Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy’s motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) and the Acting Consumer Advocate (“OCA”) filed a Joint Complaint against IDT Energy, Inc. with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). In the Joint Complaint, the AG and the OCA allege, among other things, various violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Telemarketing Registration Act and the Pennsylvania PUC’s regulations. IDT Energy has reached an agreement in principle on a settlement with the AG and the OCA to terminate the litigation with no admission of liability or finding of wrongdoing by IDT Energy. On August 4, 2015, IDT Energy, the AG, and the OCA filed a Joint Petition to the Pennsylvania PUC seeking approval of the settlement terms. Under the settlement, IDT Energy will agree to issue additional refunds to its Pennsylvania customers who had variable rates for electricity supply in January, February and March of 2014. IDT Energy will also agree to implement certain modifications to its sales, marketing and customer service processes, along with additional compliance and reporting requirements. The settlement must be approved by the Pennsylvania PUC, which is not expected until 2016. On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that he and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy’s rebate program from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The named plaintiff filed opposition papers to IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss on March 13, 2015, and on April 10, 2015, IDT Energy filed its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss. The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008 and the present. On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. At September 30, 2015, the Company had an aggregate of $2.5 million accrued for the complaints and lawsuits described above. In addition to the 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. Purchase Commitments The Company had purchase commitments of $10.1 million at September 30, 2015. Renewable Energy Credits GRE must obtain a certain percentage or amount of its power supply from renewable energy sources in order to meet the requirements of renewable portfolio standards in the states in which it operates. This requirement may be met by obtaining renewable energy credits that provide evidence that electricity has been generated by a qualifying renewable facility or resource. At September 30, 2015, GRE had commitments to purchase renewable energy credits of $33.4 million. Tax Audits The Company is subject to audits in various jurisdictions for various taxes. Amounts asserted by taxing authorities or the amount ultimately assessed against the Company could be greater than accrued amounts. Accordingly, additional provisions may be recorded in the future as revised estimates are made or underlying matters are settled or resolved. Imposition of assessments as a result of tax audits could have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Letters of Credit At September 30, 2015, the Company had letters of credit outstanding totaling $7.5 million primarily for the benefit of regional transmission organizations that coordinate the movement of wholesale electricity and for certain utility companies. The letters of credit outstanding at September 30, 2015 expire as follows: $5.8 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2016 and $1.7 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2017. Performance Bonds GRE has performance bonds issued through a third party for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states’ financial requirements for REPs. At September 30, 2015, GRE had aggregate performance bonds of $11.9 million outstanding. Other Contingencies Since 2009, IDT Energy has been a party to a Preferred Supplier Agreement with BP Energy Company (“BP”). The agreement’s termination date has been extended to November 30, 2015. The Company is negotiating with BP and expects to have a new agreement in place by November 30, 2015. Under the arrangement, IDT Energy purchases electricity and natural gas at market rate plus a fee. IDT Energy’s obligations to BP are secured by a security interest in deposits or receivables from utilities in connection with their purchase of IDT Energy’s customer receivables, and in any cash deposits or letters of credit posted in connection with any collateral accounts with BP. IDT Energy’s ability to purchase electricity and natural gas under this agreement is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including the maintenance of certain covenants. At September 30, 2015, the Company was in compliance with such covenants. At September 30, 2015, restricted cash—short-term of $0.4 million and trade accounts receivable of $26.4 million were pledged to BP as collateral for the payment of IDT Energy’s trade accounts payable to BP of $9.0 million at September 30, 2015.

Note 10—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy’s motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) and the Acting Consumer Advocate (“OCA”) filed a Joint Complaint against IDT Energy, Inc. with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). In the Joint Complaint, the AG and the OCA allege, among other things, various violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Telemarketing Registration Act and the Pennsylvania PUC’s regulations. IDT Energy has reached an agreement in principle on a settlement with the AG and the OCA to terminate the litigation with no admission of liability or finding of wrongdoing by IDT Energy. On August 4, 2015, IDT Energy, the AG, and the OCA filed a Joint Petition to the Pennsylvania PUC seeking approval of the settlement terms. Under the settlement, IDT Energy will agree to issue additional refunds to its Pennsylvania customers who had variable rates for electricity supply in January, February and March of 2014. IDT Energy will also agree to implement certain modifications to its sales, marketing and customer service processes, along with additional compliance and reporting requirements. The settlement must be approved by the Pennsylvania PUC, which is not expected until 2016.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that he and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy’s rebate program from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The named plaintiff filed opposition papers to IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss on March 13, 2015, and on April 10, 2015, IDT Energy filed its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss. The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008 and the present. On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

At September 30, 2015, the Company had an aggregate of $2.5 million accrued for the complaints and lawsuits described above.

In addition to the 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.

Purchase Commitments

The Company had purchase commitments of $10.1 million at September 30, 2015.

Renewable Energy Credits

GRE must obtain a certain percentage or amount of its power supply from renewable energy sources in order to meet the requirements of renewable portfolio standards in the states in which it operates. This requirement may be met by obtaining renewable energy credits that provide evidence that electricity has been generated by a qualifying renewable facility or resource. At September 30, 2015, GRE had commitments to purchase renewable energy credits of $33.4 million.

Tax Audits

The Company is subject to audits in various jurisdictions for various taxes. Amounts asserted by taxing authorities or the amount ultimately assessed against the Company could be greater than accrued amounts. Accordingly, additional provisions may be recorded in the future as revised estimates are made or underlying matters are settled or resolved. Imposition of assessments as a result of tax audits could have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Letters of Credit

At September 30, 2015, the Company had letters of credit outstanding totaling $7.5 million primarily for the benefit of regional transmission organizations that coordinate the movement of wholesale electricity and for certain utility companies. The letters of credit outstanding at September 30, 2015 expire as follows: $5.8 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2016 and $1.7 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2017.

Performance Bonds

GRE has performance bonds issued through a third party for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states’ financial requirements for REPs. At September 30, 2015, GRE had aggregate performance bonds of $11.9 million outstanding.

Other Contingencies

Since 2009, IDT Energy has been a party to a Preferred Supplier Agreement with BP Energy Company (“BP”). The agreement’s termination date has been extended to November 30, 2015. The Company is negotiating with BP and expects to have a new agreement in place by November 30, 2015. Under the arrangement, IDT Energy purchases electricity and natural gas at market rate plus a fee. IDT Energy’s obligations to BP are secured by a security interest in deposits or receivables from utilities in connection with their purchase of IDT Energy’s customer receivables, and in any cash deposits or letters of credit posted in connection with any collateral accounts with BP. IDT Energy’s ability to purchase electricity and natural gas under this agreement is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including the maintenance of certain covenants. At September 30, 2015, the Company was in compliance with such covenants. At September 30, 2015, restricted cash—short-term of $0.4 million and trade accounts receivable of $26.4 million were pledged to BP as collateral for the payment of IDT Energy’s trade accounts payable to BP of $9.0 million at September 30, 2015.