Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company 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 the Company’s 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 The Company is undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2006 to 2016 for which the Company 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 March 31, 2017, we have accrued $1.9 million related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of these indirect tax audits may result in additional expense. Legal Proceedings The Company is the 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. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys’ fees. Initial discovery is ongoing. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC intend to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Halifax-American Energy Company, LLC et al v. Provider Power, LLC, Electricity N.H., LLC, Electricity Maine, LLC, Emile Clavet and Kevin Dean is a lawsuit initially filed on June 12, 2014, in the Rockingham County Superior Court, State of New Hampshire, alleging various claims related to the Provider Companies’ employment of a sales contractor formerly employed with one or more of the plaintiffs, including misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The dispute occurred prior to the Company's acquisition of the Provider Companies. Portions of the original claim proceeded to trial and on January 19, 2016, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff. Damages totaling approximately $0.6 million and attorney’s fees totaling approximately $0.3 million were awarded to the plaintiff. On May 4, 2016, following post-verdict motions, the defendants filed an appeal in the State of New Hampshire Supreme Court, appealing, among other things the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendants, to set aside the verdict, or grant judgment for the defendants, and the trial court's award of certain attorneys' fees. As of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, respectively, the Company has accrued approximately $1.0 million in contingent liabilities related to this litigation. Initial damages and attorney's fees have been factored into the purchase price for the Provider Companies, and the Company believes it has full indemnity coverage and set-off rights against future price installments for any actual exposure in the appeal. 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 customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Under the terms of the acquisition, Spark HoldCo is indemnified for losses and expenses in connection with this action subject to certain limits. 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. We currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company is indemnified for Major litigation matters, subject to certain limitations by original owners of the Major Energy Companies.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company 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 the Company’s 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

The Company is undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2006 to 2016 for which the Company 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 March 31, 2017, we have accrued $1.9 million related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of these indirect tax audits may result in additional expense.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is the 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.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys’ fees. Initial discovery is ongoing. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC intend to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Halifax-American Energy Company, LLC et al v. Provider Power, LLC, Electricity N.H., LLC, Electricity Maine, LLC, Emile Clavet and Kevin Dean is a lawsuit initially filed on June 12, 2014, in the Rockingham County Superior Court, State of New Hampshire, alleging various claims related to the Provider Companies’ employment of a sales contractor formerly employed with one or more of the plaintiffs, including misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The dispute occurred prior to the Company's acquisition of the Provider Companies. Portions of the original claim proceeded to trial and on January 19, 2016, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff. Damages totaling approximately $0.6 million and attorney’s fees totaling approximately $0.3 million were awarded to the plaintiff. On May 4, 2016, following post-verdict motions, the defendants filed an appeal in the State of New Hampshire Supreme Court, appealing, among other things the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendants, to set aside the verdict, or grant judgment for the defendants, and the trial court's award of certain attorneys' fees. As of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, respectively, the Company has accrued approximately $1.0 million in contingent liabilities related to this litigation. Initial damages and attorney's fees have been factored into the purchase price for the Provider Companies, and the Company believes it has full indemnity coverage and set-off rights against future price installments for any actual exposure in the appeal.

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 customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Under the terms of the acquisition, Spark HoldCo is indemnified for losses and expenses in connection with this action subject to certain limits.

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. We currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company is indemnified for Major litigation matters, subject to certain limitations by original owners of the Major Energy Companies.