Other Contingencies (Details)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Loss Contingencies Line Items
Loss Contingency, Description	E. FERC Base ROE Complaint On September 30, 2011, several New England state attorneys general, state regulatory commissions, consumer advocates and other parties filed a joint complaint with the FERC under Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act alleging that the base ROE used in calculating formula rates for transmission service under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff by NETOs, including CL&P, NSTAR Electric, PSNH and WMECO, is unjust and unreasonable. The complainants asserted that the current 11.14 percent rate, which became effective in 2006, is excessive due to changes in the capital markets and are seeking an order to reduce the rate, which would be effective October 1, 2011. In response, the NETOs filed testimony and analysis based on standard FERC methodology and precedent demonstrating that the base ROE of 11.14 percent remained just and reasonable. The FERC set the case for trial before a FERC ALJ after settlement negotiations were unsuccessful in August 2012. Hearings before the FERC ALJ were held in May 2013, followed by the filing of briefs by the complainants, the Massachusetts municipal electric utilities (late interveners to the case), the FERC trial staff and the NETOs. The NETOs recommended that the current base ROE of 11.14 percent should remain in effect for the refund period (October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012) and the prospective period (beginning when FERC issues its final decision). The complainants, the Massachusetts municipal electric utilities, and the FERC trial staff each recommended a base ROE of 9 percent or below. On August 6, 2013, the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision, finding that the base ROE in effect from October 2011 through December 2012 was not reasonable under the standard application of FERC methodology, but leaving policy considerations and additional adjustments to the FERC. Using the established FERC methodology, the FERC ALJ determined that separate base ROEs should be set for the refund period and the prospective period. The FERC ALJ found those base ROEs to be 10.6 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively. The FERC may adjust the prospective period base ROE in its final decision to reflect movement in 10-year Treasury bond rates from the date that the case was filed (April 2013) to the date of the final decision. The parties filed briefs on this decision with the FERC, and a decision from the FERC is expected in 2014. Though NU cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, in 2013 the Company recorded a series of reserves at its electric subsidiaries to recognize the potential financial impact from the FERC ALJ's initial decision for the refund period. The aggregate after-tax charge to earnings totaled $14.3 million at NU, which represents reserves of $7.7 million at CL&P, $3.4 million at NSTAR Electric, $1.4 million at PSNH and $1.8 million at WMECO. On December 27, 2012, several additional parties filed a separate complaint concerning the NETOs' base ROE with the FERC. This complaint seeks to reduce the NETOs’ base ROE effective January 1, 2013, effectively extending the refund period for an additional 15 months, and to consolidate this complaint with the joint complaint filed on September 30, 2011. The NETOs have asked the FERC to reject this complaint. The FERC has not yet acted on this complaint, and management is unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate the impacts of this complaint on financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2013, the CL&P, NSTAR Electric, PSNH, and WMECO aggregate shareholder equity invested in their transmission facilities was approximately $2.3 billion. As a result, each 10 basis point change in the prospective period authorized base ROE would change annual consolidated earnings by an approximate $2.3 million. F. DPU Safety and Reliability Programs - CPSL Since 2006, NSTAR Electric has been recovering incremental costs related to the DPU-approved Safety and Reliability Programs. From 2006 through 2011, cumulative costs associated with the CPSL program resulted in an incremental revenue requirement to customers of approximately $83 million. These amounts included incremental operations and maintenance costs and the related revenue requirement for specific capital investments relative to the CPSL programs. On May 28, 2010, the DPU issued an order on NSTAR Electric’s 2006 CPSL cost recovery filing (the May 2010 Order). In October 2010, NSTAR Electric filed a reconciliation of the cumulative CPSL program activity for the periods 2006 through 2009 with the DPU in order to determine a proposed rate adjustment. The DPU allowed the proposed rates to go into effect January 1, 2011, subject to final reconciliation of CPSL program costs through a future DPU proceeding. In February 2013, NSTAR Electric updated the October 2010 filing with final activity through 2011. NSTAR Electric recorded its 2006 through 2011 revenues under the CPSL programs based on the May 2010 Order. NSTAR Electric cannot predict