1

2

3

4

ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION

P.O. Box 650205

Dallas, Texas 75265-0205

PROXY STATEMENT

for the

2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

to be Held on February 7, 2018

GENERAL MEETING MATTERS

Date, Time, Place and Purpose of Meeting

Our 2018 annual meeting of shareholders will be held on February 7, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Central Standard Time at the Charles K. Vaughan Center, 3697 Mapleshade Lane, Plano, Texas 75075. The purpose of the 2018 annual meeting is set forth in the Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders to which this proxy statement is attached. Atmos Energy Corporation is referred to as “Atmos Energy,” the “Company,” “our,” “us” or “we” in this proxy statement.

Internet Availability of Proxy Materials

Under rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), we are furnishing proxy materials to our shareholders primarily over the Internet, rather than mailing paper copies of the materials (including our Annual Report, which includes our Form 10-K for fiscal 2017) to each shareholder. If you received only a Notice by mail or email, you will not receive a paper copy of these proxy materials unless you request one. Instead, the Notice will instruct you as to how you may access and review the proxy materials over the Internet. The Notice will also instruct you on how you may access your proxy card to vote over the Internet. If you received a Notice by mail or email and would like to receive a paper copy of our proxy materials, free of charge, please follow the instructions included in the Notice.

We anticipate that the mailing of the Notice to our shareholders will commence on or about December 22, 2017 and will be sent by email to our shareholders who have opted for such means of delivery on or about December 26, 2017.

Revocability and Voting of Proxies

Any shareholder of record submitting a proxy has the power to revoke the proxy at any time prior to its exercise by (i) submitting a new proxy with a later date or time, including a proxy given over the Internet or by telephone; (ii) notifying our Corporate Secretary in writing before the meeting or (iii) voting in person at the meeting. Any shareholder owning shares in street name who wishes to revoke voting instructions previously given to a broker should contact such broker for further instructions. Any shareholder who holds our shares as a participant in the RSP and who wishes to revoke voting instructions previously given to the RSP Trustee may submit new voting instructions by re-voting his or her proxy card or by written notice to the RSP Trustee on or before February 6, 2018 at the following address: Atmos Energy Qualified Retirement Plans and Trusts Committee, Attn: Phillip Allbritten, Legal Dept., P.O. Box 650205, Dallas, Texas 75265-0205.

An independent inspector of election will count the votes. Your vote will not be disclosed to us and will remain confidential except under special circumstances. For example, a copy of your proxy

5

card will be sent to us if you add any written comments to the card. If you are a shareholder of record and give us your signed proxy, but do not specify how to vote on any particular proposal, we will vote your shares in favor of the nominees for the election of directors (see “Proposal One—Election of Directors,” beginning on page 17); in favor of the proposal to ratify the Audit Committee’s appointment of Ernst & Young as the independent registered public accounting firm for the Company for fiscal 2018 (see “Proposal Two—Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,” beginning on page 32) and in favor of the advisory proposal to approve executive compensation for fiscal 2017 (see “Proposal Three—Non-Binding, Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation,” beginning on page 35).

Solicitation of Proxies

The proxy accompanying this statement is solicited by the management of the Company at the direction of our Board of Directors. It is expected that these materials will be first sent to our shareholders on or about December 22, 2017. We expect to solicit proxies primarily by mail, but our directors, officers, employees and agents may also solicit proxies in person or by telephone or other electronic means. We will pay for all costs of preparing, assembling and distributing the proxies and accompanying materials for the annual meeting of shareholders, including the costs of reimbursing brokers for forwarding proxies and proxy materials to their principals. We will ask brokers to prepare and send a Notice to each of their customers or clients for whom they hold shares and forward copies of the proxy materials to such beneficial owners who request a paper copy. In addition, Morrow Sodali, LLC, 470 West Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 (“Morrow Sodali”), will assist us in the solicitation of proxies. We will pay approximately $7,500 in fees, plus expenses and disbursements, to Morrow Sodali for its proxy solicitation services.

Common Stock Information; Record Date

As of December 15, 2017, our record date, there were 110,958,181 shares of our common stock, no par value, issued and outstanding, all of which are entitled to vote. These shares constitute the only class of our stock issued and outstanding. As stated in the Notice, only shareholders of record at the close of business on December 15, 2017 will be entitled to vote at the meeting, with each share being entitled to one vote.

Quorum Requirement

In accordance with Texas and Virginia law, our bylaws provide that if the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock entitled to vote are present in person or represented by proxy, there will be a quorum. The aggregate number of votes entitled to be cast by all shareholders present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting, whether those shareholders vote for, against or abstain from voting on any matter, will be counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum exists. Broker non-votes, which are described below, will also be considered present for purposes of determining whether a quorum exists.

Broker Non-Votes and Vote Required

If a broker holds your shares and you have previously elected to receive a paper copy of your proxy materials, a paper copy of this proxy statement and other proxy materials have been sent to your broker. You may have received this proxy statement directly from your broker, together with a voting instruction form as to how to direct the broker to vote your shares. If you desire to have your vote

6

counted, it is important that you return your voting instruction form to your broker. Rules of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) determine whether proposals presented at shareholder meetings are considered “routine” or “non-routine.” If a proposal is routine, a broker holding shares for an owner in street name may vote on the proposal without having received voting instructions from the owner. If a proposal is non-routine, the broker may vote on the proposal only if the owner has provided voting instructions. A “broker non-vote” occurs when the broker is unable to vote on a proposal because the proposal is non-routine and the owner does not provide instructions. Broker non-votes have no effect on the vote on such a proposal because they are not considered present and entitled to vote. Proposals One and Three are considered non-routine proposals; therefore, brokers may vote on these proposals only if voting instructions are provided by the owner of the shares. Only Proposal Two, the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young as the independent registered public accounting firm for the Company for fiscal 2018, is considered a routine proposal under the rules of the NYSE. As a result, brokers holding shares for an owner in street name may vote on this proposal, even if no voting instructions are provided by the owner of the shares.

Generally, in accordance with Texas and Virginia law, under our bylaws, the number of votes required for the approval of a proposal is a majority of the shares of our common stock present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting. Abstentions will have the same effect as an “against” vote but, as discussed above, broker non-votes will have no effect on the vote for these proposals. If any other proposals are properly presented to the shareholders at the meeting, the number of votes required for approval will depend on the nature of the proposal. The proxy gives discretionary authority to the proxy holders to vote on any matter not included in this proxy statement that is properly presented to the shareholders at the meeting. The persons named as proxies on the proxy card are Richard K. Gordon and Richard A. Sampson.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND OTHER BOARD MATTERS

Corporate Governance

In accordance with, and pursuant to, the corporate governance standards of the NYSE, the Board has adopted and periodically updated our Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which govern the structure and proceedings of the Board and contain the Board’s position on many governance issues. The Board has also adopted and periodically updated the Code of Conduct for our directors, officers and other employees. The Code of Conduct provides guidance to the Board and management in areas of ethical business conduct and risk, and provides guidance to employees and directors by helping them to recognize and deal with ethical issues including, but not limited to (i) conflicts of interest, (ii) gifts and entertainment, (iii) confidential information, (iv) fair dealing, (v) protection of corporate assets and (vi) compliance with rules and regulations. We have also provided to our directors, officers, other employees, customers and any other member of the public a toll-free compliance hotline and a website by which they may report on an anonymous basis any observation of unethical behavior or any suspected violations of our Code of Conduct. In addition, the Board has adopted and periodically updated the charters for its Audit Committee, HR Committee, and Nominating and CG Committee. All of the foregoing documents are posted on the Corporate Governance page under the Investors tab of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Independence of Directors

The Board is comprised of a majority of independent directors in accordance with NYSE corporate governance standards. In accordance with rules of the SEC and the NYSE, as well as our

7

Guidelines, to be considered independent, a director must not have a direct or indirect material relationship with the Company or its management, other than as a director. To assist it in making its determination of the independence of each of its members, the Board has adopted its Categorical Standards of Director Independence (“Standards”). The Standards specify the criteria by which the independence of our directors will be determined and the types of relationships the Board has determined to be categorically immaterial, including relationships of directors and their immediate families with respect to past employment or affiliation with the Company, our management or our independent registered public accounting firm. For purposes of the Standards, the Board has adopted the definition of an “immediate family member” as set forth by the NYSE, which includes a director’s spouse, parents, children, siblings and in-laws, as well as anyone else (other than any domestic employees) who shares such director’s home. The Standards and our Guidelines are posted on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Based on its review of the Standards, as well as applicable SEC rules and regulations, NYSE corporate governance standards, and taking into consideration all business relationships between the Company and each non-employee director and non-employee director nominee, the Board has concluded that none of such relationships are material, other than the relationship with Mr. Springer described below. Accordingly, the Board has affirmatively determined that Ms. Compton, Ms. Quinn, and Messrs. Best, Douglas, Esquivel, Garza, Gordon, Grable, Sampson and Ware are independent members of the Board. In addition, the Board has affirmatively determined that each member of the Audit Committee, HR Committee and Nominating and CG Committee are independent under the Standards, as well as applicable SEC rules and regulations and NYSE corporate governance standards.

In recommending to the Board that each non-employee director be found independent other than Mr. Springer, for the reasons described below, the Nominating and CG Committee reviewed and considered the following transactions, relationships or arrangements during the past three fiscal years, as discussed below. All matters described below fall within the Standards, including the monetary thresholds set forth in such Standards. Such matters are more fully discussed below under “Related Person Transactions.”

Because Mr. Springer’s son-in-law is a partner with the firm of Ernst & Young, our independent registered public accounting firm, the Board has determined that Mr. Springer may not be considered independent from the Company under the Standards. However, Mr. Springer’s son-in-law is not involved in our audit and is not considered a “covered person” with respect to us, as defined under the SEC’s independence-related rules and regulations for auditors. Thus, this relationship has no effect on Ernst & Young’s independence as our independent registered public accounting firm. Further, Mr. Springer does not serve on our Audit Committee, HR Committee or Nominating and CG Committee.

