Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

UGI Utilities

CPG is party to a Consent Order and Agreement (“CPG-COA”) with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) requiring CPG to perform a specified level of activities associated with environmental investigation and remediation work at certain properties in Pennsylvania on which manufactured gas plant (“MGP”) related facilities were operated (“CPG MGP Properties”) and to plug a minimum number of non-producing natural gas wells per year. In addition, PNG is a party to a Multi-Site Remediation Consent Order and Agreement (“PNG-COA”) with the DEP. The PNG-COA requires PNG to perform annually a specified level of activities associated with environmental investigation and remediation work at certain properties on which MGP-related facilities were operated (“PNG MGP Properties”). Under these agreements, environmental expenditures relating to the CPG MGP Properties and the PNG MGP Properties are capped at $1.8 and $1.1, respectively, in any calendar year. The CPG-COA terminates at the end of 2013. The PNG-COA terminates in 2019 but may be terminated by either party effective at the end of any two-year period beginning with the original effective date in March 2004. At March 31, 2012 and 2011, our accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the CPG-COA and the PNG-COA totaled $16.8 and $20.9, respectively. We have recorded associated regulatory assets in equal amounts.

From the late 1800s through the mid-1900s, UGI Utilities and its former subsidiaries owned and operated a number of 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. Pursuant to the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 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 does not expect its costs for investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at Pennsylvania MGP sites to be material to its results of operations because (1) UGI Gas is currently permitted to include in rates, through future base rate proceedings, a five-year average of such prudently incurred remediation costs and (2) CPG Gas and PNG Gas are currently getting regulatory recovery of estimated environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with Pennsylvania sites. At March 31, 2012, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Gas was material.

UGI Utilities has been notified of several sites outside Pennsylvania on which private parties allege MGPs were formerly owned or operated by it or owned or operated by its former subsidiaries. Such parties are investigating the extent of environmental contamination or performing environmental remediation. UGI Utilities is currently litigating two claims against it relating to out-of-state sites.

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.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company v. UGI Utilities, Inc. On September 22, 2006, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (“SCE&G”), a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation, filed a lawsuit against UGI Utilities in the District Court of South Carolina seeking contribution from UGI Utilities for past and future remediation costs related to the operations of a former MGP located in Charleston, South Carolina. SCE&G asserts that the plant operated from 1855 to 1954 and alleges that, through control of a subsidiary that owned the plant, UGI Utilities controlled operations of the plant from 1910 to 1926 and is liable for approximately 25% of the costs associated with the site. SCE&G asserts that it has spent approximately $22 in remediation costs and paid $26 in third-party claims relating to the site and estimates that future response costs, including a claim by the United States Justice Department for natural resource damages, could be as high as $14. On April 11, 2012, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of UGI Utilities. SCE&G has thirty days from the date of the District Court’s judgment to appeal this decision.

Frontier Communications Company v. UGI Utilities, Inc. et al. In April 2003, Citizens Communications Company, now known as Frontier Communications Company (“Frontier”), served a complaint naming UGI Utilities as a third-party defendant in a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. In that action, the City of Bangor, Maine (“City”) sued Frontier to recover environmental response costs associated with MGP wastes generated at a plant allegedly operated by Frontier’s predecessors at a site on the Penobscot River. Frontier subsequently joined UGI Utilities and ten other third-party defendants alleging that they are responsible for an equitable share of any clean up costs Frontier would be required to pay to the City. Frontier alleged that through ownership and control of a subsidiary, UGI Utilities and its predecessors owned and operated the plant from 1901 to 1928. UGI Utilities filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Frontier’s claims. On October 19, 2010, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant UGI Utilities’ motion. On November 19, 2010, the Court affirmed the recommended decision of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment in favor of UGI Utilities. On July 1, 2011, Frontier appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Sag Harbor, New York Matter. By letter dated June 24, 2004, KeySpan Energy (“KeySpan”) informed UGI Utilities that KeySpan has spent $2.3 and expects to spend another $11 to clean up an MGP site it owns in Sag Harbor, New York. KeySpan believes that UGI Utilities is responsible for approximately 50% of these costs as a result of UGI Utilities’ alleged direct ownership and operation of the plant from 1885 to 1902. By letter dated June 6, 2006, KeySpan reported that the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has approved a remedy for the site that is estimated to cost approximately $10. KeySpan has indicated that the cost could be as high as $20. There have been no recent developments in this case.

