Order Code RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated MayJune 17, 2005
Emilie Stoltzfus
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Summary
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which the federal government
gives states and other jurisdictions annual grants to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. Funding authorization for LIHEAP expired
with FY2004. However, for FY2005 Congress appropriated $2.182 billion for
LIHEAP, of which $1.885 billion was regular funds (allotted to all states) and $298
million was contingency funds (allotted to one or more states, at the Administration’s
discretion, based on emergency need). The President’s FY2006 budget request
includes $2 billion for LIHEAP — $1.800 billion for regular funds and $200 million
for contingency funds. The House Appropriations Committee approved legislation
on June 16 that would provide $1.985 billion in regular LIHEAP funds but does not
provide any contingency funds.
As of mid June
As of mid May 2005, the Administration has released $250 million of the
FY2005 contingency funds; a total of $48 million in these funds remain available
until expended. These contingency funds were released in late December 2004 ($100
million), late January 2005 ($100 million), and early March 2005 ($50 million) in
recognition of high home energy prices, particularly for heating oil and propane. Each
of the distributions was made to all states, with half of the money distributed based
on the formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds and half distributed using
that same formula but weighted to increase funding to states where more low-income
households use heating oil or propane.
On April 21, 2005 the House passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6).
The bill would authorize annual regular LIHEAP funding of $5.1 billion for FY2005
through FY2007; explicitly permit the purchase of renewable fuels, including
biomass, as part of providing home energy assistance; require the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to report to Congress on how LIHEAP “could be
used more effectively to prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures;” and permit
some of the money received by the federal treasury in return for oil drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to be appropriated for LIHEAP.
Legislation to reauthorize LIHEAP was passed by both the House and Senate in the
108th Congress but was not enacted. (See Table 4.)
In FY2002, most recent HHS data available, some 4.4 million households
received LIHEAP heating/winter crisis assistance, compared with an estimated 4.8
million households in FY2001. The average combined benefit to those households
was $291 in FY2002; in FY2001 the average combined benefit was $364. More than
570,000 households received cooling aid in FY2002, more than double the number
of households that received this aid in FY2001. However, the average value of the
cooling aid benefit declined from $219 in FY2001 to $136 in FY2002.
This report discusses the LIHEAP program and its funding and will be updated
as legislative or program activities warrant.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
House Passes 1
Energy Legislation with LIHEAP Reauthorization . . . . 2
Senate Action and LIHEAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Other LIHEAP legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Release of Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Rules and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Households Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Benefit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funds and Their Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Program Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412
Release of Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412
LIHEAP Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615
Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1715
List of Tables
Table 1. Recent and Proposed LIHEAP Funding1a. Recent LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 1b. Proposed Funding for LIHEAP, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 3. Level of Funds Appropriated and Resulting Distribution
Factors for LIHEAP Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Major Provisions of LIHEAP Reauthorization Language in the
109th and 108th Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1817
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2002 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2221
Table 6. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2524
The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP):
Program and Funding
Introduction
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35 is a block grant program under which the federal
government gives states, territories, and tribes annual grants to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. Funding authorization for LIHEAP
expired with FY2004; however, Congress appropriated $2.182 billion for the
program in FY2005, and the House Appropriations committee has proposed $1.985
billion for the program in FY2006.
In FY2002, the most current year for which data could be obtained from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an estimated 4.4 million
households received help meeting heating costs (i.e. heating assistance and/or
winter/year-round crisis assistance). Also in FY2002 more than 570,000 households
received cooling assistance, and close to 108,000 received summer crisis aid. The
amount of overlap between households that received cooling aid and summer crisis
aid is not known; thus an estimated number of households that received aid related
to cooling (comparable to those receiving aid with heating costs) is not available.
Finally, more than 93,000 households received weatherization assistance through
LIHEAP in FY2002.1
Recent Developments
The final FY2005 funding level for LIHEAP was $2.182 billion ($1.885 for
regular funds and $298 million — designated as emergency funds — for contingency
purposes). The President’s FY2006 budget requests less money for LIHEAP in
FY2002 ($2 billion, of which $1.800 billion would be for regular funds and $200
million are requested as contingency funds). In March the Senate rejected an
amendment brought by Senator Pryor (S.Amdt. 213) that sought to amend the Budget
Resolution (S.Con.Res. 18) to provide for an increase of $1.2 billion in LIHEAP
funding for FY2006Both the House Appropriations Committee and the President have
proposed less money for LIHEAP in FY2006. The President’s FY2006 budget
requests a total of $2 billion for the program -- of which $1.800 billion was requested
as regular funds and $200 million was requested for contingency funds. The House
Appropriations Committee on June 16 approved a FY2006 spending measure that
would provide $1.985 billion for LIHEAP. All of this funding would be made
available for regular formula grants.
1
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY2002, p. 18. (Hereafter referred to as LIHEAP Report
to Congress for FY2002)..)
CRS-2
House Passes Energy Legislation with LIHEAP Reauthorization. On
April 21, 2005 the House of As of June 17, the Senate had not yet acted on comparable FY2006 funding
legislation. In March the Senate rejected (by voice vote) an amendment to the Budget
Resolution (S.Con.Res. 18) that was brought by Senator Pryor (S.Amdt. 213) and
which sought to provide for an increase of $1.2 billion in LIHEAP funding for
FY2006.
Energy Legislation and LIHEAP. On April 21, 2005 the House of
Representatives passed omnibus energy legislation (H.R.
6) that includes several 6) that would reauthorize
LIHEAP funding and which also includes additional provisions related to LIHEAP.2 The billthe
program.2 As reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in
early June (S. 10, S.Rept. 109-78), comparable energy legislation now being debated
on the Senate floor does not include provisions related to LIHEAP.
With regard to LIHEAP, the House Energy bill (H.R. 6) would —
!
set the regular funds authorization level for the program at $5.1
billion in each of FY2005 - FY2007 (LIHEAP regular funding
authorization was set at $2.0 billion for FY2004 but is currently
expired.);
!
permit money received by the federal treasury as bonus payments for
the right to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for LIHEAP (in addition to amounts otherwise
available for the program);
!
authorize state energy assistance offices, or those they contract with
to provide LIHEAP assistance, to purchase renewable fuels as part
of providing this aid ;
!
require the Department of Energy to report to Congress on the use
of renewable fuels in providing aid under LIHEAP; and
!
require HHS (within one year of the bill’s enactment) to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be more effectively used to
prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures.
Some of these provisions were include in the version of H.R. 6 that passed the House
in the 108th Congress (see Table 4). However the current legislation would authorize
a higher level of LIHEAP funding than would have been permitted in the previous
version of the bill. It also newly permits the purchase of renewable fuels by providers
of LIHEAP aid and requires a report on LIHEAP and the use of renewable fuels.
Senate Action. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee began
mark-up of omnibus energy legislation on May 17 and was expected to complete this
work by May 19. Draft legislation posted on the Committee’s website on May 13 did
not appear to include any provisions related to LIHEAP. In the 108th Congress,
omnibus energy legislation passed by the Senate (H.R. 6 as passed by the Senate,
108th Congress) did include some LIHEAP provisions. In that same Congress,
however, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has
exercised jurisdiction over this program in past years, also reported LIHEAP
reauthorization language that was passed by the Senate (S. 1786, 108th Congress).