8

Related Person Transactions

In accordance with applicable SEC rules and in recognition that transactions into which we enter with related persons may present potential or actual conflicts of interest, our Board has adopted and periodically reviews written guidelines with respect to related person transactions. For purposes of these guidelines, a reportable “related person transaction” is a transaction between the Company and any “related person” (i) involving more than $120,000 when aggregated with all similar transactions during any fiscal year and (ii) where such “related person” has or will have a direct or indirect material interest in such transaction (other than solely as a result of being a director or a less than 10 percent beneficial owner of another entity). A “related person” is any (a) person who is or was (since the beginning of the last fiscal year) an executive officer, director or nominee for election as a director of the Company; (b) person who beneficially owns more than five percent (5%) of the Company’s common stock or (c) immediate family member of any of the foregoing. An immediate family member includes a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, in-laws and anyone else (other than any domestic employees) sharing such person’s home.

Under the guidelines, all named executive officers, directors and director nominees are required to identify, to the best of their knowledge after reasonable inquiry, business and financial affiliations involving themselves or their immediate family members, which could reasonably be expected to give rise to a related person transaction. Named executive officers, directors and director nominees are required to advise the Corporate Secretary of the Company promptly of any change in the information provided and are asked periodically to review and reaffirm this information.

The Nominating and CG Committee reviews the material facts of all related person transactions and either approves or disapproves of the entry into any such transaction. However, if advance committee approval of a related person transaction is not feasible, then it shall be considered and, if the committee determines it to be appropriate, ratified at the committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting. In determining whether to approve or ratify a related person transaction, the committee takes into account, among other factors it deems appropriate, whether the related person transaction is on terms no less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third-party under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction.

No director is allowed to participate in any discussion or approval of a related person transaction for which he or she is a related person, except that the director shall provide all material information concerning the transaction to the committee. If a related person transaction will be ongoing, the committee may establish guidelines for the Company’s management to follow in its ongoing dealings with the related person. Thereafter, the committee, on at least an annual basis, will review and assess ongoing relationships with the related person to see that they remain in compliance with the Company’s related person transactions guidelines and that the related person transaction remains appropriate. In addition, the committee will periodically review the related person transactions guidelines to determine if changes or modifications may be appropriate.

The committee also makes a recommendation to the Board as to whether an identified transaction is required to be reported as a related person transaction under SEC rules. Under SEC rules, certain transactions are deemed not to involve a material interest and thus are not reportable (including transactions in which the amount involved in any 12-month period is less than $120,000 and transactions with entities where a related person’s interest is limited to service as a non-employee director). In determining materiality for this purpose, information is considered material if, in light of all the facts and circumstances of the transaction, there is a substantial likelihood a reasonable investor

9

would consider the information important in deciding whether to buy, sell or vote shares of the Company’s common stock. The types of transactions specified below, which are pre-approved by the committee, are presumed not to involve a material interest.

The committee reviewed all business transactions during fiscal 2017 between the Company and companies for which related persons serve as employees or directors, including the transactions described below, which represent the only significant transactions of this type during fiscal 2017. In addition, as discussed above under “Independence of Directors,” the committee noted the relationship that Mr. Springer has with our independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young, through his son-in-law who is a partner with such firm. The total amount of fees paid to Ernst & Young during fiscal 2017 was $3,494,000, as more particularly described under “Audit and Related Fees,” beginning on page 32 below.

In addition, Mr. Springer has a son employed by ConocoPhillips in a non-officer capacity in its commercial group. For fiscal 2017, the Company’s former marketing and trading affiliate, Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC (“AEM”), both purchased from and sold natural gas to ConocoPhillips for the benefit of AEM’s customers during the period of October through December 2016, which was prior to the sale of AEM by the Company. In addition, the Company’s Atmos Pipeline–Texas Division provided natural gas transportation services to ConocoPhillips. Total net revenue received from ConocoPhillips during fiscal 2017 for all transactions was approximately $3,626,000. All transactions with ConocoPhillips were made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as other comparable transactions with third parties. The total amount of transactions engaged in by both AEM and Atmos Pipeline–Texas with ConocoPhillips during fiscal 2017 represents less than two percent (2%) of the gross revenues of ConocoPhillips for that period. Because these transactions with ConocoPhillips fall within the types of transactions that have been pre-approved by the committee, such transactions are presumed to not involve a material interest.

Mr. Esquivel is Vice President for Community and Corporate Relations for UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas (“UT Southwestern”). For fiscal 2017, the Company received total

10

revenues from UT Southwestern of approximately $2,069,000 for natural gas marketing, distribution and transportation services provided to UT Southwestern. All such services provided to UT Southwestern were made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as other comparable transactions with third parties. The committee has received written confirmation from UT Southwestern that the total amount of revenues received by the Company from UT Southwestern during fiscal 2017 represents less than two percent (2%) of the gross revenues of UT Southwestern for that period. Because these transactions with UT Southwestern fall within the types of transactions that have been pre-approved by the committee, such transactions are presumed to not involve a material interest.

As noted above, in the discussion on the independence of our directors, Mr. Ware is Chairman and President of Amarillo National Bank in Amarillo, Texas, which provides a $25 million short-term line of credit to the Company and serves as a depository bank for us. During fiscal 2017, we paid a total of approximately $189,000 to Amarillo National Bank for these services, which amount is reasonable and customary for these types of services and such services are substantially on the same terms as comparable transactions with third parties. The committee has received written confirmation from Amarillo National Bank that such amount represents less than two percent (2%) of the gross revenues of the Bank for the applicable period. Because these transactions with Amarillo National Bank fall within the types of transactions that have been pre-approved by the committee, such transactions are presumed to not involve a material interest.

The Vanguard Group, Inc., BlackRock, Inc. and State Street were each the beneficial owners of more than five percent (5%) of the Company’s common stock outstanding (see “Beneficial Ownership of Common Stock,” beginning on page 30). However, only State Street and its affiliates provided services to the Company or our Master Retirement Trust (“Master Trust”) during fiscal 2017. For the Company, State Street (i) acted as trustee of several benefits plans and trusts; (ii) provided fiduciary services for a benefits plan; and (iii) provided retiree benefit payment processing services for several benefits plans and trusts, for which the Company paid a total of approximately $165,000 in fees during fiscal 2017. For the Master Trust, State Street (i) acted as trustee; (ii) provided fiduciary services for a benefits plan; (iii) provided retiree benefit processing services for a benefit plan whose assets are held in the Master Trust; and (iv) provided investment management services relating to assets held in the Master Trust. For such services, the Master Trust paid a total of approximately $305,000 in fees during fiscal 2017. All such services provided to the Company and the Master Trust were made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as other comparable transactions with third parties.

Finally, Mr. Best, a director and former Chairman of the Board, has a son-in-law employed by the Company in a non-executive officer position. The total value of the family member’s compensation for fiscal 2017, including base salary, incentive compensation and equity awards appropriate for his position, exceeds the SEC’s reporting threshold for disclosure of $120,000 per fiscal year. However, consistent with our guidelines on related person transactions, the committee determined such relationship was not material.

The committee also reviewed all other transactions between the Company and other related persons, and determined that the transactions described above represent the only significant transactions of this type during fiscal 2017. In addition, the Company is not aware of any related person transactions required to be reported under applicable SEC rules since the beginning of the last fiscal year where our policies and procedures did not require review or where such policies and procedures were not followed.

11

Board Leadership Structure

The Company’s bylaws and Guidelines provide that our Board of Directors has the right to exercise its discretion to either separate or combine the offices of the Chairman of the Board and the CEO. This decision is based upon the Board’s determination of what is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, in light of the circumstances and taking into consideration succession planning, skills and experience of the individuals filling those positions and other relevant factors. The current leadership structure is based on the experienced leadership provided by an Executive Chairman of the Board (currently Mr. Cocklin) and a full-time CEO (currently Mr. Haefner), with both positions being subject to oversight and review by the Company’s independent directors. The Board recognizes that if the circumstances change in the future, other leadership structures might also be appropriate and it has the discretion to revisit this determination of the Company’s leadership structure. A combined Chairman and CEO Board leadership structure has previously worked well for the Company and its shareholders and may do so in the future.

The Board’s leadership structure is designed so that independent directors exercise oversight of the Company’s management and key issues related to strategy and risk. Only independent directors serve on our Audit Committee, HR Committee and Nominating and CG Committee of the Board, and all standing Board committees are chaired by independent directors. Additionally, independent directors regularly hold executive sessions of the Board outside the presence of the Executive Chairman, the President and CEO or any other Company employee, and they generally meet in a private session with the Executive Chairman and the President and CEO at regularly scheduled Board meetings.

Each year, the independent directors of the Board select an independent director to serve as a lead director (the “Lead Director”). The Lead Director performs the following duties:

12

In performing the duties described above, the Lead Director is expected to consult with the chairs of the appropriate Board committees and solicit their participation. The Lead Director also has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors as well as the non-management directors; and if requested by major shareholders, will ensure that he or she is available for consultation and direct communication.

Our Board of Directors has the responsibility for risk oversight of the Company as a whole. However, the Board has delegated primary risk oversight responsibility to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing risks associated with financial and accounting matters, including compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements and internal control over financial reporting. In addition, the Audit Committee has oversight responsibility for the Company’s overall business risk management process, which includes the identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring of key business risks on a company-wide basis. KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) which serves as the Company’s internal auditor, presents a report to the Audit Committee at its regularly scheduled quarterly meetings on its internal audit activities. The report includes the audit activities performed the previous quarter, which address the key business risks identified by the Audit Committee, including evaluations and assessments of internal controls and procedures.