Yankee Gas Services Company and Connecticut Light and Power Company v. UGI Utilities, Inc. On September 11, 2006, UGI Utilities received a complaint filed by Yankee Gas Services Company and Connecticut Light and Power Company, subsidiaries of Northeast Utilities (together the “Northeast Companies”), in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking contribution from UGI Utilities for past and future remediation costs related to MGP operations on thirteen sites owned by the Northeast Companies. The Northeast Companies alleged that UGI Utilities controlled operations of the plants from 1883 to 1941 through control of former subsidiaries that owned the MGPs. The Northeast Companies subsequently withdrew their claims with respect to three of the sites and UGI Utilities acknowledged that it had operated one of the sites in Waterbury, CT (“Waterbury North”). After a trial, on May 22, 2009, the District Court granted judgment in favor of UGI Utilities with respect to the remaining nine sites. On April 13, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in favor of UGI Utilities. A second phase of the trial took place in August 2011 to determine what, if any, contamination at Waterbury North is related to UGI Utilities’ period of operation. On March 30, 2012, the District Court ruled that a portion of the contamination at Waterbury North was related to UGI Utilities’ period of operation. The appeal period has expired and the District Court’s decision is final. Based upon information currently available, we believe that UGI Utilities’ liability at Waterbury North will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Omaha, Nebraska. By letter dated October 20, 2011, the City of Omaha and the Metropolitan Utilities District (“MUD”) notified UGI Utilities that they had been requested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to remediate a former manufactured gas plant site located in Omaha, Nebraska. According to a report prepared on behalf of the EPA identifying potentially responsible parties, a former subsidiary of a UGI Utilities’ predecessor is identified as an owner and operator of the site. The City of Omaha and MUD have requested that UGI Utilities participate in the cost of remediation for this site. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated. In addition, UGI Utilities believes that it has strong defenses to any claims that may arise relating to the remediation of this site. By letter dated November 10, 2011, the EPA notified UGI Utilities of its investigation of the site in Omaha, Nebraska and issued an information request to UGI Utilities. On January 17, 2012, UGI Utilities responded to the EPA’s information request and is cooperating with its investigation.

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 owned by the Partnership in Saranac Lake, New York on its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. A site characterization study performed by DEC disclosed contamination related to former MGP operations on the site. DEC has classified the site as a significant threat to public health or environment with further action required. The Partnership has researched the history of the site and its ownership interest in the site. The Partnership has reviewed the preliminary site characterization study prepared by the DEC, the extent of contamination and the possible existence of other potentially responsible parties. The Partnership communicated the results of its research to DEC in January 2009 and is awaiting a response before doing any additional investigation. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

AmeriGas San Bernardino. In July 2001, HOLP acquired a company that had previously received a request for information from the EPA regarding potential contribution to a widespread groundwater contamination problem in San Bernardino, California, known as the Newmark Groundwater Contamination. Although the EPA has indicated that the groundwater contamination may be attributable to releases of solvents from a former military base located within the subject area that occurred prior to the construction of the facility acquired by HOLP, it is possible that the EPA may seek to recover all or a portion of groundwater remediation costs from private parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). No follow-up correspondence has been received from the EPA on the matter since HOLP’s acquisition of the predecessor company in 2001. Based upon information currently available to HOLP, it is believed that HOLP’s liability if such action were to be taken by the EPA would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Claremont, Chestertown and Bennington. In connection with the Heritage Acquisition on January 12. 2012, a predecessor of Titan LLC is purportedly the beneficial holder of title with respect to three former MGPs discussed below. The Contribution Agreement provides for indemnification from ETP for certain expenses associated with remediation of these sites.