(See Table 4.)
Release of Contingency Funds. On three occasions, late December 2004,
late January 2005, and early March 2005, the Administration released FY2005
contingency funds. A total of $250 million was distributed to all states in response
2
For broader information on this omnibus energy legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10143
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress, by Robert
Bamberger and Carl Behrens.
CRS-3
Other LIHEAP legislation in the 109th Congress. No legislation to
reauthorize LIHEAP had been introduced in the Senate as of June 17. In the 108th
Congress, the 2003 omnibus energy bill passed by the Senate included
2
For broader information on this omnibus energy legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10143
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress, by Robert
Bamberger and Carl Behrens.
CRS-3
reauthorization of LIHEAP and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee, which has exercised jurisdiction over this program in past years, reported
LIHEAP reauthorization language that was also passed by the Senate (S. 1786, 108th
Congress).(See Table 4 for a description of the LIHEAP provisions in those bills.)
While the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee did not revisit LIHEAP
in its 2005 legislation (S. 10), the Senate HELP committee may choose to act on
LIHEAP again.
Two bills introduced in the House propose to amend certain aspects of LIHEAP.
H.R. 1210, introduced by Rep. Weiner seeks to expand access to the program for
seniors by raising the maximum federal income eligibility limit to 100% of the state
median income – provided that at least 50% of that household’s income was
attributable to an individuals aged 65 or older. (Current law sets the maximum
federal income eligibility for households at 65% of the state median income , or
150% of the federal poverty level, whichever is greater. H.R. 108, introduced by Rep.
Gene Green, would mandate that no more than 50% of the funding provided under
LIHEAP could be made available for heating purposes.
Release of Contingency Funds. On three occasions, late December 2004,
late January 2005, and early March 2005, the Administration released FY2005
contingency funds. A total of $250 million was distributed to all states in response
to higher home energy costs, especially for heating oil and propane. The first two
distributions totaled $100 million each, and the third totaled $50 million. In each
case, half of the contingency amount was distributed to the states based on the same
formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds, and the remaining half was
distributed based primarily on that formula but with certain adjustments made to
ensure that extra funds would be received by states with the greatest share of lowincome households using heating oil or propane.
As of mid MayJune 2005 there is
approximately $48 million remaining from the
FY2005 contingency appropriation.
P.L. 108-447 provides that these funds are
“available until expended.”
Table 11a shows recent federal funding levels for LIHEAP,
including the amount
of contingency funds released and the number of states
receiving those contingency funds, and the President’s FY2006 funding request.
Table 1. Recent and Proposed
funds. Table 1b shows funding proposed for FY2006. The House Appropriations
Committee has approved $1.985 billion in regular funds for LIHEAP. This amount
of funding is slightly above the “hold harmless” level of $1.975 billion that is
included in current statute and may trigger use of a different formula to distribute
these funds to the states.3 That formula has sometimes been called the “new” formula
and is described as the “Tier II” formula in the section below, Funds and their
Distribution.
3
The statute provides that states may not receive less than the funding amount they would
have received in FY1984 had the regular fund appropriation in that year been $1.975 billion.
Because Congress typically apportions some of the regular fund grants appropriated for
purposes other then regular fund distribution (e.g., leveraging incentive and REACH
grants), it is not clear how HHS might interpret the hold harmless level. For more on this
issue see discussion of the “Tier II” formula below
CRS-4
Table 1a. Recent LIHEAP Funding
(Dollars in millions; sums may not equal totals due to rounding)
Fiscal
year
Funds appropriated
Regular
Contingency funds
distributeda
Contingencya
To
all
states
To
some
states
Total funds
distributedb
Subtotal
Subtotal
(to all
states)
TOTAL
2002
1,700
300
0
100
100
1,700
1,800
2003
1,788
0
200
0
200
1,988
1,988
2004
1,789
99
40
59
99
1,829
1,889
250
c
2,135c
2005
1,885
298
250
0
2,135
President’s Request
2006
1,800
200
Source: TableTable 1b. Proposed Funding for LIHEAP, FY2006
Regular
Contingency
TOTAL
President’s Request
$1.800 billion
$200 million
$2.000 billion
House (as approved by the
Appropriations Committee)
$1.985 billion
$0
$1.985 billion
Senate
not available as of June 17
Source: Tables prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The amount of contingency funds appropriated in a fiscal year may differ from the amount of
contingency funds that are released in that fiscal year for two reasons. First, the LIHEAP statute
gives the Administration discretion to release (or not release) any of available contingency
funding. Further these funds, as directed by the Congress in its appropriations language, may
be available for release in one or more years.
b. Regular funds, all of which are shown in both of the Total Funds Distributed columns, include all
regular funding distributed by formula to the states, the tribes, and the District of Columbia, as
well as set-asides for the territories, leveraging incentive grants, REACH grants, and technical
assistance (total set-asides approximately $30 million). The “Subtotal to all states” column
includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed to all states; the
“Total” column includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed to
one or more states.
c. This amount includes total contingency funds released as of mid MayJune 2005 and total regular funds
appropriated for FY2005. Not all of the FY2005 regular funds appropriated have been made
available as of this report’s date. Regular LIHEAP funds are made available to states on a
quarterly basis (October, January, April, and July). However, states may specify what percent
of their total allotment they wish to receive at each allotment and many states receive all, or the
great majority of their LIHEAP funds in the first two quarterly disbursements.
CRS-4
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program
decisions to the states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and
tribal organizations (collectively referred to as grantees) who receive federal funds.
The federal government (HHS) may not dictate how grantees implement
“assurances” that they will comply with general federal guidelines.
CRS-5
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility. Federal law
limits eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median income). States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty
guidelines may be considered ineligible. States may separately choose to make
eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which at least one member is a
recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested veteran’s programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to
include, what income limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The
statute gives priority for aid to households with the greatest energy needs or cost
burdens, especially those that include disabled individuals, frail older individuals, or
young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat owners and renters
“equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs, and to
have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need.
LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other aid programs.
Federal rules also require outreach activities, coordination with the Department of
Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal
controls, and fair hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar
range of benefits, choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will
administer the program.34
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available. Funds are available for four types
of energy assistance to eligible households:
!
!
!
!
help paying heating or cooling bills;
low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other
home-energy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless
grantee has waiver for up to 25%);
services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment,
counseling on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of
allotment); and
help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds. The majority of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home
heating costs. In FY2002 approximately 68% of all LIHEAP funds were used to
provide heating assistance or crisis aid related primarily to heating needs; all states
3
Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.ncat.org/liheap/sp.htm].
CRS-5
(including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance, and nearly all
also offered crisis aid related to heating needs. In that same year, more than 4% of
funds were used for cooling/summer crisis aid; just 19 states offered cooling
assistance and only six offered summer crisis aid. Also in FY2002 11% of total
LIHEAP funds were used for weatherization services (provided by 44 states); 8% of
available funds were used for administration and planning purposes (51 states), and
4
Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.ncat.org/liheap/sp.htm].
