Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company and the Utilities have entered into contracts with various counterparties, expiring on dates through 2039, for the storage, transportation, and supply of natural gas. Minimum payments required under the contracts in place at June 30, 2020, are estimated at $1,947.6, $1,330.2, and $151.5 for the Company, Spire Missouri, and Spire Alabama, respectively. Additional contracts are generally entered into prior to or during the heating season of November through April. The Utilities recover their costs from customers in accordance with their PGA clauses or GSA riders. Contingencies The Company and the Utilities account for contingencies, including environmental liabilities, in accordance with accounting standards under the loss contingency guidance of ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition to matters noted below, the Company and the Utilities are involved in other litigation, claims, and investigations arising in the normal course of business. Management, after discussion with counsel, believes the final outcome will not have a material effect on the statements of income, balance sheets, and statements of cash flows of the Company, Spire Missouri, or Spire Alabama. However, there is uncertainty in the valuation of pending claims and prediction of litigation results. The Company and the Utilities own and operate natural gas distribution, transmission, and storage facilities, the operations of which are subject to various environmental laws, regulations, and interpretations. While environmental issues resulting from such operations arise in the ordinary course of business, such issues have not materially affected the Company’s or Utilities’ financial position and results of operations. As environmental laws, regulations, and their interpretations change, the Company or the Utilities may incur additional environmental liabilities that may result in additional costs, which may be material. In the natural gas industry, many gas distribution companies have incurred environmental liabilities associated with sites they or their predecessor companies formerly owned or operated where manufactured gas operations took place. The Utilities each have former manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations in their respective service territories. To the extent costs are incurred associated with environmental remediation activities, the Utilities would request authority from their respective regulators to defer such costs (less any amounts received from insurance proceeds or as contributions from other potentially responsible parties (PRPs)) and collect them through future rates. Spire Missouri Spire Missouri has identified three former MGP sites in the city of St. Louis, Missouri (the “City”) where costs have been incurred and claims have been asserted. Spire Missouri has enrolled two of the sites in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program (BVCP). The third site is the result of a relatively new claim assertion by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In conjunction with redevelopment of one of the sites, Spire Missouri and another former owner of the site entered into an agreement (the “Remediation Agreement”) with the City development agencies, the developer, and an environmental consultant that obligates one of the City agencies and the environmental consultant to remediate the site and obtain a No Further Action letter from the MDNR. The Remediation Agreement also provides for a release of Spire Missouri and the other former site owner from certain liabilities related to the past and current environmental condition of the site and requires the developer and the environmental consultant to maintain certain insurance coverage, including remediation cost containment, premises pollution liability, and professional liability. The operative provisions of the Remediation Agreement were triggered on December 20, 2010, on which date Spire Missouri and the other former site owner, as full consideration under the Remediation Agreement, paid a small percentage of the cost of remediation of the site. The amount paid by Spire Missouri did not materially impact the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Spire Missouri has not owned the second site for many years. In a letter dated June 29, 2011, the Attorney General for the State of Missouri informed Spire Missouri that the MDNR had completed an investigation of the site. The Attorney General requested that Spire Missouri participate in the follow up investigations of the site. In a letter dated January 10, 2012, Spire Missouri stated that it would participate in future environmental response activities at the site in conjunction with other PRPs that are willing to contribute to such efforts in a meaningful and equitable fashion. Accordingly, Spire Missouri entered into a cost sharing agreement for remedial investigation with other PRPs. To date, MDNR has not approved the agreement, so remedial investigation has not yet occurred. Additionally, in correspondence dated November 30, 2016, Region 7 of the EPA has asserted that Spire Missouri is liable under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for alleged coal gas waste contamination at a third site in the northern portion of the City on which Spire Missouri operated a MGP. Spire Missouri has not owned or operated the site (also known as Station “B”) for over 70 years. Spire Missouri and the site owner have met with the EPA and reviewed its assertions. Both Spire Missouri and the site owner have notified the EPA that information and data provided by the EPA to date does not rise to the level of documenting a threat to the public health or environment. As such, Spire Missouri requested more