Regulatory Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Regulatory Matters [Abstract]
REGULATORY MATTERS	3. REGULATORY MATTERS 2008 Rate Review In August 2009, the PUCT issued a final order with respect to our June 2008 rate review filing with the PUCT and 204 cities based on a test year ended December 31, 2007 (Docket 35717), and new rates were implemented in September 2009. We and four other parties appealed various portions of the rate review final order to a state district court. In January 2011, the district court signed its judgment reversing the PUCT with respect to two issues: the PUCT’s disallowance of certain franchise fees and the PUCT’s decision that PURA no longer requires imposition of a rate discount for state colleges and universities. We filed an appeal with the Texas Third Court of Appeals (Austin Court of Appeals) in February 2011 with respect to the issues we appealed to the district court and did not prevail upon, as well as the district court’s decision to reverse the PUCT with respect to discounts for state colleges and universities. In early August 2014, the Austin Court of Appeals reversed the district court and affirmed the PUCT with respect to the PUCT’s disallowance of certain franchise fees and the PUCT’s decision that PURA no longer requires imposition of a rate discount for state colleges and universities. The Austin Court of Appeals also reversed the PUCT and district court’s rejection of a proposed consolidated tax savings adjustment arising out of EFH Corp.’s ability to offset our taxable income against losses from other investments and remanded the issue to the PUCT to determine the amount of the consolidated tax savings adjustment. In late August 2014, we filed a motion on rehearing with the Austin Court of Appeals with respect to certain appeal issues on which we were not successful, including the consolidated tax savings adjustment. In December 2014, the Austin Court of Appeals issued its opinion, clarifying that it was rendering judgment on the rate discount for state colleges and universities issue (affirming that PURA no longer requires imposition of the rate discount) rather than remanding it to the PUCT, and dismissing the motions for rehearing regarding the franchise fee issue and the consolidated tax savings adjustment. We filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court in February 2015. At the request of the court, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review in June 2015. We filed a reply brief on July 30, 2015, the deadline for all parties to file replies. There is no deadline for the court to act. If our appeals efforts are unsuccessful and the proposed consolidated tax savings adjustment is implemented, we estimate that on remand, the impact on earnings of the consolidated tax savings adjustment’s value could range from zero, as originally determined by the PUCT in Docket 35717, to an approximate $130 million loss (after tax). We do not believe that any of the other issues ruled upon by the Austin Court of Appeals would result in a material impact to our results of operations or financial condition. See Note 3 to Financial Statements in our 2014 Form 10-K for additional information regarding regulatory matters.

3. REGULATORY MATTERS

2008 Rate Review

In August 2009, the PUCT issued a final order with respect to our June 2008 rate review filing with the PUCT and 204 cities based on a test year ended December 31, 2007 (Docket 35717), and new rates were implemented in September 2009. We and four other parties appealed various portions of the rate review final order to a state district court. In January 2011, the district court signed its judgment reversing the PUCT with respect to two issues: the PUCT’s disallowance of certain franchise fees and the PUCT’s decision that PURA no longer requires imposition of a rate discount for state colleges and universities. We filed an appeal with the Texas Third Court of Appeals (Austin Court of Appeals) in February 2011 with respect to the issues we appealed to the district court and did not prevail upon, as well as the district court’s decision to reverse the PUCT with respect to discounts for state colleges and universities. In early August 2014, the Austin Court of Appeals reversed the district court and affirmed the PUCT with respect to the PUCT’s disallowance of certain franchise fees and the PUCT’s decision that PURA no longer requires imposition of a rate discount for state colleges and universities. The Austin Court of Appeals also reversed the PUCT and district court’s rejection of a proposed consolidated tax savings adjustment arising out of EFH Corp.’s ability to offset our taxable income against losses from other investments and remanded the issue to the PUCT to determine the amount of the consolidated tax savings adjustment. In late August 2014, we filed a motion on rehearing with the Austin Court of Appeals with respect to certain appeal issues on which we were not successful, including the consolidated tax savings adjustment. In December 2014, the Austin Court of Appeals issued its opinion, clarifying that it was rendering judgment on the rate discount for state colleges and universities issue (affirming that PURA no longer requires imposition of the rate discount) rather than remanding it to the PUCT, and dismissing the motions for rehearing regarding the franchise fee issue and the consolidated tax savings adjustment. We filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court in February 2015. At the request of the court, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review in June 2015. We filed a reply brief on July 30, 2015, the deadline for all parties to file replies. There is no deadline for the court to act. If our appeals efforts are unsuccessful and the proposed consolidated tax savings adjustment is implemented, we estimate that on remand, the impact on earnings of the consolidated tax savings adjustment’s value could range from zero, as originally determined by the PUCT in Docket 35717, to an approximate $130 million loss (after tax). We do not believe that any of the other issues ruled upon by the Austin Court of Appeals would result in a material impact to our results of operations or financial condition.

See Note 3 to Financial Statements in our 2014 Form 10-K for additional information regarding regulatory matters.