CRS-6
1% of the FY2002 funds were used to offer services to reduce the need for energy
assistance (provided by 23 states).45
Households Served. Since the LIHEAP program began in the early 1980s,
both the percentage of eligible households served and absolute number of households
receiving heating/winter crisis assistance have generally declined. However, in
FY2001 both figures increased somewhat before dropping again in FY2002. (See
Table 2 below.) In FY2002, the number of households receiving cooling aid appears
to have risen well above the half-million mark for the first time in program history.
States reported that in FY2002 (the most recent year for which preliminary
HHS-compiled data are available) approximately 4.1 million households received
assistance with heating payments; 570,000 received cooling aid; 999,000 received
winter/year-round crisis aid; 108,000 received summer crisis aid; and 93,000
received weatherization assistance. As many households may receive more than one
kind of LIHEAP assistance, a total, unduplicated number of households assisted is
not available. However, these data are used to estimate that some 4.4 million
households received heating assistance or heat-related crisis aid in FY2002.56 These
households represent about 14% of all federally (income) eligible households. States
have some discretion to set income eligibility levels below the maximum federal
income eligibility standard, however, and many states do this. Thus the national
share of state-income-eligible households receiving heating/winter crisis aid in
FY2002 was approximately 21%.67
The Census Bureau’s 2002 Annual Social and Economic Supplement indicates
that among all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance about 37% had at
least one member 60 years of age or older; about 50% had at least one disabled
member; and some 21% included at least one child 5 years of age or younger. These
same census data showed that a minority of households receiving LIHEAP heating
assistance also received other kinds of federal aid: an estimated 11% received TANF;
28% received SSI; and 27% lived in rent-subsidized or public housing.78
Benefit Levels. The constant dollar value of LIHEAP heating/winter crisis
benefits declined from the program’s beginning through FY2000. In FY2001 it
peaked sharply, before declining again in FY2002. In FY2002 the average household
4
LIHEAP heating/winter crisis benefit was $291 (compared to $364 in FY2001 and
$270 in FY2000). (See Table 2.) The average cooling benefit, which is available
to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, has largely risen, except
5
Based on state-reported total LIHEAP expenditures for FY2002 (including federal and any
supplemental non-federal funding) of $1.923 billion. LIHEAP Report to Congress for
FY2002, p. 14.
56
Ibid., p. 18.
67
Ibid., p. 19.
7
Ibid., pp. 19-21.
CRS-6
LIHEAP heating/winter crisis benefit was $291 (compared to $364 in FY2001 and
$270 in FY2000). (See Table 2.) The average cooling benefit, which is available
to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, has largely risen, except8
Ibid., pp. 19-21.
CRS-7
in FY2002, when it fell sharply. In FY2002 the average cooling aid benefit was $136
compared to $219 in FY2001 and $228 in FY2000.89
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years
Fiscal year
Households
Number receiving
aid (in millions)
Number federally
eligible (in millions)
Federally eligible
and receiving aid
Benefit Levels
Average benefit
(nominal dollars)
Average benefit
(constant 1981
dollars)a
Costs Offset
Portion of winter
heating bill covered
by LIHEAP (for all
federally eligible
households)b
Portion of
household income
required for home
heating (for
LIHEAP-recipient
households)
1983
1990
1993
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
6.8
5.8
5.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.8
4.4
22.2
25.4
28.4
29.0
29.1
29.0
29.4
30.4
32.7
31%
23%
20%
15%
13%
12%
13%
16%
14%
$225
$209
$201
$213
$213
$237
$270
$364
$291
$209
$147
$129
$118
$117
$128
$140
$187
$147
18%
15%
11%
9%
9%
9%
11%
14%
NAc
3.4%
3.3%
3.3%
4.7%
NAc
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
1.7%
NAc
Before receiving LIHEAP benefit
8.3%
4.5%
4.7%
4.0%
After receiving LIHEAP benefit
2.6%
2.0%
2.4%
1.9%
Source: Table compiled by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information provided
by or included in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Community Services, Division of Energy Assistance, LIHEAP Home Energy
Assistance Notebooks for FY1998, FY2000, FY2001, and FY2002.
a. The constant dollars are based on the 1981 value of the benefit (using the CPI-U index).
b. These percentages represent the estimated portion of combined home heating costs for all
households federally eligible for LIHEAP that was offset by LIHEAP heating/winter crisis
assistance.
c. FY2002 data on these trends are not available from the LIHEAP Home Energy Assistance
Notebook for FY2002.
8Although LIHEAP benefits now cover a smaller portion of home heating bills
than in earlier years, the portion of household income required for home heating by
9
Ibid., pp. 20-21. A combined average cooling/summer crisis benefit level is not yet
available for FY2002. However, for FY2001 this average benefit amount was $211, and for
FY2000 it was $206. In constant (1981 dollars) the average cooling/summer crisis benefit
was worth $57 in FY1983 and $107 in both FY2000 and FY2001.
CRS-7
Although LIHEAP benefits now cover a smaller portion of home heating bills
than in earlier years, the portion of household income required for home heating by8
LIHEAP-recipient households is less than when the program began, and LIHEAP
recipient households now spend less of their income on heating needs than they did
when the program began. After taking into account their LIHEAP benefit, LIHEAPrecipient households spent an average of 1.7% of their total income for heating in
FY2001 compared to 1.0% in FY2000 and 2.6% in FY1983. (See Table 2.)
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what
extent LIHEAP is able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in
meeting their home energy needs.910 These include —
!
!
!
the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price
fluctuations and variation in kinds of fuels used);
the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the
weather, energy efficiency of housing, and expected standards of
comfort); and
the number of eligible households (influenced by population size
and health of the economy).
Funds and Their Distribution
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular funds appropriations, which are
allocated to all states based on a statutory formula, and contingency fund
appropriations, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration. It also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for incentive grants to
states who leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs and
it allows states to draw on certain other resources.
Regular Funds. Regular funds are distributed to states according to a threetier formula included in the LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds
appropriated in a given fiscal year.1011 Although provision of cooling assistance has
been authorized from the beginning of LIHEAP (initially only when medically
necessary), the original method for distributing regular funds was largely based on
home heating needs of low-income households. The statute also did not provide for
the use of updated population, home heating need, or other data.
In 1984 (P.L. 98-558) Congress enacted a new distribution formula that requires
taking into account the home energy needs of low-income households — whether
heating or cooling related — and also provides that the data used for calculating the
distribution should be the most recent available. However, in order for these new
9
measures to be used, Congress also stipulated that — for FY1986 and succeeding
years — no state could receive less money than it would have received in FY1984
(had the LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion). Funding levels for
10
11
See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.
10
States are defined to include the District of Columbia. Indian tribes receive funds out of
state allotments that are proportionate to their share of LIHEAP-eligible households in the
state. Before state allotments are made, the statute provides that at least one-tenth (but not
more than one-half) of 1% of the total appropriation must be set-aside for energy assistance
in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
CRS-8
measures to be used, Congress also stipulated that — for FY1986 and succeeding
years — no state could receive less money than it would have received in FY1984
(had the LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion). Funding levels for9
LIHEAP have only twice exceeded this level, and thus the original distribution
formula has been used in every year beginning with FY1987.
