Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

From the late 1800s through the mid-1900s, UGI Utilities and its 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. 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 UGI Gas is currently permitted to include in rates, through future base rate proceedings, a five-year average of such prudently incurred remediation costs. At June 30, 2011, 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 $22,000 in remediation costs and paid $26,000 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 $14,000. Trial took place in March 2009 and the court’s decision is pending.

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 $2,300 and expects to spend another $11,000 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 $10,000. KeySpan believes that the cost could be as high as $20,000. UGI Utilities is in the process of reviewing the information provided by KeySpan and is investigating this claim.

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 judgment in favor of UGI Utilities. A second phase of the trial is scheduled for August 2011 to determine what, if any, contamination at Waterbury North is related to UGI Utilities’ period of operation. The Northeast Companies previously estimated that remediation costs at Waterbury North could total $25,000.

Other Matters

Allentown, Pennsylvania Natural Gas Explosion. On February 9, 2011, a natural gas explosion occurred in Allentown, Pennsylvania which resulted in five deaths, several personal injuries and significant property damage. The PUC is investigating the Allentown accident and UGI Utilities is cooperating with that investigation. Based on a visual inspection, UGI Utilities identified a fracture in a segment of its cast iron natural gas pipeline in the area of the accident. The affected segment of pipeline is undergoing forensic testing by an expert, independent laboratory; however, the cause of the fracture has not yet been determined.

UGI Utilities has received claims as a result of the explosion, although no lawsuits have yet been filed. UGI Utilities maintains liability insurance for personal injury, property and casualty damages and believes that third-party claims associated with the explosion, in excess of a $500 deductible, will be recovered through UGI Utilities’ insurance. We believe that claims and expenses associated with the explosion will not have a material impact on UGI Utilities’ consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We cannot predict the final results of any of the claims, potential 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.