Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies Environmental Matters 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 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 June 30, 2017, September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2016, our estimated accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG totaled $55.2, $55.1 and $56.0, 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 recovery of actual environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with the sites covered by the COAs. This ratemaking recognition reconciles 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 June 30, 2017, September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2016, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Utilities’ MGP sites outside of Pennsylvania was material. AmeriGas Propane AmeriGas OLP Saranac Lake. By letter dated March 6, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) notified AmeriGas OLP that DEC had placed property purportedly owned by AmeriGas OLP in Saranac Lake, New York on its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. A site characterization study performed by the DEC disclosed contamination related to a former MGP. At that time, AmeriGas OLP reviewed the preliminary site characterization prepared by the DEC and researched the history of the site, including the extent of AmeriGas OLP’s ownership of the site. In its written response to the DEC in early 2009, AmeriGas OLP disputed DEC’s contention it was a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) as it did not operate the MGP and appeared to only own a portion of the site. The DEC did not respond to the 2009 communication. In March 2017, the DEC communicated to AmeriGas OLP that the DEC had performed significant testing at the site and had drafted three Records of Decision (“RODs”) related to the site and requested additional information related to AmeriGas OLP’s purported ownership of the site. The DEC has estimated that its selected remediation plan will cost approximately $27.0. AmeriGas OLP is in the process of responding to the DEC’s request for ownership information and continues to assert defenses based on the nature of its ownership and use of the site. AmeriGas believes it has identified other PRPs and is reviewing the appropriateness of the DEC’s remediation plan, which could affect the amount and allocation of financial responsibility. To AmeriGas OLP’s knowledge, the DEC has not commenced implementation of the remediation plan and has not indicated when such remediation will start. Based upon currently available information, the Partnership is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome and timing with respect to the resolution of this matter. The Partnership is working with outside counsel and its environmental consultants to determine the potential exposure and liability due to AmeriGas OLP’s purported ownership of the site. Based on our preliminary evaluation of the available information, during the third quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Partnership accrued an environmental remediation liability of $7.5 related to the site, which amount is included in “Operating and administrative expenses” on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Our share of the actual remediation costs could be significantly more or less than the accrued amount. Other Matters Class Action Judgment. 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 judgment plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA. Following denial of such motion, the Partnership satisfied such judgment. Purported Class Action Lawsuits. 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. In June 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) ruled en banc to reverse the dismissal by the District Court, which had previously been affirmed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. We are considering the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Eighth Circuit. In July 2015, the District Court also dismissed all claims brought by the indirect customers other than those for injunctive relief. 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 customers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; such appeal was subject to a stay pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers’ claims. In light of the Eighth Circuit decision with respect to the direct purchaser claims, the briefing schedule in respect of the indirect purchaser appeal will now resume. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. The new indirect customer class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect customer plaintiffs appealed the decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect customer 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 statements.

Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

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 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 June 30, 2017, September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2016, our estimated accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the COAs for UGI Gas, CPG and PNG totaled $55.2, $55.1 and $56.0, 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 recovery of actual environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with the sites covered by the COAs. This ratemaking recognition reconciles 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 June 30, 2017, September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2016, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Utilities’ MGP sites outside of Pennsylvania was material.

AmeriGas Propane

AmeriGas OLP Saranac Lake. By letter dated March 6, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) notified AmeriGas OLP that DEC had placed property purportedly owned by AmeriGas OLP in Saranac Lake, New York on its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. A site characterization study performed by the DEC disclosed contamination related to a former MGP. At that time, AmeriGas OLP reviewed the preliminary site characterization prepared by the DEC and researched the history of the site, including the extent of AmeriGas OLP’s ownership of the site. In its written response to the DEC in early 2009, AmeriGas OLP disputed DEC’s contention it was a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) as it did not operate the MGP and appeared to only own a portion of the site. The DEC did not respond to the 2009 communication. In March 2017, the DEC communicated to AmeriGas OLP that the DEC had performed significant testing at the site and had drafted three Records of Decision (“RODs”) related to the site and requested additional information related to AmeriGas OLP’s purported ownership of the site. The DEC has estimated that its selected remediation plan will cost approximately $27.0. AmeriGas OLP is in the process of responding to the DEC’s request for ownership information and continues to assert defenses based on the nature of its ownership and use of the site. AmeriGas believes it has identified other PRPs and is reviewing the appropriateness of the DEC’s remediation plan, which could affect the amount and allocation of financial responsibility. To AmeriGas OLP’s knowledge, the DEC has not commenced implementation of the remediation plan and has not indicated when such remediation will start. Based upon currently available information, the Partnership is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome and timing with respect to the resolution of this matter. The Partnership is working with outside counsel and its environmental consultants to determine the potential exposure and liability due to AmeriGas OLP’s purported ownership of the site. Based on our preliminary evaluation of the available information, during the third quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Partnership accrued an environmental remediation liability of $7.5 related to the site, which amount is included in “Operating and administrative expenses” on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Our share of the actual remediation costs could be significantly more or less than the accrued amount.

Other Matters

Class Action Judgment. 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 judgment plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA. Following denial of such motion, the Partnership satisfied such judgment.

Purported Class Action Lawsuits. 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. In June 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) ruled en banc to reverse the dismissal by the District Court, which had previously been affirmed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. We are considering the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Eighth Circuit.

In July 2015, the District Court also dismissed all claims brought by the indirect customers other than those for injunctive relief. 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 customers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; such appeal was subject to a stay pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers’ claims. In light of the Eighth Circuit decision with respect to the direct purchaser claims, the briefing schedule in respect of the indirect purchaser appeal will now resume. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. The new indirect customer class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect customer plaintiffs appealed the decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect customer 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 statements.