Order Code RL31865
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated October 11, 2007January 17, 2008
Libby Perl
Analyst in Social LegislationHousing
Domestic Social Policy Division
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
givesmakes annual grants to states, territories, and tribes annual grants to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds, which are allocated to all states using a statutory formula, and
contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration.
For FY2007, Congress In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress
appropriated $1.98 billion for regular funds and $181
million for contingency funds (P.L. 110-5), the same amount appropriated in the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-149). The President’s budget request for FY2008 is
$1.782 billion, of which $1.5 billion would be for regular funds and $282 million for
contingency funds. This is the same amount of funds that the President requested for
FY2007; however, the entire amount in the FY2007 request would have gone to
regular funds. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education have proposed $1.98 billion in regular
funds for FY2008. However, the House has proposed $682 million in contingency
funds, while the Senate would maintain the same level as FY2007 — $181 million.
Congress proposed to add funds to LIHEAP in three FY2007 supplemental
appropriations bills, each entitled the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. The first bill (H.R. 1591)
would have added a total of $400 million to LIHEAP, $200 million for regular funds
and $200 million for contingency funds. Prior to conference with the House, the
Senate’s version of the first supplemental (S. 965) would have added $640 million
for LIHEAP, $320 million for regular funds and $320 million for contingency funds.
The first supplemental was vetoed by the President on May 1, 2007, and the House
failed to override the veto. On May 8, 2007, a second supplemental appropriations
bill (H.R. 2206) was introduced. Like H.R. 1591, it contained $400 million for
LIHEAP, with the same breakdown between regular and contingency funds.
However, on May 23, 2007, Congress removed the LIHEAP funds from the bill.
On August 29, 2007, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
released $50 million in FY2007 contingency funds to twelve states due to severe
heat. These states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
On September 27, 2007, HHS released the remainder of the FY2007 contingency
funds — $131 million. Of the $131 million, $106 million went to all states, tribes,
and territories for anticipated winter heating costs, while the remaining $25 million
went to seven states based on heating oil usage and average 2006-2007 winter
temperature. These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (For the amount of contingency funds
distributed to each state, see Table 4.) Approximately $21 million in FY2005
contingency funds remain available until expendedin regular LIHEAP funds, the same amount that was
allocated for regular funds in FY2007. For contingency funds, Congress appropriated
approximately $590 million in FY2008. This amount exceeds the FY2007
appropriation of $181 million by more than $400 million, and also exceeds the
President’s FY2008 budget request of $282 million, as well as the amount in the
House and Senate FY2008 conference report (H.Rept. 110-424) for the Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 3043), which would
have provided just under $432 million for FY2008.
The Administration released $450 million in FY2008 contingency funds to all
states, tribes, and territories on January 16, 2008. Of the amount distributed, $150
million was allocated to all grantees according to their percentage allocation under
the LIHEAP block grant formula, $50 million was allocated to 11 states based on the
percentage of low-income households that use heating oil, and the remaining $250
million was distributed to 26 states on the basis of both the percentage of low-income
households that use heating oil, natural gas, or propane for heat, and on the average
temperature between November 1, 2006, and March 1, 2007.
Contingency funds were released on two occasions in FY2007. On August 29,
2007, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released $50 million in
contingency funds to twelve states due to severe heat. These states were Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee. On September 27, 2007, HHS
released the remainder of the FY2007 contingency funds — $131 million. Of the
$131 million, $106 million went to all states, tribes, and territories for anticipated
winter heating costs, while the remaining $25 million went to seven states based on
heating oil usage and average 2006-2007 winter temperature. These states were
Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
In the 110th Congress, two bills have been introduced that would appropriate an
additional $1 billion in LIHEAP contingency funds. Both bills, H.R. 4275 and S.
2405, are entitled the Keeping Americans Warm Act. In addition, a number of bills
have been introduced that would provide additional funds for LIHEAP through
various means, including penalties collected from energy suppliers and profits from
carbon allowance trading.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Proposed LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2007 LIHEAP Funding. . . . . . . . . . .1
FY2007 LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
LIHEAP Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Distribution of LIHEAP Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life Because of
Extreme Extreme
Indoor Air Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . 7
Program Rules and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Households Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Benefit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Funds and Their Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Tier III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213
Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1214
Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Final FY2006 and FY2007 LIHEAP Funding and
Proposed FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Final FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Recent LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. 5
LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. 11
LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2004 to FY2007FY2005 to FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 5. 16
LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2007FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1718
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. The LIHEAP statute provides for
two types of program funding: regular funds and contingency funds. Regular funds
are allotted to states according to methods prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.1 The
second type of LIHEAP funding, called contingency funds, may be released and
allotted to one or more states at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first section of this report describes appropriations of LIHEAP funds for
FY2007 and proposed funding for FY2008FY2008 and FY2007. It also discusses current issues and
legislation related to
LIHEAP. The second section of this report discusses LIHEAP
rules, including
household eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the
most recent data
available from HHS regarding household characteristics and benefit
levels. Finally,
the third section discusses how each category of LIHEAP funds is
distributed to
states, as well as a breakdown of funds to the states during the last
several fiscal
years.
