Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2016
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. The Company does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. The Company is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties and other costs in substantial amounts and are described below. USA Power In October 2005, prior to BHE's ownership of PacifiCorp, PacifiCorp was added as a defendant to a lawsuit originally filed in February 2005 in the Third District Court of Salt Lake County, Utah ("Third District Court") by USA Power, LLC, USA Power Partners, LLC and Spring Canyon Energy, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PacifiCorp misappropriated confidential proprietary information in violation of Utah's Uniform Trade Secrets Act and accused PacifiCorp of breach of contract and related claims in regard to the Plaintiff's 2002 and 2003 proposals to build a natural gas-fueled generating facility in Juab County, Utah. In October 2007, the Third District Court granted PacifiCorp's motion for summary judgment on all counts and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims in their entirety. In a May 2010 ruling on the Plaintiff's petition for reconsideration, the Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment and remanded the case back to the Third District Court for further consideration. In May 2012, a jury awarded damages to the Plaintiff for breach of contract and misappropriation of a trade secret in the amounts of $18 million for actual damages and $113 million for unjust enrichment. After considering various motions filed by the parties to expand or limit damages, interest and attorney's fees, in May 2013, the court entered a final judgment against PacifiCorp in the amount of $115 million, which includes the $113 million of aggregate damages previously awarded and amounts awarded for the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees. The final judgment also ordered that postjudgment interest accrue beginning as of the date of the April 2013 initial judgment. In May 2013, PacifiCorp posted a surety bond issued by a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway to secure its estimated obligation. Both PacifiCorp and the Plaintiff filed appeals with the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision and denied the issues appealed by all parties. In May 2016, PacifiCorp paid $123 million for the final judgment and postjudgment interest. Environmental Laws and Regulations The Company is subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact the Company's current and future operations. The Company believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Hydroelectric Relicensing PacifiCorp's Klamath hydroelectric system is currently operating under annual licenses with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). In February 2010, PacifiCorp, the United States Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Commerce, the state of California, the state of Oregon and various other governmental and non-governmental settlement parties signed the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement ("KHSA"). Among other things, the KHSA provided that the United States Department of the Interior would conduct scientific and engineering studies to assess whether removal of the Klamath hydroelectric system's mainstem dams was in the public interest and would advance restoration of the Klamath Basin's salmonid fisheries. If it was determined that dam removal should proceed, dam removal would have begun no earlier than 2020. Under the KHSA, PacifiCorp and its customers were protected from uncapped dam removal costs and liabilities. For dam removal to occur, federal legislation consistent with the KHSA was required to provide, among other things, protection for PacifiCorp from all liabilities associated with dam removal activities. As of December 31, 2015, no federal legislation had been enacted, and several parties to the KHSA initiated a dispute resolution process. In February 2016, the principal parties to the KHSA (PacifiCorp, the states of California and Oregon and the United States Departments of the Interior and Commerce) executed an agreement in principle committing to explore potential amendment of the KHSA to facilitate removal of the Klamath dams through a FERC process without the need for federal legislation. Since that time, PacifiCorp, the states of California and Oregon, and the United States Departments of the Interior and Commerce have negotiated an amendment to the KHSA that was signed on April 6, 2016. Under the amended KHSA, PacifiCorp will file an application with the FERC to transfer the license for the four mainstem Klamath River hydroelectric generating facilities to a newly formed private entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation ("KRRC"). The KRRC will file an application with the FERC to surrender the license and decommission the facilities. The amended KHSA provides PacifiCorp with liability protections comparable to the KHSA. The amended KHSA also limits PacifiCorp's contribution to facilities removal costs to no more than $200 million, of which up to $184 million would be collected from PacifiCorp's Oregon customers with the remainder to be collected from PacifiCorp's California customers. Additional funding of up to $250 million for facilities removal costs is to be provided by the state of California. California voters approved a water bond measure in November 2014 from which the state of California's contribution toward facilities removal costs will be drawn. If facilities removal costs exceed the combined funding that will be available from PacifiCorp's Oregon and California customers and the state of California, sufficient funds would need to be provided by the KRRC or an entity other than PacifiCorp in order for facilities removal to proceed. If certain conditions in the amended KHSA are not satisfied and the license does not transfer to the KRRC, PacifiCorp will resume relicensing with the FERC. Guarantees The Company has entered into guarantees as part of the normal course of business and the sale of certain assets. These guarantees are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial results.