The Board has charged the HR Committee with ensuring that our executive compensation policies and practices support the retention and development of executive talent with the experience required to manage risks inherent to our business and do not encourage or reward excessive risk-taking by our executives. See the discussion in “Compensation Risk Assessment,” beginning on page 51, for more information on the specific processes used by the HR Committee to assess the risk profile of our compensation programs. The Nominating and CG Committee oversees risks associated with corporate governance, including Board leadership structure, succession planning and other matters. The Board’s role in risk oversight has had no significant effect on the Board’s leadership structure. In addition, we believe that the current leadership structure of the Board supports effective oversight of the Company’s risk management processes described above by providing independent leadership at the Board committee level, with ultimate oversight by the full Board as led by the Executive Chairman, the President and CEO and the Lead Director.

Lead Director and Communications with Directors

In accordance with the corporate governance standards of the NYSE, the independent directors of the Board have designated Mr. Gordon as the Lead Director at all meetings of both independent directors and non-management directors, which meetings will continue to be held by the Board on a regular basis. Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with the Lead Director, individual non-management directors, or the non-management directors as a group, by writing to Board of Directors, Atmos Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 650205, Dallas, Texas, 75265-0205 or by email at boardofdirectors@atmosenergy.com. Our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Karen E. Hartsfield, receives all such communications initially and forwards the communications to Mr. Gordon, as Lead Director, or another individual non-management director, if applicable, as she deems appropriate. Interested parties may also contact by email our directors who are members of management, Kim R. Cocklin, Executive Chairman, at kim.cocklin@atmosenergy.com and Michael E. Haefner, President and CEO at mike.haefner@atmosenergy.com. Messrs. Cocklin and Haefner may also be reached by mail at Atmos Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 650205, Dallas, Texas 75265-0205 or by telephone at 972-934-9227.

13

Committees of the Board of Directors

Atmos Energy’s Board committee structure is organized around key strategic issues to facilitate oversight of management. Committee chairs regularly coordinate with one another to ensure appropriate information sharing. To further facilitate information sharing, all committees provide a summary of significant actions to the full Board. As required under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, each standing committee conducts an annual self-assessment and review of its charter.

The following table identifies the chairperson (C) and the current membership (M) of each standing committee of the Board and the number of committee meetings held in Fiscal 2017.

Audit Committee.    The Board has established a separately-designated standing Audit Committee in accordance with applicable provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The Audit Committee consists of Ms. Compton and Ms. Quinn, as well as Messrs. Esquivel, Garza, Grable, Sampson and Ware, with Mr. Sampson serving as chair of the committee. As discussed in “Independence of Directors,” beginning on page 7, the Board has determined that each member of the committee satisfies the independence requirements of the NYSE and SEC applicable to members of an audit committee. The Audit Committee oversees our accounting and financial reporting processes and procedures, reviews the scope and procedures of the internal audit function, appoints our independent registered public accounting firm and is responsible for the oversight of its work and the review of the results of its independent audits. The Audit Committee held four meetings during the last fiscal year and has adopted a charter that it follows in conducting its activities, which is available on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Human Resources Committee.    This committee consists of Ms. Compton and Ms. Quinn, as well as Messrs. Douglas, Esquivel, Gordon and Sampson, with Ms. Quinn serving as chair of the

14

committee. The Board has determined that each member of the committee satisfies the independence requirements of the NYSE and SEC. This committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding executive compensation policy and strategy, and specific compensation recommendations for the Executive Chairman, the President and CEO, as well as our other officers and division presidents. This committee retained the consulting firm of Pay Governance LLC (“Pay Governance”) during fiscal 2017 to serve as its executive compensation consultant, which was directly accountable to the committee for the performance of its consulting services. In addition, the committee determines, develops and makes recommendations to the Board regarding severance agreements, succession planning and other related matters concerning our Executive Chairman, the President and CEO, as well as other officers and division presidents. This committee also administers our LTIP and our Incentive Plan. During the last fiscal year, the committee held four meetings. The committee has adopted a charter that it follows in conducting its activities, which is available on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.    This committee consists of Messrs. Douglas, Garza, Gordon, Grable and Ware, with Mr. Grable serving as chair of the committee. The Board has determined that each member of the committee satisfies the independence requirements of the NYSE and SEC. This committee makes recommendations to the Board regarding the nominees for director to be submitted to our shareholders for election at each annual meeting of shareholders, selects candidates for consideration by the full Board to fill any vacancies on the Board which may occur from time to time and oversees all of our corporate governance matters. The committee held one meeting during the last fiscal year. The committee has adopted a charter that it follows in conducting its activities, which is available on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Executive Committee.    This committee consists of Mr. Best and the chairs of each of our standing committees. Current members of the Executive Committee are Ms. Quinn, Messrs. Best, Esquivel, Grable and Sampson. Mr. Best serves as chair of the committee. In accordance with our bylaws, the Executive Committee has, and may exercise, all of the powers of the Board of Directors during the intervals between the Board’s meetings, subject to certain limitations and restrictions as set forth in the bylaws or as may be established by resolution of the Board from time to time. The Executive Committee held no meetings during fiscal 2017.

Work Session/Annual Meeting Committee.    This committee consists of Messrs. Douglas, Esquivel, Grable, Springer and Ware, with Mr. Esquivel serving as chair of the committee. This committee selects the site and plans the meeting and agenda for the work session meeting of the Board held each year for the purpose of focusing on long-range planning and corporate strategy issues and selects the site for the annual meeting of shareholders. During the last fiscal year, the committee held two meetings.

Independence of Audit Committee Members, Financial Literacy and Audit Committee Financial Experts

In addition to being declared as independent under the NYSE corporate governance standards, applicable NYSE and SEC rules and regulations require that each member of an audit committee satisfy additional independence and financial literacy requirements and at least one of these members must satisfy the additional requirement of having accounting or related financial management expertise. This additional requirement can be satisfied if the Board determines that at least one Audit

15

Committee member is an “audit committee financial expert,” within the meaning of applicable SEC rules and regulations. Generally, the additional independence requirements provide that (i) a member of the Audit Committee, or his or her immediate family members, are prohibited from receiving any direct or indirect compensation or fee from the Company or its affiliates, other than in such Audit Committee member’s capacity as a member of the Audit Committee, the Board or any other Board committee; and (ii) he or she may not be an affiliated person of the Company or any of its subsidiaries. An “immediate family member” is defined by applicable NYSE rules to include a director’s spouse, parents, children, siblings and in-laws of the director, as well as anyone else (other than any domestic employee) who shares the director’s home.

Generally, the financial literacy requirements provide that the Board, in its business judgment, shall determine if each member is financially literate, taking into account factors such as the member’s education, experience and ability to read and understand financial statements of public companies. Audit committee financial experts must have the following five additional attributes: (i) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements; (ii) the ability to assess the general application of such principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals and reserves; (iii) experience preparing, auditing, analyzing or evaluating financial statements that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the Company’s financial statements, or experience actively supervising one or more persons engaged in such activities; (iv) an understanding of internal control over financial reporting and (v) an understanding of how an audit committee functions.

Based on its review of the independence, financial literacy and audit committee financial expert requirements previously discussed, as well as its review of their individual backgrounds and qualifications, the Board has determined that all members of the Audit Committee satisfy the additional independence and financial literacy requirements of the SEC and NYSE for members of an audit committee. The Board has also designated Ms. Quinn and Messrs. Garza, Sampson and Ware each as an “audit committee financial expert,” as such term is defined by applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. As provided by the safe harbor contained in applicable SEC rules and regulations, our audit committee financial experts will not be deemed “experts” for any purpose as a result of being so designated. In addition, such designation does not impose on such persons any duties, obligations or liabilities that are greater than the duties, obligations and liabilities imposed on such persons as members of the Audit Committee or the Board in the absence of such designation. This designation also does not affect the duties, obligations or liabilities of any other member of the Audit Committee or the Board.

Independence of Human Resources Committee Members

The Board has affirmatively determined that each member of the HR Committee has no relationship to the Company which is material to that director’s ability to be independent from management of the Company in connection with the duties of an HR Committee member. In doing so, the Board considered all factors set forth in the NYSE corporate governance standards (and any exceptions thereto) and any other relevant factor, including, but not limited to (i) the source of all compensation paid by the Company to each member of the HR Committee during fiscal 2017, including any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fees and (ii) whether each HR Committee member is affiliated with the Company, a subsidiary of the Company or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the Company.

16

Other Board and Board Committee Matters

Human Resources Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation.    As discussed above, the members of the HR Committee during the last fiscal year were Ms. Compton and Ms. Quinn, along with Messrs. Douglas, Esquivel, Gordon and Sampson. None of the HR Committee members were, during fiscal 2017 or previously, an officer or employee of the Company or any of our subsidiaries. In addition, there was no interlocking relationship between any named executive officer of the Company and any other corporation during fiscal 2017.

Attendance at Board Meetings and Annual Meeting of Shareholders.    During fiscal 2017, our Board held nine meetings and each director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of (a) all meetings of the Board and (b) all meetings of the committees of the Board on which such director served. In addition, all members of the Board attended our annual meeting of shareholders in person on February 8, 2017. We strongly support and encourage each member of our Board to attend our annual meeting of shareholders.

PROPOSAL ONE—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Background

The Board is nominating Ms. Compton and Ms. Quinn, as well as Messrs. Best, Cocklin, Douglas, Esquivel, Garza, Gordon, Grable, Haefner, Sampson, Springer and Ware to continue serving as directors whose one-year terms will expire in 2019. All nominees were recommended for nomination by the Nominating and CG Committee of the Board. We did not pay a fee to any third party to identify, evaluate or assist in identifying or evaluating potential nominees for the Board. In addition, the Nominating and CG Committee did not receive any recommendations from a shareholder or a group of shareholders who, individually or in the aggregate, beneficially owned greater than five percent (5%) of our common stock for at least one year.

The names, ages, biographical summaries and qualifications of the persons who have been nominated to serve as our directors are set forth under “Nominees for Director,” beginning on page 19. Each of the nominees has consented to be a nominee and to serve as a director if elected. If we receive proxies that are signed but do not specify how to vote, we will vote those shares FOR all of the nominees. In accordance with Texas and Virginia law, to be elected as a director, our bylaws require a nominee to receive the vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock entitled to vote and represented in person or by proxy at a meeting of shareholders at which a quorum is present. Abstentions will have the same effect as an “against” vote for each nominee for director, but, as discussed above, broker non-votes will have no effect on the vote for any nominee.

Procedures for Nomination of Candidates for Director

There are no differences in the manner in which the Nominating and CG Committee evaluates nominees for director based on whether or not the nominee is presented by a shareholder. All director candidates shall, at a minimum, possess the qualifications for director discussed below. According to our bylaws, any shareholder may make nominations for the election of directors if notice of such nominations is delivered to, or mailed and received by the Corporate Secretary of the Company at our principal executive offices no later than the close of business on January 16, 2018, the 25th day following the day on which notice of the meeting is to be sent, December 22, 2017. Our principal executive offices are located at 1800 Three Lincoln Centre, 5430 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75240.

17

If no nominations are so made, only the nominations made by the Board of Directors may be voted upon at the 2018 annual meeting.

Each notice of a director nomination should include the following: (i) name, address and number of shares owned by the nominating shareholder, (ii) the nominee’s name and address, (iii) a listing of the nominee’s background and qualifications, (iv) a description of all arrangements between such shareholder and each nominee and any other person and (v) all other information relating to such person that is required to be disclosed in the solicitations for proxies for election of directors under applicable SEC and NYSE rules and regulations. A signed statement from the nominee should accompany the notice of nomination indicating that he or she consents to being considered as a nominee and that, if nominated by the Board and elected by the shareholders, he or she will serve as a director.

Qualifications for Directors

The Nominating and CG Committee uses a variety of methods to identify nominees for director, including considering potential director candidates who come to the committee’s attention through current officers, directors, professional search firms, shareholders or other persons. Nominees for director must possess, at a minimum, the level of education, experience, sophistication and expertise required to perform the duties of a member of the board of directors of a public company of our size and scope. Once a person is nominated, the committee will assess the qualifications of the nominee, including an evaluation of his or her judgment and skills. The Board has adopted guidelines outlining the qualifications sought when considering non-employee director nominees, which are discussed in our Guidelines posted on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Based on the Guidelines, the specific qualifications and skills the Board seeks across its membership to achieve a balance of experiences important to the Company include, but are not limited to, outstanding achievement in personal careers; prior board experience; wisdom, integrity and ability to make independent, analytical inquiries; understanding of our business environment and a willingness to devote adequate time to Board duties. Other required specific qualifications and skills include a basic understanding of principal operational and financial objectives, and plans and strategies of a corporation or organization of our stature; results of operations and financial condition of an organization and of any significant subsidiaries or business segments and a relative understanding of an organization and its business segments in relation to its competitors.

The Board is committed to diversified membership and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion or disability in selecting nominees. Although the Board has not established a formal policy on diversity, the Board and the committee believe it is important that our directors represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. Our Guidelines provide that the committee shall evaluate each director’s continued service on the Board, at least annually, by considering the appropriate skills and characteristics of members of the Board of Directors in the context of the then current makeup of the Board. This assessment includes the following factors: diversity (including diversity of skills, background and experience); age; business or professional background; financial literacy and expertise; availability and commitment; independence and other criteria that the committee or the full Board finds to be relevant. It is also the practice of the committee to consider these factors when screening and evaluating candidates for nomination to the Board.

18

Nominees for Director

Each of the following current directors has been nominated to serve an additional one-year term on the Board of Directors with such term expiring in 2019.

19

20

21

22

23

24

The Board of Directors recommends that our shareholders vote FOR

each of the nominees named above for election to the Board.

25

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Annual Compensation

As compensation for serving as a director during fiscal 2017, each of our non-employee directors received an annual retainer of $75,000, payable in advance on a quarterly basis. Mr. Best received an additional annual fee of $125,000, payable in advance on a quarterly basis, for the additional services he provided in connection with being the Chairman of the Board. In addition, our Lead Director, Mr. Gordon, received an additional annual fee of $25,000, also payable in advance on a quarterly basis, for additional services he provided in connection with being the Lead Director. As chair of the Audit Committee, Mr. Sampson was paid an additional annual fee of $9,000 for additional services provided in connection with his committee duties and responsibilities while the chairs of the remainder of the Board committees were each paid an additional annual fee of $8,500 for such additional services provided.

The Board of Directors makes the final determination, typically at its August meeting each year, on all non-employee director compensation, including without limitation, the annual retainer, additional annual fees for serving as Chairman, Lead Director and chairs of Board Committees, as well as long-term equity compensation. The Board makes its determination based on recommendations from the HR Committee, which is provided a report from its executive compensation consultant, Pay Governance, on competitive director compensation information. The report includes a comprehensive review of director compensation programs of companies in the Company’s proxy peer group. The HR Committee may not delegate to any third party its authority to recommend non-employee director and executive officer compensation.

The Company provides our non-employee directors the option to receive all or part of their director fees (in 10 percent increments) in Atmos Energy common stock through the LTIP in order to increase the proprietary interest of our non-employee directors in the Company’s long-term prospects and the strategic growth of our business. The common stock portion of the fee earned in each quarter is issued as soon as possible following the first business day of each quarter. The number of shares issued is equal to the amount of the fee that would have been paid to the non-employee director during a quarter divided by the fair market value (average of the highest and lowest prices as reported on the NYSE Consolidated Tape) on the first business day of such quarter. Only whole numbers of shares of common stock may be issued; fractional shares are paid in cash. Two of our directors elected this option during fiscal 2017.

With respect to other director compensation matters, all directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. A director who is also an officer or employee receives no compensation for his or her service as a director. We provide business travel accident insurance for non-employee directors and their spouses. The policy provides $100,000 coverage to directors and $50,000 coverage to their spouses per accident while traveling on Company business.

Long-Term Compensation

Each non-employee director is also eligible to participate in the Atmos Energy Corporation Equity Incentive and Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (“Directors Plan”). This plan allows each such director to defer receipt of his or her annual retainer fee or other director fees and to invest such deferred fees in either a cash account or a stock account (in 10 percent increments). The

26

Directors Plan is intended to encourage qualified individuals to accept nominations as directors of the Company and to better align the interests between the non-employee directors and the Company’s shareholders.

The amount of the fee allocated as a credit to the cash account is converted to a cash balance as of the first business day of each quarter to be credited with interest at a rate equal to two and a half percent (2.5%) plus the annual yield reported on a 10-year U.S. Treasury Note for the first business day of January for each plan year. Interest on the accumulated balance of the cash account is credited monthly. The amount of the fee allocated as a credit to the stock account is converted to share units. The fee payable for the quarter is converted to a number of whole and, if applicable, fractional share units on the first business day of that quarter. Share units are also credited with dividend equivalents whenever dividends are declared on shares of the Company’s common stock. Such dividend equivalent credits are converted to whole and, if applicable, fractional share units on the same day on which such dividends are paid. At the time of a participating director’s retirement, plan benefits paid from the cash account are paid in the form of cash. Plan benefits paid from the stock account are paid in the form of shares of common stock issued, which are equal in number to whole share units in the director’s stock account. Any fractional share units are rounded up to a whole share unit prior to distribution. Each non-employee director also receives an annual grant of share units (currently 3,000 units) under the LTIP each year he or she serves on the Company’s Board of Directors. The grants generally occur on the 30th day following the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders each year and must be held until the director’s retirement, in the same manner as share units under the Directors Plan.

Share Ownership Guidelines

To create more of a direct linkage with the financial performance of the Company and to further align the interests of the members of the Board with those of our shareholders, the Board has adopted share ownership guidelines for our non-employee directors that are set forth in the Guidelines. Within five years of his or her initial election to the Board, each non-employee director is required to acquire ownership of the Company’s common stock with a value equal to at least three times the amount of such director’s annual retainer. Share ownership positions include all shares held directly or indirectly by our non-employee directors as well as their share units held under our Directors Plan and the LTIP. All non-employee directors are in compliance with the Guidelines.

27

Summary of Cash and Other Compensation

The following table sets forth all compensation paid to our non-employee directors for fiscal 2017:

Director Compensation for Fiscal Year 2017(a)

28

Director Deferred Board Fees

The following table sets forth, for each participating non-employee director, the amount of director compensation deferred during fiscal 2017 and cumulative deferred compensation as of September 30, 2017:

Director Deferred Board Fees for Fiscal Year 2017

29

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF COMMON STOCK

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

The following table lists the beneficial ownership with respect to each person known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent (5%) of any class of our voting securities as of December 15, 2017:

State Street is currently considered a related person under our related person transactions guidelines as a result of being a beneficial owner of more than five percent (5%) of our common stock outstanding. As discussed above under “Related Person Transactions,” beginning on page 9, State Street and its affiliates provide certain services to the Company and our Master Trust, including providing payment services for certain of our benefit plans, acting as trustee of our Master Trust and other benefits plans-related trusts, as well as providing investment management and payment processing services. Although Vanguard and BlackRock, Inc. are also each considered a related person under our related person transactions guidelines as a result of being a beneficial owner of more than five percent (5%) of our common stock outstanding, the Company engaged in no transactions with either of these firms during fiscal 2017.

30

Security Ownership of Management and Directors

The following table lists the beneficial ownership of our common stock, the only class of securities issued and outstanding, with respect to all our directors and nominees for director, our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and our three other most highly compensated executive officers (our “named executive officers”), all our directors and executive officers as a group as of December 15, 2017. Except as otherwise noted, the directors, nominees and executive officers, individually or as a group, have sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares listed.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers and persons who beneficially own more than 10 percent of our common stock to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in their ownership in our common stock. Directors, executive officers and greater-than-ten-percent beneficial shareholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. Based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us, we believe that, during fiscal 2017, all of our directors, executive officers and greater-than-ten-percent beneficial owners were in compliance with the Section 16(a) filing requirements.