Should a higher funding level bring the new distribution formula into effect, the
use of current data, particularly updated population numbers, as well as the much
increased weight given to cooling needs, would significantly alter the share of
LIHEAP funds that states receive. At the same time, should funding increase to
certain specified amounts, the three-tier formula now written in law includes
provisions designed to maintain an absolute dollar as well as percentage share (or
rate) amount of funding that a state could expect to receive. These stipulations are
referred to as “hold-harmless” provisions.1112 The three-tier current law formula is
described in more detail below.
Tier I. For funding levels at or below $1.975 billion states receive a fixed share
of the total funds (or a rate) that was first used in FY1981.1213 This Tier I rate has
been used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds in every program year except FY1985
and FY1986. It was created using formula factors that resulted in greater
proportionate funding for cold-weather states with the highest number of low-income
households.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion a Tier
II rate applies.1314 This distribution rate is based on the most current available data
regarding home energy expenditures (heating and cooling) of low-income
households. However, under this new distribution rate no state may receive less
funding than it would have under the Tier I distribution rate as it was in effect for
FY1984 (and assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation). To ensure this “holdharmless” provision can be met, those states with the greatest increase in their
funding rate must have that percentage share of funds ratably reduced. The Tier II
distribution effectively ensures that, given the required increase in LIHEAP funding,
a state cannot receive less than a state-specific absolute dollar amount.
11
Tier III. For funding levels at or above $2.25 billion, a Tier III rate is applied.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement. States that would receive less than 1% of a $2.25 billion
12
For more information on the formula and the percentage share of funds a state would
receive at various levels of funding, see CRS Report RS21605, Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Estimated Allocation Rates, by Julie Whittaker.
1213
Current law provides that when the newer formula is used, a state cannot receive less
money than it would have received in FY1984 at a $1.975 billion funding level. Since this
language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular LIHEAP funds
appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425), and it also authorized
Leveraging Incentive Grants (P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-252) — both
of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds. These debits on the regular funds
account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular funds
available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million it is possible but not
certain that HHS
would not implement the newer formula before a regular funds
appropriation level reaches
just above $2 billion.
1314
See immediately previous footnote.
CRS-9
Tier III. For funding levels at or above $2.25 billion, a Tier III rate is applied.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement. States that would receive less than 1% of a $2.25 billion10
appropriation must be allocated funds using the rate they would have experienced at
a hypothetical $2.14 billion appropriation (if this rate is greater than the calculated
rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II and Tier III rates, a state will not be
allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I distribution as it was in
effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975 billion). The Tier III
distribution, however, effectively ensures that (given the required increase in
LIHEAP funding) state LIHEAP programs must receive a state-specific minimum
share (or rate) of the total funding. (See Table 3 below.)
Table 3. Level of Funds Appropriated and Resulting
Distribution Factors for LIHEAP Regular Funds
Funds
Statutory directive
appropriated
Tier I
P.L. 97-35 created
$1.975 billion LIHEAP and effectively
or less
directed that funds be
distributed as they had
been in FY1981 for a
predecessor energy
assistance program.
Tier II
more than
$1.975 billion
but less than
$2.25 billion
Tier III
$2.25 billion
or more
Data used
Heating degree days
(squared), residential
energy expenditures, home
heating expenditures, and
number of low-income
households. (These data
are not updated and remain
fixed at the values that
were current circa 1980.)
Heating degree days,
At this funding level,
P.L. 98-558 amended the cooling degree days,
heating expenditures,
LIHEAP statute to
cooling expenditures, type
provide that state
allotments be determined of energy used, cost of
energy, number of lowaccording to
“expenditures for home income households and the
method of heating or
energy by low-income
cooling used by lowhouseholds” and based
income households. (Data
on the “most recent
used are to be current.)
satisfactory data”
available to HHS.
Same as for Tier II.
Same as for Tier II.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Hold harmless
Not applicable.
States with greatest
proportionate increase
in their rate of funding
must have their share of
funding (or rate)
reduced to ensure that
no state receives less
money than it would
have received for
FY1984 (if the
appropriation that year
had been $1.975
billion).
Same as for Tier II; in
addition, any state that
would receive less than
1% of a total $2.25
billion appropriation
must be allocated funds
at the rate it would have
received at a $2.14
billion appropriation (if
this rate is greater than
it would be at $2.25
billion).
CRS-1011
Contingency Funds. The statute currently provides an annual authorization
of $600 million for LIHEAP contingency funds. Appropriated contingency funds
may only be released at the discretion of HHS and may be allocated to one or more
states based on their needs. The statute authorizes appropriation of contingency
funds “to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.” The term “emergency” is
defined in the LIHEAP statute to include a natural disaster; a significant home energy
supply shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home energy, home
energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment;
or an “event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be
appropriate.”
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds. In 1990, P.L. 101-501,
amended the program statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50
million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for
incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP
programs. Such resources might include negotiated lower energy rates for lowincome households or separate state funds. States are awarded incentive funds in a
given fiscal year based on a formula that takes into account their previous fiscal year
success in securing non-federal resources for their energy assistance program. In
1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that of any incentive
funds appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance
Challenge Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded
competitive grants for their efforts to increase efficiency of energy usage among lowincome families and to reduce those families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other
health and safety risks due to high energy costs. Although the funding authorization
for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate, in practice, Congress has
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of
annual regular fund appropriations.
Other Funds. States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous
fiscal year (limited to 10% of funds awarded a state). A diminishing amount of
money may also be available from previously settled claims of price control violation
by oil companies.1415 Finally states have the authority to transfer funds to LIHEAP
from certain other federal block grants (including TANF).
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981
(Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended
six times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraph.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP
funds are to be distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular
1415
LIHEAP Report to Congress, FY2002, pp. 11-12. For FY2002 $4.9 million in oil
overcharge funds was obligated by one state.
CRS-1112
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. (This level of funding was exceeded in
FY1986 but has not been reached in any year since then.)
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L.
101-501 created the Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and
authorized a July to June program year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow
state program directors to plan for the fall/winter heating season with knowledge of
available money. (This program year language was subsequently removed although
the statute now states that money appropriated in a given fiscal year is to be made
available for obligation in the following fiscal year. Congress last provided advance
appropriations for LIHEAP in the FY2000 appropriations cycle.)
In 1993, P.L. 103-43 extended the authorization of LIHEAP for one year but
made no other changes. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) Congress stipulated that LIHEAP
benefits and outreach activities target households with the greatest home energy
needs (and costs), and it enacted a separate and permanent contingency funding
authorization of $600 million for each fiscal year. The 1994 law also established the
competitive REACH grant option. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 authorized annual regular
funding for each of FY2002-FY2004 at $2 billion and made explicit a wide variety
of situations under which HHS is authorized to release LIHEAP contingency funds.
