XML 44 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 15 — Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Leases We lease various buildings and other facilities and vehicles, computer and office equipment under operating leases. Certain of our leases contain renewal and purchase options and also contain step-rent provisions. Our aggregate rental expense for such leases was $99.5 in Fiscal 2017, $102.0 in Fiscal 2016 and $86.1 in Fiscal 2015. Minimum future payments under operating leases that have initial or remaining noncancelable terms in excess of one year are as follows:
| 2018 |  | 2019 |  | 2020 |  | 2021 |  | 2022 |  | After 2022
AmeriGas Propane | $ | 70.0 |  |  | $ | 61.7 |  |  | $ | 56.5 |  |  | $ | 48.9 |  |  | $ | 40.7 |  |  | $ | 110.3 |
UGI Utilities | 7.5 |  |  | 6.0 |  |  | 4.4 |  |  | 2.7 |  |  | 0.8 |  |  | 0.2 |
UGI International | 11.2 |  |  | 8.1 |  |  | 6.6 |  |  | 4.7 |  |  | 3.2 |  |  | 3.2 |
Other | 2.3 |  |  | 2.0 |  |  | 1.9 |  |  | 0.9 |  |  | 0.5 |  |  | 0.6 |
Total | $ | 91.0 |  |  | $ | 77.8 |  |  | $ | 69.4 |  |  | $ | 57.2 |  |  | $ | 45.2 |  |  | $ | 114.3 |
UGI Standby Commitment to Purchase AmeriGas Partners Class B Common Units On November 7, 2017, UGI entered into a Standby Equity Commitment Agreement (the “Commitment Agreement”) with AmeriGas Partners and AmeriGas Propane, Inc. Under the terms of the Commitment Agreement, UGI has committed to make up to $225 of capital contributions to the Partnership through July 1, 2019 (the “Commitment Period”). UGI’s capital contributions may be made from time to time during the Commitment Period upon request of the Partnership. In consideration for any capital contributions made pursuant to the Commitment Agreement, the Partnership will issue to UGI or a wholly owned subsidiary new Class B Common Units representing limited partner interests in the Partnership (“Class B Units”). The Class B Units will be issued at a price per unit equal to the 20-day volume-weighted average price of the Partnership’s common units (“Common Units”) prior to the date of the Partnership’s related capital call. The Class B Units will be entitled to cumulative quarterly distributions at a rate equal to the annualized Common Unit yield at the time of the applicable capital call, plus 130 basis points. The Partnership may choose to make the distributions in cash or in the form of additional Class B Units. While outstanding, the Class B Units will not be subject to any incentive distributions from the Partnership. At any time after five years from the initial issuance of the Class B Units, holders may elect to convert all or any portion of the Class B Units they own into Common Units on a one-for-one basis, and at any time after six years from the initial issuance of the Class B Units, the Partnership may elect to convert all or any portion of the Class B Units into Common Units if (i) the closing trading price of the Common Units is greater than 110% of the applicable purchase price for the Class B Units and (ii) the Common Units are listed or admitted for trading on a National Securities Exchange. Upon certain events involving a change of control and immediately prior to a liquidation or winding up of the Partnership, the Class B Units will automatically convert into Common Units on a one-for-one basis. 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 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 a consent order and agreement (“COA”) with the DEP to address the remediation of former MGPs in Pennsylvania. In accordance with the COAs, UGI Utilities, CPG, and PNG are each required to either obtain a certain number of points per calendar year based on defined eligible environmental investigatory and/or remedial activities at the MGPs or make expenditures for such activities in an amount equal to an annual environmental cost cap. The CPG COA includes an obligation to plug specified natural gas wells. The COA environmental costs caps are $2.5, $1.8 and $1.1, for UGI Utilities, CPG and PNG, respectively. The COAs for UGI Utilities, CPG and PNG are scheduled to terminate at the end of 2031, 2018 and 2019, respectively. At September 30, 2017 and 2016, our estimated accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the COAs for UGI Utilities, CPG and PNG totaled $54.3 and $55.1, respectively. UGI Utilities, CPG and PNG have recorded associated regulatory assets for these costs because recovery of these costs from customers is probable (see Note 8). 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 Utilities, 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 a former subsidiary. 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 a former subsidiary 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 September 30, 2017 and 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 the DEC had placed property purportedly owned by AmeriGas OLP in Saranac Lake, New York on the New York State 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 study and researched the history of the site, including the extent of AmeriGas OLP’s ownership. 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 previously issued three Records of Decision (“RODs”) related to the site and requested additional information regarding AmeriGas OLP’s purported ownership. The selected remedies identified in the RODs total approximately $27.7. To AmeriGas OLP’s knowledge, the DEC has not yet commenced implementation of the remediation plan but remediation is currently expected to commence in 2018. AmeriGas OLP responded to the DEC’s March 2017 request for ownership information, renewing its challenge to designation as a PRP and identifying potential defenses. In October 2017, the DEC identified a third party PRP with respect to the site. Based on our evaluation of the available information, during 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 Consolidated Statements of Income. Our share of the actual remediation costs could be significantly more or less than the accrued amount. Other Matters 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. In September 2017, we filed 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 purchasers’ 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. Now that the Eighth Circuit ruled on the direct purchasers’ claims, the stay has been lifted for the indirect claims and the parties submitted briefs in October 2017 to the Eighth Circuit and are waiting the court’s ruling. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration