Commitments and Contingencies (Details) (USD $)	0 Months Ended	3 Months Ended
	Jan. 25, 2013	Dec. 31, 2013	Dec. 31, 2012
Loss Contingency Information About Litigation Matters Abstract
Description of Pending Litigation		Since April 2009, Atmos Energy and two subsidiaries of AEH, Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC (AEM) and Atmos Gathering Company, LLC (AGC) (collectively, the Atmos Entities), have been involved in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Edmonson County, Kentucky related to our Park City Gathering Project. The dispute which gave rise to the litigation involves the amount of royalties due from a third party producer to landowners (who own the mineral rights) for natural gas produced from the landowners’ properties. The third party producer was operating pursuant to leases between the landowners and certain investors/working interest owners. The third party producer filed a petition in bankruptcy, which was subsequently dismissed due to the lack of meaningful assets to reorganize or liquidate.Although certain Atmos Energy companies entered into contracts with the third party producer to gather, treat and ultimately sell natural gas produced from the landowners’ properties, no Atmos Energy company had a contractual relationship with the landowners or the investors/working interest owners. After the lawsuit was filed, the landowners were successful in terminating for non-payment of royalties the leases related to the production of natural gas from their properties. Subsequent to termination, the investors/working interest owners under such leases filed additional claims against us for the termination of the leases.During the trial, the landowners and the investors/working interest owners requested an award of compensatory damages plus punitive damages against us. On December 17, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the landowners and investor/working interest owners and awarded compensatory damages of $3.8 million and punitive damages of $27.5 million payable by Atmos Energy and the two AEH subsidiaries.A hearing was held on February 28, 2011 to hear a number of motions, including a motion to dismiss the jury verdict and a motion for a new trial. The motions to dismiss the jury verdict and for a new trial were denied. However, the total punitive damages award was reduced from $27.5 million to $24.7 million. On October 17, 2011, we filed our brief of appellants with the Kentucky Court of Appeals, appealing the verdict of the trial court. The appellees in this case subsequently filed their appellees’ brief with the Court of Appeals on January 16, 2012, with our reply brief being filed with the Court of Appeals on March 19, 2012. Oral arguments were held in the case on August 27, 2012.In an opinion handed down on January 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals overturned the $28.5 million jury verdict returned against the Atmos Entities. In a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, the Court of Appeals reversed the claims asserted by the landowners and investors/working interest owners. The Court of Appeals concluded that all of such claims that the Atmos Entities appealed should have been dismissed by the trial court as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals let stand the jury verdict on one claim that Atmos Energy and our subsidiaries chose not to appeal, which was a trespass claim. The jury had awarded a total of $10,000 in compensatory damages to one landowner on that claim. The Court of Appeals vacated all of the other damages awarded by the jury and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, solely on the issue of whether punitive damages should be awarded to that landowner and, if so, in what amount.The investors/working interest owners, on February 25, 2013, and the landowners, on March 19, 2013, each filed with the Supreme Court of Kentucky, separate motions for discretionary review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. We filed a response to the motion filed by the investors/working owners on March 27, 2013 and to the landowners’ motion on April 17, 2013. The decision of the Court of Appeals will not become final until the appellate process is completed. We had previously accrued what we believed to be an adequate amount for the anticipated resolution of this matter and we will continue to maintain this amount in legal reserves until the appellate process in this case has been completed. We continue to believe that the final outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.In addition, in a related matter, on July 12, 2011, the Atmos Entities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Atmos Energy Corporation et al.vs. Resource Energy Technologies, LLC and Robert Thorpe and John F. Charles, against the third party producer and its affiliates to recover all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the Atmos Entities, which are associated with the defense and appeal of the case discussed above as well as for all damages awarded to the plaintiffs in such case against the Atmos Entities. The total amount of damages being claimed in the lawsuit is “open-ended” since the appellate process and related costs are ongoing. This lawsuit is based upon the indemnification provisions agreed to by the third party producer in favor of Atmos Gathering that are contained in an agreement entered into between Atmos Gathering and the third party producer in May 2009. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on August 25, 2011, with Atmos Energy filing a brief in response to such motion on September 19, 2011. On March 27, 2012 the court denied the motion to dismiss. Since that time, we have been engaged in discovery activities in this case.
Loss Contingency, Compensatory Damages Awarded, Value	$ 10,000
Business License Tax [Abstract]
Business License Tax Examination, Description		Atmos Energy, through its affiliate, AEM, has been involved in a dispute with the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) regarding sales business tax audits over a period of several years. AEM has challenged the assessment of the business tax. With respect to certain issues, AEM and the TDOR filed competing Partial Motions for Summary Judgment with the Chancery Court. On August 2, 2013, the Chancery Court granted the TDOR's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and denied AEM's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and set February 1, 2014 as the date by which AEM and the TDOR will set a date for filing any cross motions for partial summary judgment as to the remaining issue. The Company anticipates a decision by the Chancery Court on the remaining issue in fiscal 2014. The cumulative assessment is expected to be approximately $11 million for the period December 2002 through December 2013, including tax, interest and penalties.
Long Term Purchase Commitment [Line Items]
Significant Purchase Commitment Amount Description		$ 350,200,000	$ 289,500,000
Inventories Under Indexed Contracts [Member]
Long Term Purchase Commitment [Line Items]
Long Term Purchase Commitment Minimum Quantity Required Within One Year		91.1
Long Term Purchase Commitment Minimum Quantity Required One To Three Years		14.8
Long Term Purchase Commitment Minimum Quantity Required After Three Years		0.9
Inventories Under Fixed Price Contracts [Member]
Long Term Purchase Commitment [Line Items]
Long Term Purchase Commitment Minimum Quantity Required Within One Year		4.4
Purchase Commitment Amount Minimum		3.6
Purchase Commitment Amount Maximum		6.36