information from the EPA, some of which would also be utilized to identify other former owners and operators of the site that could be added as PRPs. To date, Spire Missouri has not received a response from the EPA. Spire Missouri has notified its insurers that it seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in the past and future potential liabilities associated with these MGP sites. While some of the insurers have denied coverage and reserved their rights, Spire Missouri retains the right to seek potential reimbursements from them. On March 10, 2015, Spire Missouri received a Section 104(e) information request under CERCLA from EPA Region 7 regarding the former Thompson Chemical/Superior Solvents site in the City. In turn, Spire Missouri issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the EPA on April 3, 2015, in an effort to identify the basis of the inquiry. The FOIA response from the EPA was received on July 15, 2015 and a response was provided to the EPA on August 15, 2015. Spire Missouri has received no further inquiry from the EPA regarding this matter. In its western service area, Spire Missouri has seven owned MGP sites enrolled in the BVCP, including Joplin MGP #1, St. Joseph MGP #1, Kansas City Coal Gas Station B, Kansas City Station A Railroad area, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A North, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A South, and Independence MGP #2. Source removal has been conducted at all of the owned sites since 2003 with the exception of Joplin. On September 15, 2016, a request was made with the MDNR for a restrictive covenant use limitation with respect to Joplin. Remediation efforts at the seven sites are at various stages of completion, ranging from groundwater monitoring and sampling following source removal activities to the aforementioned request in respect to Joplin. As part of its participation in the BVCP, Spire Missouri communicates regularly with the MDNR with respect to its remediation efforts and monitoring activities at these sites. On May 11, 2015, MDNR approved the next phase of investigation at the Kansas City Station A North and Railroad areas. To date, costs incurred for all Spire Missouri’s MGP sites for investigation, remediation and monitoring these sites have not been material. However, the amount of costs relative to future remedial actions at these and other sites is unknown and may be material. The actual future costs that Spire Missouri may incur could be materially higher or lower depending upon several factors, including whether remediation actions will be required, final selection and regulatory approval of any remedial actions, changing technologies and government regulations, the ultimate ability of other PRPs to pay, and any insurance recoveries. In 2013, Spire Missouri retained an outside consultant to conduct probabilistic cost modeling of 19 former MGP sites owned or operated by Spire Missouri. The purpose of this analysis was to develop an estimated range of probabilistic future liability for each site. That analysis, completed in August 2014, provided a range of demonstrated possible future expenditures to investigate, monitor and remediate all 19 MGP sites. Spire Missouri has recorded its best estimate of the probable expenditures that relate to these matters. The amount is not material. Spire Missouri and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations. Spire Alabama Spire Alabama is in the chain of title of nine former MGP sites, four of which it still owns, and five former manufactured gas distribution sites, one of which it still owns. Spire Alabama does not foresee a probable or reasonably estimable loss associated with these sites. Spire Alabama and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations. In 2012, Spire Alabama responded to an EPA Request for Information Pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA relating to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site located in North Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama. Spire Alabama was identified as a PRP under CERCLA for the cleanup of the site or costs the EPA incurs in cleaning up the site. At this point, Spire Alabama has not been provided information that would allow it to determine the extent, if any, of its potential liability with respect to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site and vigorously denies its inclusion as a PRP. Spire In addition to those discussed above for Spire Missouri and Spire Alabama, Spire is aware of the following contingent matter. In February 2018, the Company was made aware of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the South Alabama Center for Fair Housing and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The complaint alleges that Spire Gulf discriminated against unspecified residents of Eight Mile, Alabama, on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to adequately address the odorant release that occurred in 2008. The Company believes there is no basis for the complaint, HUD has no jurisdiction in the matter, and there will be no material impact on its future financial condition or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company and the Utilities have entered into contracts with various counterparties, expiring on dates through 2039, for the storage, transportation, and supply of natural gas. Minimum payments required under the contracts in place at June 30, 2020, are estimated at $1,947.6, $1,330.2, and $151.5 for the Company, Spire Missouri, and Spire Alabama, respectively. Additional contracts are generally entered into prior to or during the heating season of November through April. The Utilities recover their costs from customers in accordance with their PGA clauses or GSA riders.

