Commitments

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 $82.5 in Fiscal 2013, $77.9 in Fiscal 2012 and $69.8 in Fiscal 2011.

Minimum future payments under operating leases with non-affiliates that have initial or remaining noncancelable terms in excess of one year are as follows:



	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		After 2018
AmeriGas Propane	$	51.0	$	41.4	$	33.7	$	26.6	$	21.7	$	55.8
UGI Utilities	5.5		4.7		4.2		2.7		2.0		1.3
UGI International	8.2		5.8		4.5		3.3		1.8		1.0
Other	2.0		1.6		1.4		0.6		0.2		0.1
Total	$	66.7	$	53.5	$	43.8	$	33.2	$	25.7	$	58.2

Our businesses enter into contracts of varying lengths and terms to meet their supply, pipeline transportation, storage, capacity and energy needs. Gas Utility has gas supply agreements with producers and marketers with terms not exceeding one year. Gas Utility also has agreements for firm pipeline transportation and natural gas storage services, which Gas Utility may terminate at various dates through Fiscal 2025. Gas Utility’s costs associated with transportation and storage capacity agreements are included in its annual PGC filings with the PUC and are recoverable through PGC rates. In addition, Gas Utility has short-term gas supply agreements which permit it to purchase certain of its gas supply needs on a firm or interruptible basis at spot-market prices. Electric Utility purchases its electricity needs under contracts with various suppliers and on the spot market. Contracts with producers for energy needs expire at various dates through Fiscal 2014. Midstream & Marketing enters into fixed-price contracts with suppliers to purchase natural gas and electricity to meet its sales commitments. Generally, these contracts have terms of less than two years. The Partnership enters into fixed-price and variable-price contracts to purchase a portion of its supply requirements. These contracts currently have terms that do not exceed three years. UGI International enters into fixed-price and variable-priced contracts to purchase a portion of its supply requirements that currently do not exceed three years.

The following table presents contractual obligations with non-affiliates under Gas Utility, Electric Utility, Midstream & Marketing, AmeriGas Propane and UGI International supply, storage and service contracts existing at September 30, 2013:



	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		After 2018
UGI Utilities supply, storage and transportation contracts	$	151.6	$	80.3	$	50.9	$	31.2	$	28.0	$	72.1
Midstream & Marketing supply contracts	244.4		109.1		12.3		1.2		—		—
AmeriGas Propane supply contracts	176.9		97.1		22.2		—		—		—
UGI International supply contracts	198.1		189.9		101.0		—		—		—
Total	$	771.0	$	476.4	$	186.4	$	32.4	$	28.0	$	72.1

The Partnership and UGI International also enter into other contracts to purchase LPG to meet supply requirements. Generally, these contracts are one- to three-year agreements subject to annual price and quantity adjustments.

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 is currently scheduled to terminate 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 September 30, 2013 and 2012, our accrued liabilities for environmental investigation and remediation costs related to the CPG-COA and the PNG-COA totaled $14.0 and $15.0, respectively. Because CPG and PNG are currently receiving regulatory recovery of estimated environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with Pennsylvania sites, in accordance with GAAP related to rate-regulated entities 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 and PNG are currently receiving regulatory recovery of estimated environmental investigation and remediation costs associated with Pennsylvania sites. At September 30, 2013, neither the undiscounted nor the accrued liability for environmental investigation and cleanup costs for UGI Gas was material.

From time to time, UGI Utilities is notified of 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 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.

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 or range of possible 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. UGI Utilities responded to the EPA’s information request on January 17, 2012. There have been no recent developments in this matter.

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. There have been no recent developments in this matter. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount or range of possible clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Claremont, New Hampshire and Chestertown, Maryland. In connection with the Heritage Acquisition on January 12, 2012, a predecessor of Titan Propane LLC (“Titan LLC”), a former subsidiary acquired in the Heritage Acquisition, is purportedly the beneficial holder of title with respect to two former MGPs discussed below. The Contribution Agreement provides for indemnification from ETP for certain expenses associated with remediation of these sites. By letter dated September 30, 2010, the EPA notified Titan LLC that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for clean up 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 or range of possible clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Other Matters

AmeriGas Cylinder Investigation. 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”) had commenced an investigation into AmeriGas OLP's cylinder labeling and filling practices in California as a result of the Partnership’s decision in 2008 to reduce the volume of propane from 17 pounds to 15 pounds in the cylinders it provides to retailers who then sell them to consumers. At that time, the District Attorneys issued an administrative subpoena seeking documents and information relating to those 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 additional information and documents regarding AmeriGas OLP’s cylinder exchange program. We responded to that subpoena. In connection with this matter, the District Attorneys have alleged potential violations of California's antitrust and unfair competition laws, California’s slack-fill law, and California’s principal false advertising statute. On November 20, 2013, the District Attorneys filed a complaint against the General Partner and AmeriGas OLP and simultaneously filed a proposed stipulated final consent judgment (the “Judgment”) which was approved by the court on December 2, 2013 and resolved all claims against those defendants that were known to the District Attorneys at that time. The Judgment requires the General Partner to pay a civil penalty and to certain injunctive relief including the posting of a consumer notice on all cylinder cages in California. That notice informs consumers, among other things, of the reduction of propane in weight from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The Judgment will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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 that relate to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On February 2, 2012, the Partnership received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC that requested 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 responded to that subpoena and has continued to cooperate with the FTC’s requests for information. The Partnership believes it has 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 lawsuit 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. We believe we have good defenses to the claims in this action.

Antargaz Competition Authority Matter. On July 21, 2009, Antargaz received a Statement of Objections (“Statement”) from France’s Autorité de la concurrence (“Competition Authority”) with respect to the investigation of Antargaz by the General Division of Competition, Consumption and Fraud Punishment. The Statement alleged that Antargaz engaged in certain anti-competitive practices in violation of French competition laws related to the cylinder market during the period from 1999 through 2004. On December 17, 2010, the Competition Authority issued its decision dismissing all objections against Antargaz. The appeal period expired without an appeal being filed. As a result of the decision, during the three-month period ended December 31, 2010, the Company reversed its previously recorded nontaxable accrual for this matter which increased Fiscal 2011 net income by $9.4.

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 in amounts in excess of recorded amounts, 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.