Recent Developments
FY2008 Proposed LIHEAP Funding
The President released his FY2008 budget on February 5, 2007. In it, he
proposed to provide $1.782 billion for LIHEAP. This is the same amount the
President proposed for FY2007, but the breakdown of funds is different. In FY2007,
the Administration’s budget requested that the entire amount be allocated to regular
funds, while for FY2008, $1.5 billion would be allocated to regular funds and $282
million to contingency funds.
In the House, the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education marked up the FY2008 appropriations bill on
LIHEAP Funding
On December 26, 2007, the President signed the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). The funding bill provides a total of
approximately $2.57 billion for LIHEAP (see Division G of P.L. 110-161). Of this
amount, $1.98 billion is for regular funds, the same amount appropriated in FY2007;
$590 million is allocated for contingency funds.2 The regular fund appropriation
1
See Section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of
P.L. 97-35), as amended. The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).
CRS-2
June 7, 2007. (As of the date of this report, the bill does not have a number.) The
House bill would provide $1.98 billion in regular funds, the same level appropriated
in FY2007, and approximately $682 million in contingency funds, an increase of
$500 million over the FY2007 level. The Senate’s version of the appropriations bill
(S. 1710) would maintain FY2008 LIHEAP regular and contingency funds at their
FY2007 levels of $1.98 billion and $181 million respectively. (For information on
how regular funds would be distributed to the states under the President’s proposal
and the Appropriations Committees proposals, see CRS Report RS21605, LIHEAP:
2
P.L. 110-161 contained an across the board rescission of 1.747% that reduced the stated
amounts appropriated for most Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
(continued...)
CRS-2
exceeds the President’s FY2008 budget request of $1.5 billion by $480 million and
his contingency fund request of $282 million by approximately $308 million. The
regular fund appropriation in P.L. 110-161 is the same amount that was requested in
the conference agreement for the FY2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3043, H.Rept. 110-424), which
was vetoed by the President on November 13, 2007. For contingency funds,
however, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $158 million more than
would have been provided in the House and Senate conference agreement, which
would have appropriated just under $432 million. The House-passed version of H.R.
3043 contained $682 million for contingency funds, while the Senate’s substitute
version of H.R. 3043 would have provided the same level appropriated in FY2007
— $181 million. (For information on how regular funds are distributed to the states,
see CRS Report RS21605, LIHEAP: Estimated Allocations, by Libby Perl.)
FY2007 LIHEAP Funding
For FY2007, Congress appropriated $1.98 billion in regular funds and $181
million in contingency funds for LIHEAP through a year-long continuing resolution
(P.L. 110-5). This is the same amount that was appropriated for LIHEAP in the
FY2006 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) as reduced by a 1% across-the-board rescission
(P.L. 109-148). The total amount appropriated in FY2007 exceeded the President’s
budget request of $1.782 billion by $380 million. Prior to the enactment of the yearlong continuing resolution, the House Appropriations Committee would have
provided $1.93 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and $181 million in contingency
funds in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act (H.R. 5647). The Senate Appropriations Committee would have
provided $1.98 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and $181 million in contingency
funds in its version of the spending bill (S. 3708). Prior to enactment of P.L. 110-5
on February 15, 2007, three continuing resolutions provided funding for LIHEAP.23
Three FY2007 supplemental appropriations bills, each entitled the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, attempted to provide additional funds for LIHEAP. The first bill
(H.R. 1591), introduced on March 20, 2007, would have provided $400 million for
LIHEAP, $200 million for regular funds and $200 million for contingency funds.
The Senate’s version of the supplemental appropriations bill (S. 965), introduced on
March 22, 2006, would have provided $640 million for LIHEAP, $320 million in
regular funds and $320 million in contingency funds. However, in conference with
the House, the LIHEAP provisions in H.R. 1591 prevailed. On May 1, 2007, the
2
(...continued)
Education programs. See P.L. 110-161, Division G, Section 528. After application of the
rescission, $1.98 billion is available for regular funds and $590 million for contingency
funds. Prior to application of the rescission, the stated appropriations levels in P.L. 110-161
are $2.015 billion for LIHEAP regular funds and $596 million to contingency funds. Of the
amount appropriated for contingency funds, $250 million is designated as emergency
spending; the rescission does not apply to the $250 million in emergency funds.
3
These were P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383.
CRS-3
President vetoed H.R. 1591, and the House failed to override the veto. On May 8,
2007, another supplemental appropriations bill was introduced in the House (H.R.
2206). Like H.R. 1591, it would have provided $400 million for LIHEAP, dividing
the amount equally between regular and contingency funds. However, on May 24,
funds for LIHEAP were removed from H.R. 2206 in conference with the Senate.
2
These were P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383.