31

PROPOSAL TWO—RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed Ernst & Young to continue as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018. The firm of Ernst & Young (and its predecessors) has been our independent registered public accounting firm since our incorporation in 1983. It is expected that representatives of Ernst & Young will be present at the annual meeting. The representatives of Ernst & Young will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so and are expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

In accordance with good corporate governance practices, the Company submits the Audit Committee’s appointment of Ernst & Young as its independent registered public accounting firm to our shareholders for ratification each year. If the appointment of Ernst & Young is not so ratified, the Audit Committee will take into account the outcome of the vote in its future selection of an independent registered public accounting firm.

As discussed in “Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy” below, all professional services provided by Ernst & Young were pre-approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with its pre-approval policy.

The Board of Directors recommends that our shareholders vote FOR the

ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young as the Company’s

independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2018.

Audit and Related Fees

Fees for professional services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young, in each of the last two fiscal years, in each of the following categories are:

Audit Fees.    Fees for audit services include fees associated with the audit of our annual report on Form 10-K, the assessment by the firm of our design and operating effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the reviews of our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. In addition, this amount includes fees associated with the issuance of consents and comfort letters relating to the registration of Company securities and assistance with the review of documents filed with the SEC, as well as fees for an audit provided in connection with a statutory filing.

Tax Fees.    Tax fees include fees relating to reviews of tax returns, tax consulting, and assistance with sales and use tax filings and audits.

32

Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy

The Audit Committee has adopted a pre-approval policy relating to the provision of both audit and non-audit services by Ernst & Young. Our Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy provides for the pre- approval of audit, audit-related, tax and other services specifically described in appendices to the policy on an annual basis. Such services are pre-approved up to a specified fee limit. All other permitted services, as well as proposed services exceeding the pre-approved fee limit, must be separately pre-approved by the Audit Committee. Requests for services that require separate approval by the Audit Committee must be submitted to the Audit Committee by both our Chief Financial Officer and our independent registered public accounting firm and must include a joint statement as to whether, in their view, the request is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence. The policy authorizes the Audit Committee to delegate to one or more of its members pre-approval authority with respect to permitted services. The Audit Committee did not delegate pre-approval authority to any members during fiscal 2017 and pre-approved all audit and tax fees for services performed by Ernst & Young in fiscal 2017 in accordance with such pre-approval policy. The Audit Committee further concluded that the provision of these services by Ernst & Young was compatible with maintaining its independence. The Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy is available on the Corporate Governance page of our website at www.atmosenergy.com.

Audit Committee Report

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is composed of seven directors who are independent directors as required by and in compliance with all applicable listing standards of the NYSE as well as all applicable rules and regulations of the SEC, as discussed in the “Corporate Governance and Other Board Matters” section of this proxy statement, beginning on page 7. The Audit Committee acts under a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors, which sets forth its detailed responsibilities and duties, as well as requirements for the Audit Committee’s composition and meetings. A copy of the charter is available on the Corporate Governance page of the Company’s website at www.atmosenergy.com.

The primary purpose of the Audit Committee is to oversee the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the financial reporting processes of the Company, including systems of internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Ernst & Young is responsible for (i) expressing an opinion, based on its audit, as to the conformity of the audited financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles and (ii) expressing an opinion, based on its audit, on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements appearing in the Company’s 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K with both management and Ernst & Young, which included a discussion of the critical accounting policies and practices used by the Company, and alternative treatments of financial information within generally accepted accounting principles, if any, and their effects, including the treatments preferred by the independent registered public accounting firm, if applicable. In addition, the Committee reviewed all other material communications between the Company and Ernst & Young.

Management has represented to the Audit Committee that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective. The Audit Committee then reviewed and discussed management’s assessment with management and Ernst & Young. The Audit Committee also discussed with Ernst &

33

Young its report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as well as the matters required to be discussed under generally accepted auditing standards, including those matters set forth in Auditing Standard No. 1301, Communications with Audit Committees, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”).

In addition, the Audit Committee has received and reviewed the written disclosures and letter from Ernst & Young, which are required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence and discussed with Ernst & Young the firm’s independence. The Audit Committee also received and reviewed those disclosures related to the independence of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm required by the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules and regulations of the SEC. The Audit Committee has also considered the fees paid to Ernst & Young during the last fiscal year for audit and non-audit services and has determined that the non-audit services provided are compatible with the firm’s independence and are in compliance with applicable law.

The Audit Committee has also discussed with KPMG, which provides internal audit services to the Company, and Ernst & Young, the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Committee periodically meets with both firms, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, the assessments of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors (which the Board has approved) that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2017 for filing with the SEC. The Audit Committee has also appointed Ernst & Young as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year, which appointment will be submitted to our shareholders for their ratification at our 2018 annual meeting of shareholders.

Respectfully submitted by the members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors:

Richard A. Sampson, Chair

Kelly H. Compton

Ruben E. Esquivel

Rafael G. Garza

Robert C. Grable

Nancy K. Quinn

Richard Ware II

34

PROPOSAL THREE—NON-BINDING, ADVISORY VOTE

TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Background of the Proposal

We are required by Section 14A of the Exchange Act to hold a separate non-binding, advisory shareholder vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (who are the only executive officers of the Company), as described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” beginning on page 37, the executive compensation tables, and the notes and narrative in our proxy statement (commonly referred to as the “Say-on-Pay” proposal). At our annual meeting of shareholders in February 2016, our shareholders voted overwhelmingly to adopt the recommendation of our Board to vote on the Say-on-Pay proposal every year at our annual meeting until the next frequency vote on the Say-on-Pay proposal is held. In accordance with the results of this latest vote, the Board of Directors determined to continue its practice of providing to our shareholders an annual advisory vote on executive compensation, which it began following the first time our shareholders voted overwhelmingly at our annual meeting in February 2011 to adopt the recommendation of our Board to vote on the Say-on-Pay proposal each year. As a result, we will have submitted our Say-on-Pay proposal to our shareholders at each annual meeting beginning in February 2011 through the upcoming annual meeting in February 2018. It is anticipated that the next Say-on-Pay vote will be held at our 2019 annual meeting.

Executive Compensation

As discussed below in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement, the Board believes that our current executive compensation program directly links executive compensation to our financial performance and aligns the interests of our named executive officers with those of our shareholders and customers. Our Board also believes that our executive compensation program provides our named executive officers with a balanced compensation package that includes a reasonable base salary along with annual and long-term incentive compensation plans that are based on the Company’s financial performance. For fiscal 2017, over 52 percent of our CEO’s actual total direct compensation was performance-based and at risk, while the average for the other named executive officers (excluding for this purpose those named executive officers that terminated employment during the fiscal year) was over 47 percent. Our shareholders overwhelmingly approved our executive compensation program when they approved the executive compensation of our named executive officers at our last annual meeting with a positive vote of about 94 percent. See “Additional Information on Named Executive Officer Compensation,” beginning on page 47.

The HR Committee annually reviews the Company’s overall approach to executive compensation to see that the Company’s current benefits, perquisites, policies and practices continue to be in line with the best practices of companies in the natural gas distribution industry and to assist us with the hiring and retention of a high-quality management team. The “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” discussion, beginning on page 37, includes additional details about our executive compensation program. This Say-on-Pay proposal is set forth in the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Atmos Energy Corporation approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of its named executive officers for fiscal 2017, as disclosed in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the related compensation tables, notes and narrative in the proxy statement of Atmos Energy Corporation.

35

Because your vote on this proposal is advisory, it will not be binding on the Board or the Company. However, the HR Committee and the Board of Directors will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation arrangements.

The Board of Directors recommends that our shareholders vote FOR

the approval of our executive compensation on an advisory basis.

Human Resources Committee Report

The Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors has the responsibility for reviewing and recommending to the full Board of Directors, the Company’s executive compensation program. The committee is composed entirely of persons who qualify as independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE. In this context, the committee has met, reviewed and discussed with management the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” contained in this proxy statement. Based on this review and discussion, the committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors approved, the inclusion of the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” in this proxy statement.

Respectfully submitted by the members of the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors:

Nancy K. Quinn, Chair

Kelly H. Compton

Richard W. Douglas

Ruben E. Esquivel

Richard K. Gordon

Richard A. Sampson

36

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Executive Summary

In this section of the proxy statement, we discuss our executive compensation program objectives and strategy, and the elements of compensation that we provide to our named executive officers, including the analysis we employed in reaching the decisions to pay the specific amounts and types of executive compensation discussed. Later, under “Named Executive Officer Compensation,” beginning on page 53, we present a series of tables containing specific information about the compensation paid to or earned by our named executive officers during fiscal 2017, as well as more information about the elements of our executive officer compensation program. The discussion below is intended to assist you in understanding the information provided in the tables and in putting that information into context. Our named executive officers for fiscal 2017 are listed below:

Compensation information for fiscal 2017 for Messers. Eckert and Gregory is required to be included in this proxy statement in the Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal 2017, including related footnotes and tables (“SCT”), beginning on page 53, in accordance with applicable SEC rules. However, no information on any executive compensation paid during or relating to fiscal 2017 to either Messrs. Eckert or Gregory is presented in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement. Additional information on the executive compensation paid during fiscal 2017 to Messrs. Eckert and Gregory may be found in our Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 19, 2017.