the timing of a final DPU order related to its CPSL filings for the period 2006 through 2011. While management does not believe that any subsequent DPU order would result in revenues that are materially different than the amounts already recognized, it is reasonably possible that an order could have a material impact on NSTAR Electric’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows. The April 4, 2012 DPU-approved comprehensive merger settlement agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney General stipulates that NSTAR Electric must incur a revenue requirement of at least $15 million per year for 2012 through 2015 related to these programs. CPSL revenues will end once NSTAR Electric has recovered its 2015-related CPSL costs. Realization of these revenues is subject to maintaining certain performance metrics over the four-year period and DPU approval. As of December 31, 2013, NSTAR Electric was in compliance with the performance metrics and has recognized the entire $15 million revenue requirement during 2013 and 2012. G. Basic Service Bad Debt Adder In accordance with a generic DPU order, electric utilities in Massachusetts recover the energy-related portion of bad debt costs in their Basic Service rates. In 2007, NSTAR Electric filed its 2006 Basic Service reconciliation with the DPU proposing an adjustment related to the increase of its Basic Service bad debt charge-offs. The DPU issued an order approving the implementation of a revised Basic Service rate but instructed NSTAR Electric to reduce distribution rates by an amount equal to the increase in its Basic Service bad debt charge-offs. This adjustment to NSTAR Electric’s distribution rates would eliminate the fully reconciling nature of the Basic Service bad debt adder. In 2010, NSTAR Electric filed an appeal of the DPU’s order with the SJC. In 2012, the SJC vacated the DPU order and remanded the matter to the DPU for further review. The DPU has not taken any action on the remand. NSTAR Electric deferred approximately $34 million of costs associated with energy-related bad debt as a regulatory asset through 2011 as NSTAR Electric had concluded that it was probable that these costs would ultimately be recovered from customers. Due to the delays and the duration of the proceedings, NSTAR Electric concluded that while an ultimate outcome on the matter in its favor remained "more likely than not," it could no longer be deemed "probable." As a result, NSTAR Electric recognized a reserve related to the regulatory asset in 2012. NSTAR Electric will continue to maintain the reserve until the proceeding has been concluded with the DPU.

Other Contingencies (Details)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

E. FERC Base ROE Complaint On September 30, 2011, several New England state attorneys general, state regulatory commissions, consumer advocates and other parties filed a joint complaint with the FERC under Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act alleging that the base ROE used in calculating formula rates for transmission service under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff by NETOs, including CL&P, NSTAR Electric, PSNH and WMECO, is unjust and unreasonable. The complainants asserted that the current 11.14 percent rate, which became effective in 2006, is excessive due to changes in the capital markets and are seeking an order to reduce the rate, which would be effective October 1, 2011. In response, the NETOs filed testimony and analysis based on standard FERC methodology and precedent demonstrating that the base ROE of 11.14 percent remained just and reasonable. The FERC set the case for trial before a FERC ALJ after settlement negotiations were unsuccessful in August 2012. Hearings before the FERC ALJ were held in May 2013, followed by the filing of briefs by the complainants, the Massachusetts municipal electric utilities (late interveners to the case), the FERC trial staff and the NETOs. The NETOs recommended that the current base ROE of 11.14 percent should remain in effect for the refund period (October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012) and the prospective period (beginning when FERC issues its final decision). The complainants, the Massachusetts municipal electric utilities, and the FERC trial staff each recommended a base ROE of 9 percent or below. On August 6, 2013, the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision, finding that the base ROE in effect from October 2011 through December 2012 was not reasonable under the standard application of FERC methodology, but leaving policy considerations and additional adjustments to the FERC. Using the established FERC methodology, the FERC ALJ determined that separate base ROEs should be set for the refund period and the prospective period. The FERC ALJ found those base ROEs to be 10.6 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively. The FERC may adjust the prospective period base ROE in its final decision to reflect movement in 10-year Treasury bond rates from the date that the case was filed (April 2013) to the date of the final decision. The parties filed briefs on this decision with the FERC, and a decision from the FERC is expected in 