Contingencies

The Company and the Utilities account for contingencies, including environmental liabilities, in accordance with accounting standards under the loss contingency guidance of ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

In addition to matters noted below, the Company and the Utilities are involved in other litigation, claims, and investigations arising in the normal course of business. Management, after discussion with counsel, believes the final outcome will not have a material effect on the statements of income, balance sheets, and statements of cash flows of the Company, Spire Missouri, or Spire Alabama. However, there is uncertainty in the valuation of pending claims and prediction of litigation results.

The Company and the Utilities own and operate natural gas distribution, transmission, and storage facilities, the operations of which are subject to various environmental laws, regulations, and interpretations. While environmental issues resulting from such operations arise in the ordinary course of business, such issues have not materially affected the Company’s or Utilities’ financial position and results of operations. As environmental laws, regulations, and their interpretations change, the Company or the Utilities may incur additional environmental liabilities that may result in additional costs, which may be material.

In the natural gas industry, many gas distribution companies have incurred environmental liabilities associated with sites they or their predecessor companies formerly owned or operated where manufactured gas operations took place. The Utilities each have former manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations in their respective service territories. To the extent costs are incurred associated with environmental remediation activities, the Utilities would request authority from their respective regulators to defer such costs (less any amounts received from insurance proceeds or as contributions from other potentially responsible parties (PRPs)) and collect them through future rates.

Spire Missouri

Spire Missouri has identified three former MGP sites in the city of St. Louis, Missouri (the “City”) where costs have been incurred and claims have been asserted. Spire Missouri has enrolled two of the sites in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program (BVCP). The third site is the result of a relatively new claim assertion by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In conjunction with redevelopment of one of the sites, Spire Missouri and another former owner of the site entered into an agreement (the “Remediation Agreement”) with the City development agencies, the developer, and an environmental consultant that obligates one of the City agencies and the environmental consultant to remediate the site and obtain a No Further Action letter from the MDNR. The Remediation Agreement also provides for a release of Spire Missouri and the other former site owner from certain liabilities related to the past and current environmental condition of the site and requires the developer and the environmental consultant to maintain certain insurance coverage, including remediation cost containment, premises pollution liability, and professional liability. The operative provisions of the Remediation Agreement were triggered on December 20, 2010, on which date Spire Missouri and the other former site owner, as full consideration under the Remediation Agreement, paid a small percentage of the cost of remediation of the site. The amount paid by Spire Missouri did not materially impact the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.

Spire Missouri has not owned the second site for many years. In a letter dated June 29, 2011, the Attorney General for the State of Missouri informed Spire Missouri that the MDNR had completed an investigation of the site. The Attorney General requested that Spire Missouri participate in the follow up investigations of the site. In a letter dated January 10, 2012, Spire Missouri stated that it would participate in future environmental response activities at the site in conjunction with other PRPs that are willing to contribute to such efforts in a meaningful and equitable fashion. Accordingly, Spire Missouri entered into a cost sharing agreement for remedial investigation with other PRPs. To date, MDNR has not approved the agreement, so remedial investigation has not yet occurred.

Additionally, in correspondence dated November 30, 2016, Region 7 of the EPA has asserted that Spire Missouri is liable under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for alleged coal gas waste contamination at a third site in the northern portion of the City on which Spire Missouri operated a MGP. Spire Missouri has not owned or operated the site (also known as Station “B”) for over 70 years. Spire Missouri and the site owner have met with the EPA and reviewed its assertions. Both Spire Missouri and the site owner have notified the EPA that information and data provided by the EPA to date does not rise to the level of documenting a threat to the public health or environment. As such, Spire Missouri requested more information from the EPA, some of which would also be utilized to identify other former owners and operators of the site that could be added as PRPs. To date, Spire Missouri has not received a response from the EPA.