Our executive compensation program is built upon our strategy of “Total Rewards,” which we adopted in 1998. Under our Total Rewards strategy, we take a comprehensive view of the various

37

compensation plans and employee benefits that comprise the total package of executive compensation that is provided to our named executive officers. The Total Rewards strategy is based on the payment of (i) total cash compensation, composed of base salary and the annual incentive compensation award and (ii) total direct compensation, composed of total cash compensation and the annualized present value of long-term incentive compensation awards, being targeted at the 50th percentile of all such compensation for equivalent positions at companies of comparable size in the natural gas distribution industry, which is represented primarily by companies in our proxy peer group, as discussed below under “Competitive Executive Compensation Benchmarking,” beginning on page 47. We believe this strategy fosters a philosophy of “pay for executive performance” through the use of both annual and long-term incentive compensation.

Overview of Fiscal 2017 Financial Performance.    In recent years, Atmos Energy has implemented rate designs that reduce or eliminate regulatory lag and separate the recovery of our approved rate from customer usage patterns. Additionally, we have significantly increased investments in the safety and reliability of our natural gas distribution and transmission infrastructure. This increased level of investment and timely recovery of these investments through our various regulatory mechanisms has resulted in increased earnings and operating cash flow in recent years.

This trend continued during fiscal 2017 as net income increased to $396 million, or $3.73 per diluted share for the year ended September 30, 2017, compared with net income of $350 million, or $3.38 per diluted share in the prior year. The year-over-year increase largely reflects positive rate outcomes, which more than offset weather that was 12 percent warmer than the prior year. In January 2017, we completed the sale of our nonregulated natural gas marketing business, for which we received about $140 million in cash proceeds. The proceeds from the sale were redeployed to fund infrastructure investments in our remaining businesses. As a result of the sale, we have fully exited the nonregulated gas marketing business.

Capital expenditures for fiscal 2017 totaled $1.14 billion. Approximately 80 percent of this amount was invested to improve the safety and reliability of our distribution and transmission systems, with a significant portion of this investment incurred under regulatory mechanisms that reduce regulatory lag to six months or less. Fiscal 2016 and 2017 spending under these and other mechanisms enabled the Company to complete 19 regulatory filings during fiscal 2017 that should increase annual operating income from regulated operations by approximately $104 million. We funded over 75 percent of our fiscal 2017 capital expenditures program primarily through operating cash flows of about $867 million.

In addition, we acquired the North Texas Pipeline in the first fiscal quarter of 2017 for an all-cash price of approximately $86 million, inclusive of working capital. The acquisition of the North Texas Pipeline increased the capacity on our Atmos Pipeline–Texas intrastate pipeline to serve transportation customers in North Texas, which continues to experience significant population growth.

Overview of Annual Incentive Compensation Paid for Fiscal 2017 Financial Performance.    The Company exceeded our target earnings per share (“EPS”) goal under the Incentive Plan of $3.55 per diluted share in fiscal 2017, by earning $3.64 per diluted share, excluding unrealized earnings recognized by the Company’s nonregulated operations during the first quarter of fiscal 2017 prior to their sale. This performance attainment resulted in the named executive officers receiving awards equal to 125 percent of their respective target awards (as a specified percentage of base salary). See “Annual Incentive Compensation,” beginning on page 42. Because our TSR was a positive 15 percent for fiscal 2017, the awards were not limited to 100 percent of the target for each named executive officer.

38

Overview of Long-Term Incentive Compensation Paid for Fiscal 2015-2017 Financial Performance.    For the grants of performance-based RSUs awarded in May 2015, the Company achieved a cumulative diluted EPS amount of $10.11, compared to the cumulative diluted EPS target amount of $9.55 during the three-year performance period ended September 30, 2017 (fiscal 2015-2017), excluding unrealized earnings recognized by the Company’s nonregulated operations during fiscal 2015, 2016 and the first quarter of fiscal 2017 prior to their sale. Accordingly, the named executive officers earned a total number of performance-based RSUs equal to approximately 158 percent of the target, in the form of shares of common stock issued in November 2017, plus cumulative dividend equivalents in the form of cash. Because our TSR was a positive 90 percent for the three-year performance period, the awards were not limited to 100 percent of the target for each named executive officer. See “Long-Term Incentive Compensation,” beginning on page 44.

Executive Compensation Program Objectives and Strategy

Our Total Rewards strategy, in which we limit the use of executive benefits and perquisites, is reviewed each year and updated as needed by our HR Committee, with assistance from its independent executive compensation consultant, Pay Governance. None of our named executive officers have an employment agreement with the Company. We believe that our executive compensation program provides our named executive officers with a balanced compensation approach each year by providing a market-competitive base salary along with participation in annual and long-term incentive compensation plans that are based on the Company’s financial performance. These incentive plans are designed to reward our named executive officers on both an annual and long-term basis if they attain specified target goals, the attainment of which does not require the taking of an unreasonable amount of risk, as discussed in “Compensation Risk Assessment,” beginning on page 51.

Our executive compensation program is designed to ensure that the interests of our named executive officers are closely aligned with those of our shareholders and customers and that our named executive officers are paid an appropriate amount of incentive compensation only when the Company’s performance warrants the payment of such compensation. We believe that our executive compensation program is effective in allowing the organization to attract and retain highly-qualified senior management who can deliver outstanding performance.

As discussed above, our executive compensation program is built on our Total Rewards strategy and is founded upon the following principles:

39

As discussed above, our executive compensation program has been designed to reflect best practices in executive compensation, including the following specific features:

40

Elements of Executive Compensation

The following table summarizes the various elements of executive compensation that we have provided to our named executive officers, followed by a more detailed discussion of each element, why we pay each element, how we determine the amount we pay under each element and how each element fits into our overall compensation objectives.

41

Base Salary.    The payment of a base salary is intended to provide a stable, fixed amount of income to our named executive officers for their day-to-day job performance. Base salaries represent only a relatively small portion of total direct compensation. In fiscal 2017, the base salary for our CEO represented only about 22 percent of his actual total direct compensation, while the average for the other named executive officers was about 31 percent. However, the amount of base salary paid to each named executive officer is a major determinant of the amounts of all other elements of compensation. For example, the annual awards under our Incentive Plan are based on a percentage of base salary. See the discussion under “Annual Incentive Compensation” below. Base salaries for each position are compared on the basis of job content primarily to base salaries for similar positions in companies in our proxy peer group generally at the 50^th percentile of the competitive market practice. Proposed base salary ranges for the following calendar year are reviewed and considered by the HR Committee at its meeting in October of each year. In addition, at the same meeting, our CEO provides the HR Committee with an oral presentation discussing his individual performance and contributions for the preceding fiscal year, along with an evaluation of each other named executive officer’s performance during that year.

Each named executive officer’s base salary for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2017 was established by the HR Committee after considering the competitive benchmarking data for each position discussed below, the committee’s subjective evaluation of the performance of each named executive officer, the value of the individual in the position to the Company relative to other positions and his level of experience, the Company’s base salary increase budget and guidelines as well as current economic conditions. As a result, the HR Committee approved a three percent (3%) increase for Mr. Cocklin and increases in base salary for the 2017 calendar year for the remaining named executive officers in recognition of their increasing responsibilities or in connection with their promotions to executive officer positions on or about the beginning of 2017. All of these adjustments have resulted in the amounts noted in the table below:

The HR Committee believes that the base salaries provided to each of the named executive officers are appropriate to retain and motivate them, are competitive with salaries offered for similar positions by companies in our proxy peer group and are consistent with our Total Rewards strategy.

Annual Incentive Compensation.    We believe it is important to provide our named executive officers with a reasonable financial incentive to maximize the Company’s financial performance each year. Through our Incentive Plan, we provide our named executive officers an opportunity to earn an annual incentive award based upon the Company’s actual financial performance each year as measured by our fully diluted EPS for that fiscal year. The EPS performance measurement is the lynchpin of both our short-term (annual) and long-term incentive compensation plans. The HR Committee believes that EPS is the most appropriate measurement of our financial performance both on an annual and long-term basis, because it most accurately reflects the growth and performance of our operations. The EPS measurement is also one of the most current well-known measurements of overall financial performance of public companies, which is widely used by financial analysts as well as the investing public. The HR Committee believes that using this measurement as the basis for our incentive

42

compensation plans best aligns the interests of our named executive officers with the interests of our shareholders and customers.

For fiscal 2017, the HR Committee reviewed competitive compensation benchmarking data, as discussed below, to establish an annual target opportunity expressed as a percentage of base salary earned during the fiscal year by each named executive officer. The target incentive award opportunities for each such officer are reviewed each year and benchmarked against the 50th percentile for similar positions by companies in our proxy peer group as described above in “Executive Compensation Program Objectives and Strategy,” beginning on page 39.

The Incentive Plan targets for fiscal 2017 for each of the named executive officers was as follows:

At its meeting in October 2016, the HR Committee established the threshold, target and maximum performance levels of EPS upon which the Incentive Plan’s awards would be based for fiscal 2017, along with the corresponding percentages of target awards. The target EPS performance level was based on our annual business plan and budget and took into account such factors as the allowed rates of return in our established service areas, natural gas pricing and volatility, budgeted capital expenditures, expected growth within our service areas, competitive factors from other service providers and other business considerations embedded in our annual business planning process. The HR Committee has continued to set increasingly challenging EPS target performance levels under the Incentive Plan each fiscal year, as demonstrated by increasing such target performance levels on average of over nine percent (9%) per year over the last three fiscal years. Such target performance levels have also continued to be within the range of announced EPS guidance provided to the public in November of each year.

For each of the last three fiscal years prior to fiscal 2017, we exceeded our target level of performance based on EPS, with the payouts to our named executive officers averaging approximately 145 percent of their target awards each year over that period. The following table summarizes the performance levels and actual performance level attainment under the Incentive Plan for fiscal 2017: 

43

Since the actual EPS performance level attained was between the target of $3.55 per share and maximum of $3.91 per share, straight-line interpolation was used to compute the percentage of the target award earned. The HR Committee has the discretion under the Incentive Plan to make downward adjustments to earned awards but may not make upward adjustments. For fiscal 2017, the HR Committee did not use its discretion to make negative adjustments to any awards for any of our named executive officers. However, the HR Committee does place a limit under certain conditions on the amount of earned awards for all our named executive officers. If the Company’s TSR during any fiscal year is negative, the earned award for each such officer for that fiscal year will be limited to the amount earned at the target level of performance. This limitation was not applicable in fiscal 2017 since the Company’s TSR was positive for the fiscal year at 15 percent.

