Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies UGI Utilities From the late 1800s through the mid-1900s, UGI Utilities and its current and former subsidiaries owned and operated a number of manufactured gas plants (“MGPs”) prior to the general availability of natural gas. Some constituents of coal tars and other residues of the manufactured gas process are today considered hazardous substances under the Superfund Law and may be present on the sites of former MGPs. Between 1882 and 1953, UGI Utilities owned the stock of subsidiary gas companies in Pennsylvania and elsewhere and also operated the businesses of some gas companies under agreement. By the early 1950s, UGI Utilities divested all of its utility operations other than certain Pennsylvania operations, including those which now constitute UGI Gas and Electric Utility. UGI Utilities also has two acquired subsidiaries (CPG and PNG) with similar histories of owning, and in some cases operating, MGPs in Pennsylvania. Each of UGI Utilities and its subsidiaries, CPG and PNG, has entered into an agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to address the remediation of former MGPs in Pennsylvania (each, a “COA”). The UGI Gas COA was executed in May 2016 and has an effective date of October 1, 2016. The COAs require UGI Gas, CPG and PNG to perform a specified level of activities associated with environmental investigation and remediation work at certain properties in Pennsylvania on which MGP related facilities were previously operated (“MGP Properties”) and, in the case of CPG, to plug a minimum number of non-producing natural gas wells per year. Under these agreements, in any calendar year, required environmental expenditures relating to the MGP Properties and, with respect to CPG, the natural gas wells, are capped at $2.5, $1.8, and $1.1, for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG, respectively. The COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG are scheduled to terminate at the end of 2031, 2018, and 2019, respectively, but each COA may be terminated by either party at the end of any two-year period beginning with the original effective date of the COA. At December 31, 2016, September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our estimated accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG totaled $55.3, $55.1 and $11.7, respectively. UGI Gas, CPG, and PNG have recorded associated regulatory assets for these costs because recovery of these costs from customers is probable (see Note 6). We do not expect the costs for investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at Pennsylvania MGP sites to be material to UGI Utilities’ results of operations because UGI Gas, CPG and PNG receive ratemaking recognition of environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with their environmental sites. This ratemaking recognition balances the accumulated difference between historical costs and rate recoveries with an estimate of future costs associated with the sites. From time to time, UGI Utilities is notified of sites outside Pennsylvania on which private parties allege MGPs were formerly owned or operated by UGI Utilities or owned or operated by its former subsidiaries. Such parties generally investigate the extent of environmental contamination or perform environmental remediation. Management believes that under applicable law UGI Utilities should not be liable in those instances in which a former subsidiary owned or operated an MGP. There could be, however, significant future costs of an uncertain amount associated with environmental damage caused by MGPs outside Pennsylvania that UGI Utilities directly operated, or that were owned or operated by former subsidiaries of UGI Utilities if a court were to conclude that (1) the subsidiary’s separate corporate form should be disregarded, or (2) UGI Utilities should be considered to have been an operator because of its conduct with respect to its subsidiary’s MGP. At December 31, 2016, September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Utilities MGP sites outside of Pennsylvania was material. Other Matters Purported Class Action Lawsuits. In connection with the Partnership’s 2012 acquisition of the subsidiaries of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) that operated ETP’s propane distribution business (“Heritage Propane”), the Partnership became party to a class action lawsuit that was filed against Heritage Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L. Williams, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things, wrongful collection of tank rental payments from legacy customers of People’s Gas, which was acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000. In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class approximately $18.0. In April 2016, the Partnership appealed the verdict to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (the “Second DCA”) and, in September 2016, the Second DCA affirmed the verdict without opinion. Prior to the Second DCA’s action in the case, we believed that the likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District Court’s decision was remote. As a result of the Second DCA’s actions, in September 2016, the Partnership recorded a $15.0 adjustment to its litigation accrual to reflect the full amount of the award plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA, which motions are still pending. We believe we have strong arguments to support the aforementioned motions. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“District Court”). In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) and in August 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the direct customer’s claims against the Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct customers filed a petition requesting an en banc review of the Eighth Circuit, which was granted. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The indirect purchasers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; this appeal has been stayed pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers’ claims. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. This new indirect purchaser class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs appealed this decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect purchaser appeal still pending in the Eighth Circuit. We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them. In addition to the matters described above, there are other pending claims and legal actions arising in the normal course of our businesses. Although we cannot predict the final results of these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies

