Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6 — Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies Saranac Lake Environmental Matter. 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 manufactured gas plant (“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 $27,700. 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 the third quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Partnership accrued an environmental remediation liability of $7,545 related to the site. Our share of the actual remediation costs could be significantly more or less than the accrued amount. 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 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. The petition was denied in January 2018 and, as a result, the case was transferred back to the District Court for further proceedings. 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 purchaser 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 has 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 awaiting 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.

Note 6 — Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Saranac Lake Environmental Matter. 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 manufactured gas plant (“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 $27,700. 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 the third quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Partnership accrued an environmental remediation liability of $7,545 related to the site. Our share of the actual remediation costs could be significantly more or less than the accrued amount.

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 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. The petition was denied in January 2018 and, as a result, the case was transferred back to the District Court for further proceedings.

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 purchaser 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 has 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 awaiting 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.