Program Authorization. LIHEAP funding authorization expired with
FY2004. As noted in Recent Developments section above, the House recently
passed omnibus energy legislation that would raise the LIHEAP regular funds
authorization level to $5.1 billion, explicitly permit the purchase of renewable fuels
as part of providing LIHEAP assistance, require the Department of Energy to report
on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid, require HHS to report (within
one year of the legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program could more
effectively prevent loss of life due to extreme temperatures, and would permit the use
of certain revenue received by the federal treasury as a consequence of drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be appropriated for LIHEAP.
Legislation to reauthorize LIHEAP was passed in both chambers of Congress
during the 108th Congress, however no final reauthorization language became part of
law. (See Table 4 at the end of this report for a summary of major provisions in those
bills.)
In February 2004 the Senate passed S. 1786 (108th Congress), which would have
provided an annual LIHEAP funding authorization of $3.4 billion in each of FY2004FY2006 and such sums as necessary through FY2010. That bill would have also
made specific increases in energy costs, or extremes in weather, an automatic trigger
for release of contingency funds; extended authorization of leveraging incentive
grants and the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) option under
LIHEAP and required the GAO to evaluate the REACH option; and, finally, it would
have required HHS to evaluate LIHEAP performance, develop a protocol for states
to collect certain consumer statistics from energy distributors, study other specific
factors relevant to the programs’s operation and report these findings to Congress
within two years.
CRS-12
The House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing on LIHEAP in
July 2003 but did not report LIHEAP reauthorization language during the 108th
Congress.15 At the same time, on November 18, 2003 the full House voted to support
the conference agreement reached on the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6, H.Rept.
108-375). That agreement would have raised regular LIHEAP funding authorization
to $3.4 billion in each of FY2004-FY2006 and would have required HHS to prepare
a report for Congress on how LIHEAP could more effectively prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures. However, the Senate did not agree to vote on this
conference agreement and it expired with the end of the 108th Congress.
Issues
Congress has shown interest in adjusting the method by which contingency
funds are released, in revisiting the formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds,
and in performance measurement. The following discussion focuses primarily on
activities in the 108th Congress. As no final reauthorization language was enacted,
these issues are presumed to be of continued interest.
Release of Contingency Funds. Contingency funds are appropriated by
Congress “to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.” Current law provides a broad
definition of such emergencies, but gives HHS (acting on behalf of the President)
sole discretion to determine when events warrant the release of contingency funds,
CRS-13
what states (or state) are to receive contingency funds, and under what formula this
money will be distributed.16 Depending on the language used in the appropriations
act, contingency funds that are not released by HHS in the fiscal year for which they
are appropriated may revert to the federal treasury at the end of the fiscal year
(expire), or they may remain available for a specified number of years or until
expended.
As passed by the Senate in February 2004, S. 1786 (108th Congress) would have
amended current law to establish two conditions that would require HHS to release
available contingency funds to affected states. Those conditions would be: (1) if
there is an increase of at least 20% in the cost of home energy over the previous fiveyear average for a duration of a month or more in one or more states or regions; or
(2) if one or more states experience hot or cold weather that is significantly more
severe than average (i.e., the number of heating degree days or cooling days for a
15
To view a printed record of this hearing, select “Hearing on LIHEAP & CSBG, July 8,
2003,” at [http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/edr/edrhearings.htm]. In Oct. 2003
the Committee reported, and the House subsequently passed, H.R. 3030 — legislation that
would have reauthorized the CSBG (Community Services Block Grant). This legislation,
however, was not enacted during the 108th Congress.
16
P.L. 105-285, which last reauthorized LIHEAP, defined the term “emergency” broadly
and added a “natural disaster” as a possible cause for the release of LIHEAP contingency
funds. In explaining these changes, S.Rept. 105-256 noted that the changes were intended
to clarify when contingency funds may be released and particularly to assert that
emergencies need not be temperature driven.
CRS-13
month is more than 100 above the 30-year average).17 This proposal is in keeping
with the Senate HELP committee’s reported concern that “emergency funds
appropriated in FY2001 and FY2002 were not distributed to States despite requests
from Congress and Governors for the release of funds.” The committee report
accompanying S. 1786 in the 108th Congress also encouraged HHS “to consider all
factors defined in the statute” when making decisions about release of contingency
funds.18
Current law provides that “a significant increase in home energy
disconnections” may be considered an emergency that warrants release of
contingency funds. In keeping with its desire for HHS to “monitor arrearage trends
nationwide” and to consider a significant increase in energy utility arrearages as part
of this “disconnection criteria” for releasing contingency funds, S. 1786 (108th
Congress) would have also required HHS to develop a protocol for states to collect
information from energy vendors on a range of residential customer statistics,
including overall statistics on the number of disconnections for nonpayment and the
number of reconnections. The protocol would also need to establish a method for
gathering information about the accounts of households eligible for energy
assistance, including the total number of such accounts and how many are past due,
the number that have been issued disconnection notices, the total past due amount
owed, the number determined uncollectible and the energy burden of these accounts.
A description of the protocol would need to be included in a larger report on LIHEAP
that S. 1786 would have required HHS to complete and submit to Congress within
two years of the legislation’s enactment.
Echoing the HELP Committee report language, the conference report
accompanying the FY2004 omnibus spending measure (H.Rept. 108-401) notes that
arrearages are a precursor to energy utility disconnections and that an increase in such
disconnections is one criteria for the release of emergency funds. Like the HELP
committee, the conferees “urge” HHS to consider a significant increase in arrearage
rates as part of the disconnection criteria for releasing emergency funds. Responding
to the conferees in its FY2005 budget justifications, the Administration states that it
“has examined the possibility of collecting national arrearage and disconnection
information in the past and determined that this kind of data was not readily
available.”19 At the same time, it notes that many states work with utility companies
17
A heating degree day equals the number of degrees below 65°F in a given day. For
example, if the average temperature on a given day is 55°F, then the number of heating
degree days for that day is 10. A cooling degree day equals the number of degrees above
65°F in a given day. For example, if the average temperature for the day is 75°F, then the
number of cooling degree days for that day is 10.
18
U.S. Congress, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Poverty
Reduction Act of 2003: Report to Accompany S. 1786, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., S.Rept. 108210, p. 15.
19
The Administration also states that a 1986 GAO report concurred with this finding. At the
same time, HHS has recently funded research into the issue of collecting these data. The
study authors cite obstacles but propose ways to begin to ensure their availability. See John
Howat, Jerry McKim, Charlie Harak, and Olivia Wein, “Tracking the Home Energy Needs
(continued...)
CRS-14
16
P.L. 105-285, which last reauthorized LIHEAP, defined the term “emergency” broadly
and added a “natural disaster” as a possible cause for the release of LIHEAP contingency
funds. In explaining these changes, S.Rept. 105-256 noted that the changes were intended
to clarify when contingency funds may be released and particularly to assert that
emergencies need not be temperature driven.
17
A heating degree day equals the number of degrees below 65°F in a given day. For
example, if the average temperature on a given day is 55°F, then the number of heating
degree days for that day is 10. A cooling degree day equals the number of degrees above
65°F in a given day. For example, if the average temperature for the day is 75°F, then the
number of cooling degree days for that day is 10.