UGI Utilities

From the late 1800s through the mid-1900s, UGI Utilities and its current and former subsidiaries owned and operated a number of manufactured gas plants (“MGPs”) prior to the general availability of natural gas. Some constituents of coal tars and other residues of the manufactured gas process are today considered hazardous substances under the Superfund Law and may be present on the sites of former MGPs. Between 1882 and 1953, UGI Utilities owned the stock of subsidiary gas companies in Pennsylvania and elsewhere and also operated the businesses of some gas companies under agreement. By the early 1950s, UGI Utilities divested all of its utility operations other than certain Pennsylvania operations, including those which now constitute UGI Gas and Electric Utility. UGI Utilities also has two acquired subsidiaries (CPG and PNG) with similar histories of owning, and in some cases operating, MGPs in Pennsylvania.

Each of UGI Utilities and its subsidiaries, CPG and PNG, has entered into an agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to address the remediation of former MGPs in Pennsylvania (each, a “COA”). The UGI Gas COA was executed in May 2016 and has an effective date of October 1, 2016. The COAs require UGI Gas, CPG and PNG to perform a specified level of activities associated with environmental investigation and remediation work at certain properties in Pennsylvania on which MGP related facilities were previously operated (“MGP Properties”) and, in the case of CPG, to plug a minimum number of non-producing natural gas wells per year. Under these agreements, in any calendar year, required environmental expenditures relating to the MGP Properties and, with respect to CPG, the natural gas wells, are capped at $2.5, $1.8, and $1.1, for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG, respectively. The COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG are scheduled to terminate at the end of 2031, 2018, and 2019, respectively, but each COA may be terminated by either party at the end of any two-year period beginning with the original effective date of the COA. At December 31, 2016, September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our estimated accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG totaled $55.3, $55.1 and $11.7, respectively. UGI Gas, CPG, and PNG have recorded associated regulatory assets for these costs because recovery of these costs from customers is probable (see Note 6).

We do not expect the costs for investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at Pennsylvania MGP sites to be material to UGI Utilities’ results of operations because UGI Gas, CPG and PNG receive ratemaking recognition of environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with their environmental sites. This ratemaking recognition balances the accumulated difference between historical costs and rate recoveries with an estimate of future costs associated with the sites.

From time to time, UGI Utilities is notified of sites outside Pennsylvania on which private parties allege MGPs were formerly owned or operated by UGI Utilities or owned or operated by its former subsidiaries. Such parties generally investigate the extent of environmental contamination or perform environmental remediation. Management believes that under applicable law UGI Utilities should not be liable in those instances in which a former subsidiary owned or operated an MGP. There could be, however, significant future costs of an uncertain amount associated with environmental damage caused by MGPs outside Pennsylvania that UGI Utilities directly operated, or that were owned or operated by former subsidiaries of UGI Utilities if a court were to conclude that (1) the subsidiary’s separate corporate form should be disregarded, or (2) UGI Utilities should be considered to have been an operator because of its conduct with respect to its subsidiary’s MGP. At December 31, 2016, September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Utilities MGP sites outside of Pennsylvania was material.

Other Matters

Purported Class Action Lawsuits. In connection with the Partnership’s 2012 acquisition of the subsidiaries of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) that operated ETP’s propane distribution business (“Heritage Propane”), the Partnership became party to a class action lawsuit that was filed against Heritage Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L. Williams, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things, wrongful collection of tank rental payments from legacy customers of People’s Gas, which was acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000. In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class approximately $18.0. In April 2016, the Partnership appealed the verdict to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (the “Second DCA”) and, in September 2016, the Second DCA affirmed the verdict without opinion. Prior to the Second DCA’s action in the case, we believed that the likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District Court’s decision was remote. As a result of the Second DCA’s actions, in September 2016, the Partnership recorded a $15.0 adjustment to its litigation accrual to reflect the full amount of the award plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA, which motions are still pending. We believe we have strong arguments to support the aforementioned motions.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“District Court”). In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) and in August 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the direct customer’s claims against the Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct customers filed a petition requesting an en banc review of the Eighth Circuit, which was granted. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The indirect purchasers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; this appeal has been stayed pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers’ claims. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. This new indirect purchaser class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs appealed this decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect purchaser appeal still pending in the Eighth Circuit. We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them.

In addition to the matters described above, there are other pending claims and legal actions arising in the normal course of our businesses. Although we cannot predict the final results of these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.