Awards under the Incentive Plan are paid in cash and are based on the participant’s eligible earnings received during the fiscal year. However, under the terms of the Incentive Plan, participants may elect prior to the beginning of each fiscal year to convert all or a portion of their awards to time-lapse RSUs with three-year cliff vesting, with a premium equal to 20 percent of the amount converted, with such units being awarded under our LTIP.

Long–Term Incentive Compensation.    The HR Committee awards grants under our LTIP each fiscal year that are structured with 50 percent of the targeted long-term value in the form of three-fiscal year performance-based RSUs with the remaining 50 percent in the form of time-lapse RSUs with three-year cliff vesting. The HR Committee believes that the payment of long-term incentive compensation in the form of grants of performance-based RSUs, as measured by cumulative EPS over a three-fiscal year performance period, rewards our named executive officers for improved financial performance of the Company, thereby giving them an incentive to enhance long-term shareholder value. The HR Committee also believes that grants of time-lapse RSUs promotes and encourages long-term retention and service to the Company, aligns the interests of our named executive officers with those of our shareholders through increased share ownership and provides a balanced approach to long-term compensation. The HR Committee bases the actual number and value of awards granted primarily on the competitive compensation benchmarking of grants made by the companies in our proxy peer group, as discussed below. The Board has also granted our CEO, Mr. Cocklin, the authority to award up to a total of 10,000 performance-based RSUs and time-lapse RSUs in the aggregate in off-cycle grants each fiscal year to newly-hired eligible LTIP participants or to then-current LTIP participants in connection with a promotion.

The HR Committee bases the three-fiscal year cumulative EPS target performance levels on the same factors they utilize for our Incentive Plan described above. The HR Committee has also historically set increasingly challenging cumulative three-fiscal year EPS target performance levels each year, by increasing such target performance levels on average of almost nine percent (9%) per year for grants over the last three fiscal years. For the grants of performance-based RSUs whose performance periods ended during the three fiscal years prior to fiscal 2017, we exceeded our target level of performance based on cumulative EPS over the three-fiscal year performance period for all such grants, with the payouts to the named executive officers averaging approximately 175 percent of their target awards each year over that period.

44

The following table summarizes the performance levels and actual performance attainment levels for the fiscal 2015-2017 performance period relating to the grants of performance-based RSUs awarded in May 2015:

Since the actual performance level attained over the performance period was $10.11 per share, each named executive officer earned 158 percent of his target award. The awards were paid in the form of shares of common stock issued in November 2017 with the named executive officers also receiving cumulative cash dividend equivalents over the three-fiscal year performance period on such awards. As with the payout of Incentive Plan awards, if the Company’s TSR during the performance period is negative, the earned award for each such officer for such performance period will be limited to the amount earned at the target level of performance. This limitation was not applicable for the fiscal 2015-2017 performance period since the Company’s TSR was positive for such performance period at 90 percent.

At its meeting in October 2016, the HR Committee also established the threshold, target and maximum performance levels of cumulative EPS upon which performance-based RSUs awards would be based for the fiscal 2017-2019 performance period, along with the corresponding percentages of target awards. The three-fiscal year cumulative EPS target performance level was based on the same factors utilized by the HR Committee for our Incentive Plan described above. The HR Committee then awarded grants to the named executive officers at its meeting in March 2017, which were later ratified by the Board, of performance-based RSUs for the fiscal 2017-2019 performance period. The performance levels and actual performance level attainment for such performance-based RSUs will exclude any mark-to-market gains or losses recognized by the Company’s nonregulated operations (only during the period October through December 2016) to remove the impact of such gains or losses on earnings over the three-fiscal year performance period. The following table shows the three year performance criteria for such period:

Retirement Benefits.    All of our current named executive officers participate in our Pension Account Plan (“PAP”), which is a qualified, cash balance defined benefit pension plan. Benefits under this plan become vested and non-forfeitable after completion of three years of continuous employment.

45

For any named executive officer who retires with vested benefits under the plan, the compensation shown as “Salary” in the “Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal Year 2017,” beginning on page 53, would be considered eligible compensation in determining benefits. See the discussion under “Pension Account Plan,” beginning on page 59, for more information about this plan. In addition, all of our named executive officers participate in our RSP, which is a qualified defined contribution plan. Any named executive officer who joined the Company after September 30, 2010, would not be eligible to participate in the PAP. However, in lieu thereof, he or she would receive a fixed annual Company (“FAC”) contribution, which is equal to four percent (4%) of his or her eligible earnings. See the discussion under “Retirement Savings Plan” on page 59 for more information about this plan.

Messrs. Cocklin, Haefner and Akers also participate in the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”), which provides retirement benefits (as well as supplemental disability and death benefits). Each of these named executive officers who has participated in the plan for at least two years and who has attained the age of 55 is entitled to an annual retirement supplement in an amount that, when added to the annual retirement amount payable to him under the PAP, equals 60 percent of his total cash compensation. The annual supplemental retirement amount will generally be equal to 60 percent of the sum of the amount of the participant’s last annual base salary and the amount of his last award under the Incentive Plan, subject to reductions for less than ten years of employment with the Company and for retirement prior to age 62.

Messrs. Forsythe and Park also participate in the Account Balance SERP, which is a non-qualified defined contribution plan that provides an annual contribution of 25 percent of the participant’s total annual earnings (base salary and incentive payment under our Incentive Plan) into a notional supplemental retirement account, as well as supplemental disability and death benefits. The HR Committee believes that these retirement benefits at the amounts provided to our named executive officers are an important component of total compensation and benefits and are required to ensure that our overall executive compensation package remains competitive with executive compensation packages offered by other major public companies in our industry. See the discussion under “Retirement Plans,” beginning on page 59, for more information on our retirement benefits.

Change in Control Severance Benefits.    We have severance agreements in place with each of our named executive officers to provide certain severance benefits for them in the event of the termination of their employment within three years following a “change in control” of the Company (as defined in the severance agreements and described generally in “Change in Control Severance Agreements,” beginning on page 62). The severance agreement for each named executive officer generally provides that the Company will pay such officer as severance pay in one lump sum an amount equal to (a) 2.5 times his total compensation (annual base salary and the higher of the last annual award under the Incentive Plan or the average of the three highest annual awards received under such plan) and (b) for a named executive officer participating in the PAP, the total of (i) an amount that is actuarially equivalent to an additional three years of annual age and service credits payable to the officer under the PAP and (ii) an amount that is actuarially equivalent to an additional three years of Company matching contributions payable to the officer under the RSP or (c) for a named executive officer who is not participating in the PAP (i) an amount that is actuarially equivalent to an additional three years of FAC contributions under the RSP and (ii) an amount that is actuarially equivalent to an additional three years of Company matching contributions payable to the executive officer under the RSP.

In addition, each named executive officer is paid (i) an amount that is generally actuarially equivalent to an additional 36 months of health and welfare benefits and (ii) an amount that is

46

actuarially equivalent to 36 months of accident and life insurance coverage, along with disability coverage. If the total of such lump sum severance payment results in the imposition of excise taxes imposed by Section 4999 of the Code, the named executive officer has the ability to elect to have the payment reduced to a level that will result in no payment of such excise tax. In lieu of reducing the severance payment under the agreement, each named executive officer may elect to have the Company pay the full severance payment amount, thereby leaving such officer responsible for personally paying the excise tax penalties imposed on such “excess parachute payments.”

Additional Information on Named Executive Officer Compensation

The compensation of our CEO, Mr. Cocklin, was higher in fiscal 2017 than that of any of our other named executive officers, primarily in recognition of his level of responsibility and the competitive market data for chief executive officers of comparably-sized companies in our proxy peer group. However, Mr. Cocklin participated in all the same compensation plans as the other named executive officers and was subject to the same performance measurement determinations under our annual and long-term incentive compensation plans. We do not have any individual compensation policies or plans that are not applied consistently to all of our named executive officers. Each year, we set our target opportunities in incentive compensation based solely upon competitive market conditions and the other factors discussed below.

In addition, in determining executive compensation, the HR Committee and our Board of Directors considered the results of our most recent shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation at our February 8, 2017 meeting of shareholders. Our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the compensation of our named executive officers for fiscal 2016, with approximately 94 percent of the shares voted in favor of such compensation. Accordingly, the HR Committee and our Board decided to continue to adhere to its pay-for-performance philosophy and did not materially change our executive compensation decisions and policies over the last fiscal year as a result of the most recent shareholders’ advisory vote on executive compensation or otherwise. However, the HR Committee and Board will continue to review our executive compensation program each year and will consider the views of our shareholders and other developments during such review.

Competitive Executive Compensation Benchmarking

Like all major corporations, we operate in a competitive environment for talented executives. Pay Governance provided our HR Committee with a comprehensive review of the compensation program elements and pay levels for companies similar to us and of comparable size as measured by financial measures and market capitalization for fiscal 2017. The competitive compensation benchmarking included assessments of all elements of compensation for our named executive officers. The competitive compensation benchmarking data reviewed by the HR Committee included base salary, annual incentive compensation and long-term incentive compensation found in the proxy statements filed by companies in the proxy peer group. The companies in the proxy peer group were selected because they represent those companies considered by the HR Committee to be the most comparable to the Company in terms of business operations, market capitalization and overall financial performance. The companies in the proxy peer group for the following fiscal year are selected annually by the HR Committee at its regularly-scheduled August meeting after its review of the recommendation of and presentation by Pay Governance, which selection is then reviewed and approved by the Board at its regularly-scheduled August meeting. Because AGL Resources Inc., Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., Questar Corporation and TECO Energy, Inc. were acquired during 2016, the HR Committee

47

recommended changes to the members of the proxy peer group for fiscal 2017, which appears below. This same proxy peer group was used in the stock performance graph appearing in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017.

