. We are responding to the complaint (due end of March 2022) and seeking indemnification from the Major Energy former owners. Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) was 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 asserted 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 included payment of 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. The Office of Consumer Advocacy in Pennsylvania has filed several objections to this settlement; however, the settlement has survived all objections to date, and should be finalized by mid-2022. 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. 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 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. 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 2021 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, 2021 and December 31, 2020 we had accrued $14.7 million and $26.6 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and $0.7 million and $1.2 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.

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.

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 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 January 2022, 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 an independent mediator to find a resolution to these cases, and the parties have suspended litigation pending a mutually agreed settlement. Given the ongoing mediation we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time.

In December of 2020, the Company participated in mediation which covered several 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) Panzer v. Verde Energy, USA Inc. and Oasis Power, LLC (E.D. Pa Aug. 2019); (5) LaQua v. Verde Energy USA New York, LLC (E.D.N Y. Jan. 2020); and (6) Abbate v. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (S.D. Ohio Jun. 2020). The parties agreed to a global settlement that would resolve all of these Verde cases on a nationwide basis. On December 17, 2021, the class action settlement agreement was granted final approval in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division and the deadline for consumers to file a claim is March 31, 2022.

On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 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., was a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the Company's purchase of Major Energy and structure of the earn-out in connection therewith ("Major Earn-Out Case") 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. On September 30, 2021, the Court held in favor of the Company on all claims and entered judgment in favor of the Company to close this case. On October 29, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company will continue to aggressively defend this matter.

Several smaller, related cases to the Major Earn-Out Case involving the same facts are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These are regarding Major Energy executive compensation agreements. The Company believes there is no merit to these cases and is vigorously defending these matters; however, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this time.

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, such at the state Public Utility Commissions and Attorney Generals, have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, which include subpoenas, 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. In 2019, PURA initiated review of 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 requests to review Spark and Verde practices in Connecticut.

New York. 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. In January 2022, New York State Attorney General filed a complaint against Major Energy regarding the historical acts of Major Energy (a pre-acquisition matter). Via Renewables, Inc. was also named in the action due to current ownership. We are responding to the complaint (due end of March 2022) and seeking indemnification from the Major Energy former owners.

Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) was 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 asserted 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 included payment of 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. The Office of Consumer Advocacy in Pennsylvania has filed several objections to this settlement; however, the settlement has survived all objections to date, and should be finalized by mid-2022.

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. 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 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.

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 2021 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, 2021 and December 31, 2020 we had accrued $14.7 million and $26.6 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and $0.7 million and $1.2 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.