2014. Though NU cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, in 2013 the Company recorded a series of reserves at its electric subsidiaries to recognize the potential financial impact from the FERC ALJ's initial decision for the refund period. The aggregate after-tax charge to earnings totaled $14.3 million at NU, which represents reserves of $7.7 million at CL&P, $3.4 million at NSTAR Electric, $1.4 million at PSNH and $1.8 million at WMECO. On December 27, 2012, several additional parties filed a separate complaint concerning the NETOs' base ROE with the FERC. This complaint seeks to reduce the NETOs’ base ROE effective January 1, 2013, effectively extending the refund period for an additional 15 months, and to consolidate this complaint with the joint complaint filed on September 30, 2011. The NETOs have asked the FERC to reject this complaint. The FERC has not yet acted on this complaint, and management is unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate the impacts of this complaint on financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2013, the CL&P, NSTAR Electric, PSNH, and WMECO aggregate shareholder equity invested in their transmission facilities was approximately $2.3 billion. As a result, each 10 basis point change in the prospective period authorized base ROE would change annual consolidated earnings by an approximate $2.3 million. F. DPU Safety and Reliability Programs - CPSL Since 2006, NSTAR Electric has been recovering incremental costs related to the DPU-approved Safety and Reliability Programs. From 2006 through 2011, cumulative costs associated with the CPSL program resulted in an incremental revenue requirement to customers of approximately $83 million. These amounts included incremental operations and maintenance costs and the related revenue requirement for specific capital investments relative to the CPSL programs. On May 28, 2010, the DPU issued an order on NSTAR Electric’s 2006 CPSL cost recovery filing (the May 2010 Order). In October 2010, NSTAR Electric filed a reconciliation of the cumulative CPSL program activity for the periods 2006 through 2009 with the DPU in order to determine a proposed rate adjustment. The DPU allowed the proposed rates to go into effect January 1, 2011, subject to final reconciliation of CPSL program costs through a future DPU proceeding. In February 2013, NSTAR Electric updated the October 2010 filing with final activity through 2011. NSTAR Electric recorded its 2006 through 2011 revenues under the CPSL programs based on the May 2010 Order. NSTAR Electric cannot predict the timing of a final DPU order related to its CPSL filings for the period 2006 through 2011. While management does not believe that any subsequent DPU order would result in revenues that are materially different than the amounts already recognized, it is reasonably possible that an order could have a material impact on NSTAR Electric’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows. The April 4, 2012 DPU-approved comprehensive merger settlement agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney General stipulates that NSTAR Electric must incur a revenue requirement of at least $15 million per year for 2012 through 2015 related to these programs. CPSL revenues will end once NSTAR Electric has recovered its 2015-related CPSL costs. Realization of these revenues is subject to maintaining certain performance metrics over the four-year period and DPU approval. As of December 31, 2013, NSTAR Electric was in compliance with the performance metrics and has recognized the entire $15 million revenue requirement during 2013 and 2012. G. Basic Service Bad Debt Adder In accordance with a generic DPU order, electric utilities in Massachusetts recover the energy-related portion of bad debt costs in their Basic Service rates. In 2007, NSTAR Electric filed its 2006 Basic Service reconciliation with the DPU proposing an adjustment related to the increase of its Basic Service bad debt charge-offs. The DPU issued an order approving the implementation of a revised Basic Service rate but instructed NSTAR Electric to reduce distribution rates by an amount equal to the increase in its Basic Service bad debt charge-offs. This adjustment to NSTAR Electric’s distribution rates would eliminate the fully reconciling nature of the Basic Service bad debt adder. In 2010, NSTAR Electric filed an appeal of the DPU’s order with the SJC. In 2012, the SJC vacated the DPU order and remanded the matter to the DPU for further review. The DPU has not taken any action on the remand. NSTAR Electric deferred approximately $34 million of costs associated with energy-related bad debt as a regulatory asset through 2011 as NSTAR Electric had concluded that it was probable that these costs would ultimately be recovered from customers. Due to the delays and the duration of the proceedings, NSTAR Electric concluded that while an ultimate outcome on the matter in its favor remained "more likely than not," it could no longer be deemed "probable." As a result, NSTAR Electric recognized a reserve related to the regulatory asset in 2012. NSTAR Electric will continue to maintain the reserve until the proceeding has been concluded with the DPU.