The annual revenues shown below for the companies in our proxy peer group are for the most recent fiscal year reported. The market capitalizations shown below are as of June 30, 2017.

To supplement the executive compensation information derived from its study of the proxy peer group, the HR Committee also considered, on a limited basis, executive compensation benchmarking data from the latest Willis Towers Watson U.S. CDB Energy Services Executive Compensation Survey (“energy services industry survey”) provided by Pay Governance. The companies in this survey include companies in the natural gas, nuclear and electric utilities industries. To adjust for size differences, Pay Governance employed a statistical analysis (single regression) in the survey based on relative total annual revenues to determine competitive pay rates for our named executive officers based upon the data derived from such survey. The HR Committee also briefly reviewed compensation data from broader energy industry and general industry surveys provided by Pay Governance, as a secondary reference point that reflects broader pay practices.

Using primarily the proxy peer group compensation analysis, as well as limited supplemental data from the energy services industry survey, the HR Committee reviewed competitive target compensation levels for each named executive officer at the 50th percentile level of the competitive market. For each named executive officer position, base salary, target total cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentive award) and target total direct compensation (base salary plus annual incentive award plus the annualized present value of long-term incentive compensation) were benchmarked and analyzed as the Company’s desired competitive compensation positioning. In reviewing the competitive compensation data with the current base salaries and target compensation levels of our named executive officers, the HR Committee found that base salaries, target total cash compensation, and target total direct compensation for each of our named executive officers were generally aligned within the competitive range of the 50th percentile benchmarks for each element of compensation and in the aggregate.

Executive Compensation Consultant

The HR Committee has been granted through its charter the sole authority from the Board of Directors for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the Company’s executive compensation

48

consultant. The HR Committee retained Pay Governance during fiscal 2017 as its consultant to assist with its responsibilities related to the Company’s compensation program for its named executive officers and Board of Directors. The HR Committee directed Pay Governance to (i) regularly attend meetings of the committee, (ii) conduct studies of competitive compensation practices and (iii) develop conclusions and recommendations related to the executive compensation plans of the Company for consideration by the committee. Pay Governance prepared reports and analyses and assisted with (i) the identification of the Company’s proxy peer group, (ii) an assessment of competitive compensation for non-employee directors of the Company, and (iii) a review of base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentive compensation opportunities of the Company relative to competitive practices. Pay Governance also prepared a report on emerging trends and developments in executive compensation, provided recommendations regarding our executive compensation strategy and performed an assessment of the risks contained in the Company’s incentive compensation plans.

A senior consultant from Pay Governance attended three HR Committee meetings held in fiscal 2017. Based on policies and procedures implemented by the HR Committee and by Pay Governance to ensure the objectivity and independence of the individual executive compensation consultants for Pay Governance, the committee believes that the consulting advice it received during the fiscal year from Pay Governance and its individual consultants was objective, not influenced by any other relationships Pay Governance had with the Company and raised no conflicts of interest. In making this determination, the HR Committee also assessed the independence factors set forth in applicable SEC regulations and rules, NYSE corporate governance standards and other facts and circumstances and concluded that both Pay Governance and its individual consultants were independent from the Company.

Management’s Role in Setting Named Executive Officer Compensation

The HR Committee and Mr. Cocklin, our CEO, met with representatives of Pay Governance at the beginning of fiscal 2017 to review and discuss the compensation of all other named executive officers. However, at no time did Mr. Cocklin meet with representatives of Pay Governance regarding his own compensation. The only other named executive officer of the Company who regularly worked with Pay Governance during fiscal 2017 was the President and COO, Mr. Haefner. For fiscal 2017, Mr. Cocklin recommended to the HR Committee compensation for the other named executive officers, while Pay Governance provided to the committee general guidance and competitive compensation data for Mr. Cocklin.

Mr. Cocklin may be present during a portion of the HR Committee’s meetings on executive compensation. However, Mr. Cocklin (along with any other named executive officers in attendance at HR Committee meetings), is excused when the compensation of such named executive officers is discussed and decisions regarding their compensation are reached by the committee. All decisions by the HR Committee concerning all forms of executive compensation to be paid to the CEO and the other named executive officers are approved by the Board.

Share Ownership Guidelines

We have adopted share ownership guidelines for our named executive officers, which are voluntary and are intended to be achieved by each such named executive officer over the course of five years. The HR Committee believes that executive share ownership promotes better alignment of the interests of our named executive officers with those of our shareholders and it monitors compliance

49

with the ownership guidelines each year. Our CEO has a guideline to reach a share ownership position with a value of at least five times his base salary, with each of the remaining named executive officers having a guideline to reach a share ownership position with a value of at least three times their respective annual base salaries. The share ownership positions include all shares held directly or indirectly, including grants of unvested time-lapse RSUs but not including grants of unvested performance-based RSUs. Each of our named executive officers serving as of the end of fiscal 2017 had achieved his individual ownership objective as of that time.

OTHER EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION MATTERS

Executive Compensation-Related Policies

Executive Compensation Recoupment Policy.    Our Board of Directors has adopted an executive compensation recoupment policy or “clawback policy,” which provides for the recoupment by the Company under certain circumstances of awards of incentive compensation, including annual cash incentive compensation, stock-based awards, performance-based compensation and any other forms of cash or equity compensation other than base salary. This policy applies to any current or former employee holding (or in certain cases, who held) a position of division president, corporate vice president or above.

First, in the event of an accounting restatement of the Company’s previously issued financial statements due to the material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under the federal securities laws, the Company will seek recovery from any such current or former officer who received any awards paid or granted during the three-year period preceding the date on which the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement, based on the erroneous data, in excess of what would have been paid or granted to the officer under the accounting restatement.

Next, in the event of an accounting restatement as a result of errors, omission, fraud or other causes, the HR Committee shall review the facts and circumstances underlying the restatement (including any potential wrongdoing and whether the restatement was the result of negligence or intentional or gross misconduct) and may, in its discretion, direct that the Company recover all or a portion of any award from one or more officers with respect to any fiscal year in which the Company’s financial results are negatively affected by such restatement. If (a) the payment, grant or vesting of any award(s) is based upon the achievement of financial results that are subsequently restated or (b) a lower payment, award value or vesting would have occurred based upon the restated financial results, the HR Committee may seek to recoup, and such officer shall forfeit or repay, all or any portion of such excess compensation as the committee deems appropriate.

Finally, if the HR Committee determines that an officer engaged in an act of fraud or misconduct that contributed to the need for an accounting restatement, the committee may, in its discretion, recover and the officer shall forfeit or repay, all of such officer’s awards for the relevant period, plus a reasonable rate of interest. The recoupment pursuant to this policy of any awards of incentive compensation from an officer will not affect the Company’s right to pursue disciplinary action or dismissal, pursue any available legal remedies against such officer or its ability to recoup executive compensation under applicable laws and regulations. Following the adoption of the final rule by the SEC on clawback policies, this clawback policy will be amended, if necessary to maintain full compliance with such final rule.

50

Policy Prohibiting Hedging and Pledging Transactions.    Our Board of Directors has also adopted a policy prohibiting hedging transactions in our common stock through an amendment to our insider trading policy, which provides that no member of our Board of Directors or any employee of the Company may purchase any financial instruments (including, without limitation, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars and exchange funds) that establish a short position in our common stock and are designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of our common stock granted by us as part of compensation to employees or our common stock already held by them. In addition, the following transactions are prohibited: (i) “short sales,” which are sales of our common stock that are not then owned and (ii) trading of put options, call options or other derivatives of our common stock. Finally, our insider trading policy also provides that no member of our Board of Directors or any named executive officer of the Company may purchase our common stock on margin or hold our common stock in a margin account, borrow against any account in which our common stock is held or otherwise pledge our common stock as collateral for a loan.

Compensation Risk Assessment

During fiscal 2017, the HR Committee engaged Pay Governance to assist the committee in assessing the risk profile of the compensation plans of the Company. Pay Governance reviewed all of the compensation plans of the Company to gauge whether any compensation plan encourages employees to engage in excessively risky behaviors detrimental to the Company and its shareholders. Our two annual incentive compensation plans are the Incentive Plan and the Variable Pay Plan (“VPP”). Pay Governance also evaluated our long-term incentive plan, the LTIP, pursuant to which the Company grants both performance-based and time-lapse RSUs. The review by Pay Governance of these incentive plans included an evaluation of the plans’ design features and provisions, including such provisions as the establishment of target levels, the determination of awards, the types of performance criteria measured, the capping of maximum award opportunities, the balance between annual and long-term opportunities, the role of the HR Committee in its governance and oversight and other issues.

At the conclusion of its review and evaluation, Pay Governance reported to the HR Committee that none of these incentive compensation plans encourage our employees to engage in excessive risk-taking behaviors, based on the following factors:

In particular, Pay Governance reported that the following features help to mitigate any excessive risk-taking on the part of the participants in these plans:

51

Accordingly, the HR Committee has determined that none of the Company’s incentive compensation plans encourage our executive officers or other employees to take excessive risks and that the risks arising from these plans are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

52

NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

Summary of Cash and Other Compensation

The following table provides information concerning compensation we paid to or accrued on behalf of our Principal Executive Officer, our Principal Financial Officer and the three other most highly compensated executive officers serving as such on September 30, 2017:

Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal Year 2017(a)

53

The fair value of the performance-based RSUs on the grant date are shown in the following table at their maximum value, assuming the highest level of performance conditions (200 percent of the target) will be achieved during the performance period.

54

All Other Compensation

for Fiscal Year 2017

55

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table shows the grants of executive compensation plan-based awards to the named executive officers during fiscal 2017:

Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2017(a)