PacifiCorp [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters PacifiCorp is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. PacifiCorp does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. PacifiCorp is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties and other costs in substantial amounts and are described below. USA Power In October 2005, prior to BHE's ownership of PacifiCorp, PacifiCorp was added as a defendant to a lawsuit originally filed in February 2005 in the Third District Court of Salt Lake County, Utah ("Third District Court") by USA Power, LLC, USA Power Partners, LLC and Spring Canyon Energy, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PacifiCorp misappropriated confidential proprietary information in violation of Utah's Uniform Trade Secrets Act and accused PacifiCorp of breach of contract and related claims in regard to the Plaintiff's 2002 and 2003 proposals to build a natural gas-fueled generating facility in Juab County, Utah. In October 2007, the Third District Court granted PacifiCorp's motion for summary judgment on all counts and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims in their entirety. In a May 2010 ruling on the Plaintiff's petition for reconsideration, the Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment and remanded the case back to the Third District Court for further consideration. In May 2012, a jury awarded damages to the Plaintiff for breach of contract and misappropriation of a trade secret in the amounts of $18 million for actual damages and $113 million for unjust enrichment. After considering various motions filed by the parties to expand or limit damages, interest and attorney's fees, in May 2013, the court entered a final judgment against PacifiCorp in the amount of $115 million, which includes the $113 million of aggregate damages previously awarded and amounts awarded for the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees. The final judgment also ordered that postjudgment interest accrue beginning as of the date of the April 2013 initial judgment. In May 2013, PacifiCorp posted a surety bond issued by a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway to secure its estimated obligation. Both PacifiCorp and the Plaintiff filed appeals with the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision and denied the issues appealed by all parties. In May 2016, PacifiCorp paid $123 million for the final judgment and postjudgment interest. Sanpete County, Utah Rangeland Fire In June 2012, a major rangeland fire occurred in Sanpete County, Utah. Certain parties allege that contact between two of PacifiCorp's transmission lines may have triggered a ground fault that led to the fire. PacifiCorp has engaged experts to review the cause and origin of the fire, as well as to assess the damages. PacifiCorp has accrued its best estimate of the potential loss and expected insurance recovery. PacifiCorp believes it is reasonably possible it may incur additional loss beyond the amount accrued, but does not believe the potential additional loss will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. Environmental Laws and Regulations PacifiCorp is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact PacifiCorp's current and future operations. PacifiCorp believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Hydroelectric Relicensing PacifiCorp's Klamath hydroelectric system is currently operating under annual licenses with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). In February 2010, PacifiCorp, the United States Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Commerce, the state of California, the state of Oregon and various other governmental and non-governmental settlement parties signed the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement ("KHSA"). Among other things, the KHSA provided that the United States Department of the Interior would conduct scientific and engineering studies to assess whether removal of the Klamath hydroelectric system's mainstem dams was in the public interest and would advance restoration of the Klamath Basin's salmonid fisheries. If it was determined that dam removal should proceed, dam removal would have begun no earlier than 2020. Under the KHSA, PacifiCorp and its customers were protected from uncapped dam removal costs and liabilities. For dam removal to occur, federal legislation consistent with the KHSA was required to provide, among other things, protection for PacifiCorp from all liabilities associated with dam removal activities. As of December 31, 2015, no federal legislation had been enacted, and several parties to the KHSA initiated a dispute resolution process. In February 2016, the principal parties to the KHSA (PacifiCorp, the states of California and Oregon and the United States Departments of the Interior and Commerce) executed an agreement in principle committing to explore potential amendment of the KHSA to facilitate removal of the Klamath dams through a FERC process without the need for federal legislation. Since that time, PacifiCorp, the states of California and Oregon, and the United States Departments of the Interior and Commerce have negotiated an amendment to the KHSA that was signed on April 6, 2016. Under the amended KHSA, PacifiCorp will file an application with the FERC to transfer the license for the four mainstem Klamath River hydroelectric generating facilities to a newly formed private entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation ("KRRC"). The KRRC will file an application with the FERC to surrender the license and decommission the facilities. The amended KHSA provides PacifiCorp with liability protections comparable to the KHSA. The amended KHSA also limits PacifiCorp's contribution to facilities removal costs to no more than $200 million, of which up to $184 million would be collected from PacifiCorp's Oregon customers with the remainder to be collected from PacifiCorp's California customers. Additional funding of up to $250 million for facilities removal costs is to be provided by the state of California. California voters approved a water bond measure in November 2014 from which the state of California's contribution toward facilities removal costs will be drawn. If facilities removal costs exceed the combined funding that will be available from PacifiCorp's Oregon and California customers and the state of California, sufficient funds would need to be provided by the KRRC or an entity other than PacifiCorp in order for facilities removal to proceed. If certain conditions in the amended KHSA are not satisfied and the license does not transfer to the KRRC, PacifiCorp will resume relicensing with the FERC. Guarantees PacifiCorp has entered into guarantees as part of the normal course of business and the sale of certain assets. These guarantees are not expected to have a material impact on PacifiCorp's consolidated financial results.