Spire Missouri has notified its insurers that it seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in the past and future potential liabilities associated with these MGP sites. While some of the insurers have denied coverage and reserved their rights, Spire Missouri retains the right to seek potential reimbursements from them.

On March 10, 2015, Spire Missouri received a Section 104(e) information request under CERCLA from EPA Region 7 regarding the former Thompson Chemical/Superior Solvents site in the City. In turn, Spire Missouri issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the EPA on April 3, 2015, in an effort to identify the basis of the inquiry. The FOIA response from the EPA was received on July 15, 2015 and a response was provided to the EPA on August 15, 2015. Spire Missouri has received no further inquiry from the EPA regarding this matter.

In its western service area, Spire Missouri has seven owned MGP sites enrolled in the BVCP, including Joplin MGP #1, St. Joseph MGP #1, Kansas City Coal Gas Station B, Kansas City Station A Railroad area, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A North, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A South, and Independence MGP #2. Source removal has been conducted at all of the owned sites since 2003 with the exception of Joplin. On September 15, 2016, a request was made with the MDNR for a restrictive covenant use limitation with respect to Joplin. Remediation efforts at the seven sites are at various stages of completion, ranging from groundwater monitoring and sampling following source removal activities to the aforementioned request in respect to Joplin. As part of its participation in the BVCP, Spire Missouri communicates regularly with the MDNR with respect to its remediation efforts and monitoring activities at these sites. On May 11, 2015, MDNR approved the next phase of investigation at the Kansas City Station A North and Railroad areas.

To date, costs incurred for all Spire Missouri’s MGP sites for investigation, remediation and monitoring these sites have not been material. However, the amount of costs relative to future remedial actions at these and other sites is unknown and may be material. The actual future costs that Spire Missouri may incur could be materially higher or lower depending upon several factors, including whether remediation actions will be required, final selection and regulatory approval of any remedial actions, changing technologies and government regulations, the ultimate ability of other PRPs to pay, and any insurance recoveries.

In 2013, Spire Missouri retained an outside consultant to conduct probabilistic cost modeling of 19 former MGP sites owned or operated by Spire Missouri. The purpose of this analysis was to develop an estimated range of probabilistic future liability for each site. That analysis, completed in August 2014, provided a range of demonstrated possible future expenditures to investigate, monitor and remediate all 19 MGP sites. Spire Missouri has recorded its best estimate of the probable expenditures that relate to these matters. The amount is not material.

Spire Missouri and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations.

Spire Alabama

Spire Alabama is in the chain of title of nine former MGP sites, four of which it still owns, and five former manufactured gas distribution sites, one of which it still owns. Spire Alabama does not foresee a probable or reasonably estimable loss associated with these sites. Spire Alabama and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations.

In 2012, Spire Alabama responded to an EPA Request for Information Pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA relating to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site located in North Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama. Spire Alabama was identified as a PRP under CERCLA for the cleanup of the site or costs the EPA incurs in cleaning up the site. At this point, Spire Alabama has not been provided information that would allow it to determine the extent, if any, of its potential liability with respect to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site and vigorously denies its inclusion as a PRP.

Spire

In addition to those discussed above for Spire Missouri and Spire Alabama, Spire is aware of the following contingent matter.

In February 2018, the Company was made aware of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the South Alabama Center for Fair Housing and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The complaint alleges that Spire Gulf discriminated against unspecified residents of Eight Mile, Alabama, on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to adequately address the odorant release that occurred in 2008. The Company believes there is no basis for the complaint, HUD has no jurisdiction in the matter, and there will be no material impact on its future financial condition or results of operations.