18
U.S. Congress, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Poverty
Reduction Act of 2003: Report to Accompany S. 1786, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., S.Rept. 108210, p. 15.
CRS-14
A description of the protocol would need to be included in a larger report on LIHEAP
that S. 1786 would have required HHS to complete and submit to Congress within
two years of the legislation’s enactment.
Echoing the HELP Committee report language, the conference report
accompanying the FY2004 omnibus spending measure (H.Rept. 108-401) notes that
arrearages are a precursor to energy utility disconnections and that an increase in such
disconnections is one criteria for the release of emergency funds. Like the HELP
committee, the conferees “urge” HHS to consider a significant increase in arrearage
rates as part of the disconnection criteria for releasing emergency funds. Responding
to the conferees in its FY2005 budget justifications, the Administration states that it
“has examined the possibility of collecting national arrearage and disconnection
information in the past and determined that this kind of data was not readily
available.”19 At the same time, it notes that many states work with utility companies
on behalf of low-income households to obtain reduction in arrearages or forgiveness
where possible, and further, that states may also use the LIHEAP program to provide
budget counseling services that might help these households “effectively manage
their resources to avoid future disconnections.”20
The conferees to the FY2004 omnibus appropriations act also “urge” HHS to
make available “regular information on significant, unanticipated changes in home
heating and cooling costs” and “quarterly reports on significant variances in regional
weather data and fuel prices” to the LIHEAP-authorizing and the appropriations
committees and state that “such reports should be provided within 30 days of the end
of any fiscal quarter in which LIHEAP contingency funds remain available for
obligation.” And, finally, should funds be released, the conferees seek a “detailed
explanation of the factors used to determine the distribution of funds.” And they also
remind HHS that it is “expect[ed]” to “consider the factors identified in the statute
when making decisions about the release of funds,” and request that the House and
Senate Appropriation Committees receive formal notification in advance of any
release of contingency funds.21 In its response to these statements, HHS agrees to
provide quarterly data, as requested “ to the extent there are significant variances in
regional and fuel data” and during any period when contingency funds remain
available for distribution.22
19
The Administration also states that a 1986 GAO report concurred with this finding. At the
same time, HHS has recently funded research into the issue of collecting these data. The
study authors cite obstacles but propose ways to begin to ensure their availability. See John
Howat, Jerry McKim, Charlie Harak, and Olivia Wein, “Tracking the Home Energy Needs
of Low Income Households Through Trend Data on Arrearages and Disconnections,” May
2004. Available online at [http://www.neada.org/pubs/Tracking_the_Need.pdf].
20
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-6.
21
Current law requires HHS to notify “Congress,” and this notification is sent to the House
Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee.
22
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-7.
CRS-15
LIHEAP Formula. As passed by the House on April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 (109th
Congress) would require HHS to report to Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used
more effectively to prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures.” This same language
was included in the conference agreement to the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6 in
the 108th Congress), which was not enacted. The requirement that such a report be made
was first included in House legislation (H.R. 1644) in the 108th Congress and, according
to the accompanying committee report, was intended to “assist the [HHS] Secretary in
developing a more accurate formula allocation methodology” to better meet the home
energy assistance needs of “vulnerable populations.” At the time, the House Energy
Committee report asserted that any formula developed, should use the best statistical data
and models now available; be a simple, easy-to-understand science-based mechanism
that considers state-level expenditures for low-income home heating and cooling needs;
19
(...continued)
of Low Income Households Through Trend Data on Arrearages and Disconnections,” May
2004. Available online at [http://www.neada.org/pubs/Tracking_the_Need.pdf].
20
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-6.
21
Current law requires HHS to notify “Congress,” and this notification is sent to the House
Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee.
22
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-7.
CRS-15
and include annually updated, state-level heating and cooling degree day and fuel price
information.23
Although the Senate-passed version of H.R. 6 in the 108th Congress did not
include this language, Senate conferees agreed to this report. Ultimately however,
due to provisions unrelated to LIHEAP, the Senate choose not to act on the 2003
conference agreement. However, S. 1786 (108th Congress), which the Senate passed
in February 2004, would also have required HHS to report to Congress on several
issues that might be relevant to formula determinations. These include an analysis
of the public health and safety threats of hypothermia and hyperthermia due to lack
of home heating or cooling, including morbidity, mortality and decrease in caloric
intake; an analysis of the effect of standard of housing and housing age on energy
costs to low-income households; and an evaluation of regional differences in cost-ofliving and the ability of low-income families to meet home energy requirements.
Performance Measurement. S. 1786 (108 th Congress) would have
required HHS to evaluate the performance of LIHEAP with regard to who the
program serves, the benefits of the program to recipients, and the ability of the
program to reduce utility arrearage and shut-offs among low-income households.
Findings of the evaluation would have been part of a required report due to Congress
within two years of the legislation’s enactment. The bill also would have required
the GAO to conduct a new evaluation of the REACH option under LIHEAP.24
The President’s FY2005 and FY2006 budgets include a request for $500,000 to
conduct a feasibility study regarding a nationally representative evaluation of LIHEAP
program operations. Both of those budgets also include a program performance rating
for LIHEAP. It is rated as a program for which “results [are] not demonstrated.”
According to these reviews, the program purpose is clear, it addresses a specific existing
need, and has a number of additional strengths including effective targeting of intended
beneficiaries. However, the review notes that the program’s “effectiveness or efficiency”
23
U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy Policy Act of 2003:
Report to Accompany H.R. 1644, 108th Congress, 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-65, Part 1, p. 145.
24
In 2001 the GAO released an earlier requested report on the REACH option. U.S. General
Accounting Office, Residential Energy Assistance: Effectiveness of Demonstration Program
as Yet Undetermined, GAO-01-723, Aug. 2001.
CRS-16
is hampered by the current law formula, it has limited and only recently developed
outcome measures, and there have been no independent evaluations (of “sufficient scope
and quality”) that demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. The Administration efforts
to develop new performance measures, generally related to meeting the statutory goal of
serving low income households with high energy burdens and including certain
vulnerable populations (disabled, age 5 or younger, and age 60 or older) have been
hampered by data concerns.25
23
U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy Policy Act of 2003:
Report to Accompany H.R. 1644, 108th Congress, 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-65, Part 1, p. 145.
24
In 2001 the GAO released an earlier requested report on the REACH option. U.S. General
Accounting Office, Residential Energy Assistance: Effectiveness of Demonstration Program
as Yet Undetermined, GAO-01-723, Aug. 2001.
25
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families FY 2005 Budget Justifications, pp. M-137-140 and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2006 Budget Justifications,
pp. M-74-M-78.
CRS-1617
Table 4. Major Provisions of LIHEAP Reauthorization Language in the 109th and 108th Congresses
109th Congress
Provision
Current law
Energy Policy Act of
2005, H.R. 6
House-passed
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
House-passeda
S. 1786
(as it passed the Senate)
Senate-passed
Regular funds
authorization
(Expired) Set at $2 billion for FY02-FY04.