MidAmerican Energy Company [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters MidAmerican Energy is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. MidAmerican Energy does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its financial results. Environmental Laws and Regulations MidAmerican Energy is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact its current and future operations. MidAmerican Energy believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
MidAmerican Funding, LLC and Subsidiaries [Domain]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies MidAmerican Funding is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. MidAmerican Funding does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. Refer to Note 10 of MidAmerican Energy's Notes to Financial Statements.
Nevada Power Company [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Environmental Laws and Regulations Nevada Power is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact Nevada Power's current and future operations. Nevada Power believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Senate Bill 123 In June 2013, the Nevada State Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 123 ("SB 123"), which included the retirement of coal plants and replacing the capacity with renewable and other generating facilities. In May 2014, Nevada Power filed its Emissions Reduction Capacity Replacement Plan ("ERCR Plan") in compliance with SB 123. In July 2015, Nevada Power filed an amendment to its ERCR Plan with the PUCN which was approved in September 2015. In June 2015, the Nevada State Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 498, which modified the capacity replacement components of SB 123. Consistent with direction provided by the PUCN, Nevada Power acquired a 272-megawatt ("MW") natural gas co-generating facility in 2014, acquired a 210-MW natural gas peaking facility in 2014, constructed a 15-MW solar photovoltaic facility in 2015 and contracted two renewable power purchase agreements with 100-MW solar photovoltaic generating facilities in 2015. In February 2016, Nevada Power solicited proposals to acquire 35 MW of nameplate renewable energy capacity to be owned by Nevada Power. In June 2016 Nevada Power executed a long-term power purchase agreement for 100 MW of nameplate renewable energy capacity in Nevada, which is pending PUCN approval. The solicitation and executed power purchase agreement are related to Nevada Power's final steps to comply with SB 123, resulting in the retirement of 812 MW of coal-fueled generation by 2019. Legal Matters Nevada Power is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. Nevada Power does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. Nevada Power is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties and other costs in substantial amounts and are described below. Switch, Ltd. In July 2016, Switch, Ltd. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against various parties, including Nevada Power. The complaint alleges that actions by the former general counsel of the PUCN, as well as the PUCN and the PUCN Staff, violated state and federal laws and as a result of those actions Switch was prevented from being able to utilize an alternative energy provider. Switch also alleges that NV Energy was aware of the wrong doing and either participated in the activities or failed to take action to stop the wrong doing, and as a result Nevada Power has been improperly enriched by these activities. Switch is seeking monetary damages and to invalidate the settlement agreement between Switch and Nevada Power relating to Switch utilizing an alternative energy provider. Nevada Power intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Nevada Power cannot assess or predict the outcome of the case at this time.
Sierra Pacific Power Company [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Environmental Laws and Regulations Sierra Pacific is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact Sierra Pacific's current and future operations. Sierra Pacific believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Legal Matters Sierra Pacific is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. Sierra Pacific does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results.