Claremont, New Hampshire and Chestertown, Maryland. By letter dated September 30, 2010, the EPA notified Titan LLC that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for cleanup costs associated with contamination at a former MGP in Claremont, New Hampshire. In June 2010, the Maryland Attorney General (“MAG”) identified Titan LLC as a PRP in connection with contamination at a former MGP in Chestertown, Maryland and requested that Titan LLC participate in characterization and remediation activities. Titan LLC has supplied the EPA and MAG with corporate and bankruptcy information for its predecessors to support its claim that it is not liable for any remediation costs at the sites. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Bennington, Vermont. In 1996, a predecessor company of Titan LLC performed an environmental assessment of its property in Bennington, Vermont and discovered that the site was a former MGP. At that time, Titan LLC’s predecessor informed the company which previously owned and operated the MGP of potential liability under CERCLA. Titan LLC has not received any requests to remediate or provide costs associated with the site. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Other Matters

AmeriGas Cylinder Investigations. On or about October 21, 2009, the General Partner received a notice that the Offices of the District Attorneys of Santa Clara, Sonoma, Ventura, San Joaquin and Fresno Counties and the City Attorney of San Diego (the “District Attorneys”) have commenced an investigation into AmeriGas OLP’s cylinder labeling and filling practices in California and issued an administrative subpoena seeking documents and information relating to these practices. We have responded to the administrative subpoena. On or about July 20, 2011, the General Partner received a second subpoena from the District Attorneys. The subpoena sought information and documents regarding AmeriGas OLP’s cylinder exchange program and alleges potential violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. We reviewed and responded to the subpoena and will continue to cooperate with the District Attorneys.

Federal Trade Commission Investigation of Propane Grill Cylinder Filling Practices. On or about November 4, 2011, the General Partner received notice that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is conducting an antitrust and consumer protection investigation into certain practices of the Partnership which relate to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On February 2, 2012, the Partnership received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC that requests documents and information concerning, among other things, (i) the Partnership’s decision, in 2008, to reduce the volume of propane in cylinders it sells to consumers from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and (ii) cross-filling, related service arrangements and communications regarding the foregoing with competitors. The Partnership believes that it will have good defenses to any claims that may result from this investigation. We are not able to assess the financial impact this investigation or any related claims may have on the Partnership.

Purported Class Action Lawsuit. In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the “Swigers”) filed what purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related, class action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal 2011. We believe we have good defenses to the claims in this action.

BP America Production Company v. Amerigas Propane, L.P. On July 15, 2011, BP America Production Company (“BP”) filed a complaint against AmeriGas OLP in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating to amounts billed for certain goods and services provided to BP since 2005 (the “Services”). The Services relate to the installation of propane-fueled equipment and appliances, and the supply of propane, to approximately 400 residential customers at the request of and for the account of BP. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of direct, indirect, consequential, special and compensatory damages, including attorneys’ fees, costs and interest and other appropriate relief. It also seeks an accounting to determine the amount of the alleged overcharges related to the Services. We have substantially completed our investigation of this matter and, based upon the results of that investigation, we believe we have good defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint and the amount of loss will not have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

We cannot predict the final results of any of the environmental or other pending claims or legal actions described above. However, it is reasonably possible that some of them could be resolved unfavorably to us and result in losses in excess of recorded amounts. We are unable to estimate any possible losses in excess of recorded amounts. Although we currently believe, after consultation with counsel, that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs in such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, damages or settlements could be material to our operating results or cash flows in future periods depending on the nature and timing of future developments with respect to these matters and the amounts of future operating results and cash flows. In addition to the matters described above, there are other pending claims and legal actions arising in the normal course of our businesses. We believe, after consultation with counsel, the final outcome of such other matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.