Set at $5.1 billion for
FY05-FY07
Contingency funds
authorized
Technical
Assistance, and
training set-aside
authorized
Funds for leveraging
(non-federal
resources) incentive
authorized
Residential Energy
Assistance Challenge
(REACH) Option
Indefinite authorization of $600,000 (under
certain conditions).
HHS may set aside up to $300,000 from the
regular funds appropriated for training and
technical assistance.
No provision
Set at $3.4 billion for Set at $3.4 billion for Set at $3.4 billion for FY04FY04-FY06
FY03-FY05
FY06 and make such sums as
necessary for FY07-FY10
No provision
Set at $1 billion
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
(Expired) $50 million for FY99-FY04 provided
the regular funds appropriation totals at least
$1.4 billion; set at $30 million for those years if
regular funding falls below $1.4 billion.b
State may apply for special grants to plan,
implement and evaluate special initiatives
designed to minimize health and safety risks
resulting from high energy burdens on low
income Americans; prevent homelessness as a
result of inability to pay energy bills; increase
efficiency of energy usage by low income
families and to target energy assistance to
individuals who are most in need. HHS is
No provision
HHS could set-aside
up to $750,000 from
the regular funds
appropriated
No provision
No provision (but see funding
authorized for HHS report on
various program aspects,
below).
Extends same level of funding
authorization through FY2010.
No provision
No provision
The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) must conduct an
evaluation of REACH and also
study the state evaluations of
their REACH initiatives,
including those concerning
model energy efficiency
education services. Within two
years of the enactment of the
CRS-1718
109th Congress
Provision
Current law
Energy Policy Act of
2005, H.R. 6
House-passed
Other federal
funding sources
authorized to set-aside up to 25% of funds made
available for the leveraging incentive for this
purpose and, out of those funds must reserve
some money to make grants to states who will
implement and evaluate model energy efficiency
education services.
Very limited funds remain available for
distribution by the Department of Energy to
certain states and insular areas as a result of the
settlement oil price overcharges cases (brought
under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act
of 1973).c
Use of funds
States are to use funds to provide assistance to
eligible households for meeting home energy
needs.
Department of
Energy Report
(DOE)
Not applicable
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
House-passeda
S. 1786
(as it passed the Senate)
Senate-passed
legislation, the report is to be
submitted to the Senate Health
Education Labor and Pensions
and the House Education and
Workforce committees.
Permits bonus funds
received by federal
treasury related to
leasing drilling rights in
the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for
LIHEAP
As part of providing
home energy assistance,
LIHEAP funds may be
used to purchase
renewable fuels,
including bio-mass.
DOE must report to
Congress on the use of
renewable fuels in
providing assistance
under LIHEAP
Permits bonus funds No provision
received by federal
treasury related to
leasing drilling rights
in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for
LIHEAPa
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
CRS-1819
109th Congress
Provision
Current law
Energy Policy Act of
2005, H.R. 6
House-passed
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
House-passeda
S. 1786
(as it passed the Senate)
Senate-passed
Special Department
of Health and
Human Services
(HHS) Report
Not applicable
HHS must report to
Congress on how
LIHEAP can more
effectively prevent loss
of life from extreme
temperatures (within
one year of enactment)
No provision
HHS must report to
Congress on how
LIHEAP can more
effectively prevent
loss of life from
extreme temperatures
(within one year of
enactment)
Release of
contingency funds
LIHEAP contingency funds may be released to
one or more states experiencing an emergency
— at the discretion of HHS. Emergency is
broadly defined and includes natural disasters;
significant home energy supply shortages,
disruptions or costs increases; significant home
No provision
No provision
No provision
HHS must evaluate LIHEAP
performance; develop a
protocol for states to collect
data on certain home energy
disconnections, past due
accounts, etc; analyze public
health and safety threats related
to lack of home energy; analyze
certain housing and regional
cost of living factors as they
affect the ability of low-income
households to meet home
energy needs; determine impact
of using an eligibility cut off of
60% of state median income
(due within 24 months;
authorizes “such sums as
necessary” in FY04-05 to carry
out this study).
HHS must release contingency
funds to affected areas if it
determines that in one or more
states or regions 1) there is an
increase of at least 20% in the
cost of home energy over the
CRS-1920
109th Congress
Provision
Current law
Energy Policy Act of
2005, H.R. 6
House-passed
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
House-passeda
energy disconnections; significant increases in
use of public benefit programs, or in
unemployment; or “an event meeting such
criteria as [HHS] may determine to be
appropriate.
S. 1786
(as it passed the Senate)
Senate-passed
previous five-year average for a
month or more; or 2) that the
number of heating degree days
or cooling days for a month was
more than 100 above the 30year average.
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on legislation in the 109th and 108th Congresses.
a. With one exception (noted in the following sentence), the provisions in this column were included in both the initial House-passed H.R. 6 (108th Congress) and the House-approved
conference agreement to that legislation. The exception is the provision that would have allowed bonus funds received by the federal treasury as a result of leasing oil drilling
rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be appropriated to HHS for distribution via LIHEAP. It was included in the first House-passed H.R. 6 (108th Congress) but was
not included in the House-passed conference agreement on that bill. (The conference agreement, which was not acted on by the Senate and was thus not enacted, would not have
permitted drilling in the ANWR).
b. In practice, Congress has not appropriated funds for these leveraging incentive grants separately but has instead provided that a certain amount of the regular LIHEAP funds
appropriation (typically $27 million in recent years) are to made available for this purpose.
c. These oil overcharge funds, which have been held in escrow and distributed by the Department of Energy, are nearly exhausted. For FY2002 (most recent year for which these data
are available) a total of two states reported spending just under $5 million in these funds for their LIHEAP programs.
CRS-2021
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2002 to FY2005
(Dollars in millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
TOTAL funds distributeda
(regular and contingency)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
14.3
6.4
8.1
11.0
76.5
28.8
36.7
5.0
5.7
22.7
18.0
1.8
11.2
105.2
47.6
32.2
15.3
26.1
14.7
21.9
28.4
74.3
99.4
68.6
12.3
41.1
10.9
16.8
4.6
13.3
69.7
8.0
228.0
35.3
11.3
94.5
12.0
22.3
121.4
16.1
7.8
7.2
12.3
86.1
30.2
43.8
5.8
6.3
25.9
20.3
2.0
11.8
109.6
50.2
35.5
16.1
26.1
16.5
28.6
32.1
86.1
104.9
77.5
13.8
43.8
11.9
17.4
3.7
16.9
78.7
9.1
260.1
37.5
12.6
98.1
13.6
23.8
136.7
15.4
7.5
6.9
11.8
82.4
28.9
40.2
5.3
6.2
24.5
19.4
1.9
11.1
104.5
47.3
33.5
15.4
24.6
15.8
25.1
30.8
80.4
105.0
71.5
13.2
41.7
11.2
16.6
3.5
15.2
74.5
8.7
243.4
33.6
12.4
98.4
13.0
21.8
130.9
Regular
allotmentb
Contingency
TOTAL
distributedc
FY2005
15.9
8.7
7.1
12.2
84.9
29.8
38.9
5.2
6.0
25.2
20.0
2.0
11.1
107.7
48.8
34.6
15.9
25.4
16.3
24.3
29.8
77.8
101.7
73.7
13.7
43.0
11.6
17.1
3.6
14.7
72.1
8.9
235.6
34.5
12.1
95.3
13.4
22.7
126.8
2.0
1.4
0.6
1.3
6.8
2.6
7.9
1.1
0.6
2.9
2.5
0.2
1.1
9.5
5.1
4.3
1.5
2.7
1.5
6.3
4.4
14.1
10.9
10.3
1.9
5.0
1.2
1.9
0.3
3.5
11.8
1.0
42.3
6.1
1.9
9.4
1.4
2.3
18.7
17.9
10.1
7.7
13.5
91.7
32.4
46.8
6.2
6.7
28.1
22.5
2.2
12.2
117.2
53.9
38.9
17.4
28.1
17.8
30.6
34.2
91.9
112.5
84.0
15.6
48.1
12.8
19.0
4.0
18.3
83.9
9.9
277.9
40.6
14.0
104.7
14.7
25.0
145.5
CRS-2122
TOTAL funds distributeda
(regular and contingency)
State
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
Contingency
TOTAL
distributedc
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
12.3
13.3
9.4
23.2
37.8
13.2
9.9
35.8
32.9
16.3
62.4
5.3
14.2
13.4
10.4
26.4
42.5
13.8
12.6
39.1
37.7
17.4
69.5
5.5
13.2
12.3
9.6
24.9
40.7
14.0
11.4
37.5
35.4
17.4
64.3
5.2
12.8
12.7
9.9
25.7
42.0
13.6
11.0
36.3
36.5
16.8
66.3
5.3
2.4
1.9
1.7
2.6
4.2
1.1
2.7
5.4
3.4
1.7
9.0
0.5
15.1
14.6
11.6
28.3
46.2
14.7
13.8
41.7
39.9
18.5
75.3
5.9
$1,939
$1,840
$1,837
$247
$2,084
16.9
2.3
27.5
0.3
19.3
2.5
27.3
0.3
19.0
2.5
27.3
0.3
17.6
2.5
27.3
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
20.1
2.9
27.3
0.3
$1,800
$1,988
$1,889
$1,885
$250
$2,135
Subtotal $1,753
Tribesd
Territoriese
Leveraging/REACHf
Training/ Tech. Asst.g
Regular
allotmentb
FY2005
Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) data.
a. The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states (net of the direct
awards to tribes) and any contingency funds awarded to the state in that year. In FY2002 the
regular funds appropriation was $1.700 billion and HHS distributed $100 million in
contingency funds to 33 states and the District of Columbia that experienced extreme heat.
In FY2003 the regular funds appropriation was $1.788 billion and HHS distributed $200
million in contingency funds to all states (for higher fuel costs). In FY2004 the regular funds
appropriation was $1,789 billion and HHS distributed $99.4 million in contingency funds to
all states (because of higher fuel costs — with a greater share of the funding awarded to 19
states, including the District of Columbia, that also experienced extreme cold).
b. Because regular funds are released on a quarterly basis not all of these regular funds allotments (net
of tribal award) had been distributed as of MayJune 17, 2005. However, because states may opt
to receive all or most of their LIHEAP regular funds in any given quarter and many states
elect to do this in the first two quarters of the fiscal year, the bulk of the FY2005 regular
funding has been distributed.
c. This column shows the amount of FY2005 contingency funds released as of mid MayJune 2005. As of
that date HHS had distributed $250 million. An additional $46.7 million in FY2005
contingency funds are currently available for release in the event of an emergency.
d. This funding is made directly available to or for tribes but is reserved out of a given state’s
allotment amount. As prescribed in the statute, the tribal set-aside from a state gross
allotment is based on tribal households in that state.
e. The statute provides that HHS must set-aside not less then one-tenth of 1% and not more than onehalf of 1% for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
CRS-2223
f. The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging
incentive program (designed to encourage states to increase non-federal support for energy
assistance). It also provides that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be
reserved for competitive REACH grants (for state efforts to increase efficient use of energy
among low-income households and to reduce their vulnerability to homelessness and other
problems due to high energy costs). The Congress has in recent years stipulated that a certain
portion of the LIHEAP regular funds be set aside for leveraging grants and, of this amount,
HHS has reserved 25% for REACH grants.
g. The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into
contracts with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical
assistance related to achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program.
CRS-2324
Table 6. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2006
(Dollars in thousands)
Regular Fundsa
Fiscal
year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
President’s
request
$1,400,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,875,000
2,097,765
2,097,642
1,237,000
1,187,000
1,100,000
1,050,000
1,025,000
1,065,000
1,507,408
1,475,000
1,319,204
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,700,000
1,800,500g
1,800,000g
Authorized
$1,875,000
1,875,000
1,875,000
2,140,000
2,275,000
2,050,000
2,132,000
2,218,000
2,307,000
2,150,000
2,230,000
ssanb
ssanb
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
ssanb
ssanb
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
None
None
Contingency Fundsa
Appropriated
$1,875,000
1,975,000
2,075,000
2,100,000
2,100,000
1,825,000
1,531,840
1,383,200
1,443,000
1,415,055
1,500,000
1,346,030
1,437,402
1,319,202
900,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,400,000
1,700,000
1,788,300e
1,789,380
1,884, 799
Appropriated
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
195,180
300,000
595,200
600,000
600,000
180,000
420,000
300,000
300,000
900,000
600,000
300,000
0
99,410
297,600
Distributed
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
195,180
0
0
300,000
100,000
180,000
215,000
160,000
175,299
744,350c
455,650
100,000d
200,000f
99,410
250,000h
TOTAL
Distributed
$1,875,000
1,975,000
2,075,000
2,100,000
2,100,000
1,825,000
1,531,840
1,383,200
1,443,000
1,610,235
1,500,000
1,346,030
1,737,402
1,419,202
1,080,000
1,215,000
1,160,000
1,275,299
1,844350c
1,855,650
1,800,000
1,988,300
1,888,790
2,134,799h
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on HHS data.
a. Amounts listed under the Regular Funds heading are for regular funding only. In 1994, Congress
enacted a permanent $600 million annual authorization for contingency funding. As shown,
however, before this authorization contingency funds were sometimes made available.
b. Such sums as necessary.
c. President Clinton released $400 million of these FY2000 contingency funds in late Sept. 2000
making it effectively available to states in FY2001.
d. These funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L. 107-116).
With the end of FY2002, the remaining $200 million of these contingency funds expired.
e. The final FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and
converted into regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally
appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
f. These funds were distributed out of contingency dollars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20). That law provided that the funds were “available until
expended.” Congress subsequently converted some of these dollars into regular funds (see
tablenote e).
g. Of this amount the President requests that $500,000 be set aside for a national evaluation.
h. The amount of contingency funds distributed in FY2005 is shown as of mid MayJune 2005; the total
distributed amount for FY2005 includes all regular funds appropriation although (because
this money is distributed on a quarterly basis), not all states, as of mid MayJune 2005 have
received all of their regular FY2005 LIHEAP funds.