CRS-3
Table 1. Final FY2006 and FY2007 LIHEAP Funding and
Proposed FY2008 Table 1. Final FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 LIHEAP Funding
State
Formula
Grants
Regular
Set-Asides
Contingency
(
(Approximately $300,000 for technical
technical assistance, which is permanently
permanently authorized in the
statute)
Contingency
Total
Final FY2006 Appropriationa
P.L. 109-149
1.98 billion
— 27.225 million —
leveraging incentive fund
181 million
P.L. 109-204b
500 million
None
500 million
Total
2.48 billion
— 27.225 million —
leveraging incentive fund
None
681 million
— 27.225 million —
leveraging incentive fund
181 million
2.161 billion
500 million
1.0 billion
681 million
3.1611.50 billion
— 27.225 million —
leveraging incentive fund
181 million
2.161 billion
— 27.225 million —
leveraging incentive fund
282 million
1.782282 million
1.98 billion
Not specified
682 million
1.98 billion
Not specified
682181 million
2.6621.98 billion
Not specified
181 million
2.161 432 million
— 26.749 million —
leveraging incentive fund
590 million
2.161
billion
1.000
billion
3.161
billion
Final FY2007 Appropriation
P.L. 110-5
1.98 billion
2.161
billion
FY2008 Proposed Funding
President’s
1.50 billion
Request
House
Appropriations
1.98 billion
Subcommittee
S. 1710
1.98 Request
H.R. 3043 (HousePassed)
H.R. 3043
(Senate Substitute)
H.Rept. 110-424
(Conference Report)
1.782
billion
2.662
billion
2.161
billion
2.412
billion
Final FY2008 Funding
P.L. 110-161c
1.98 billion
2.570
billion
Source: Congressional Research Service on the basis of P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-149, P.L. 109-171,
P.L. 109-204, P.L. 110-5, P.L. 110-161, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) FY2008 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees,
House Appropriations Subcommittee Table, and S. 1710H.R. 3043, and H.Rept. 110-424.
a. Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148), discretionary spending in
FY2006 was reduced by 1% through an across-the-board rescission. The amounts in P.L. 109149 include the rescission.
b. The funds made available for FY2006 in P.L. 109-204 were originally appropriated for FY2007 in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171. Congress shifted the funds to FY2006 in P.L.
109-204.
LIHEAP Contingency Funds
In FY2007, Congress appropriated $181 million in LIHEAP contingency funds
c. Amounts for Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs were
subject to a 1.747% rescission. See P.L. 110-161, Division G, Section 528. Amounts in this
table represent the amounts available after the rescission.
CRS-4
Distribution of LIHEAP Contingency Funds
Congress appropriated just over $590 million in LIHEAP contingency funds for
FY2008 to be released at the discretion of HHS to states according to their energy needs. In
addition, just under $21 million in contingency funds from the FY2005
appropriations law (P.L. 108-447) remain available until expended. HHS distributed
FY2007 contingency funds on two occasions.
First, on August 29, 2007, HHS announced that it would release $50 million in
contingency funds to twelve states that experienced severe heat during the month of
August. These twelve states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Tennessee. The distribution was based on two factors involving cooling degree days.
A cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature rises
CRS-4
above 65°F. For example, a day with an average temperature of 80° F results in a
measure of 15 cooling degree days. States qualified for contingency funds if they
experienced at least 341 cooling degree days during the three-week period ending
August 25, 2007, and if they experienced 61 or more excess cooling degree days
compared to their 30-year norm for the same time period. Fund distributions were
weighted on
needs. On January 16, 2008, the Administration announced the release of $450
million to all states, tribes, and territories. The total amount was distributed in three
ways. (For the amount of funds distributed to each state, see Table 4.)
!
!
!
$150 million was distributed to all states tribes and territories on the
basis of the percentage of funds that each receives under the block
grant formula.4
$50 million was distributed to 11 states where the percentage of lowincome households that use heating oil is 20% or more. The
allocations were based on the percentage of funds each state receives
under the LIHEAP block grant formula, weighted by the percentage
of low-income heating oil users in the state. The states that received
a portion of the $50 million distribution were Alaska, Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
$250 million was distributed to 26 states where at least 60% of lowincome households use either heating oil, natural gas, or propane for
heat, and the average temperature between November 1, 2006, and
March 1, 2007, was 39° Fahrenheit or lower. Funds were distributed
on the basis of the percentage of funds each state receives under the
block grant formula, weighted by the percentage of low-income
households using heating oil, natural gas, or propane to heat their
homes. Each of the states that received funds under the $50 million
distribution, with the exception of Delaware, received a portion of
the $250 million distribution. The remaining states that received
funds were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Approximately $140 million in FY2008 contingency funds remain available for
distribution through the end of the fiscal year, at which point they will expire if not
distributed. In addition, $20 million in contingency funds from the FY2005
appropriations law (P.L. 108-447) remain available until expended.
In FY2007, Congress appropriated $181 million in LIHEAP contingency funds,
and HHS released the total amount through two separate distributions. First, on
August 29, 2007, HHS announced that it would release $50 million in contingency
funds to twelve states that experienced severe heat during the month of August.
These twelve states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
The distribution was based on two factors involving cooling degree days. A cooling
4
Each grantee received the percentage of funds they receive under the “old” LIHEAP
formula. For a discussion of the formula, see the section “Funds and Their Distribution”
later in this report.
CRS-5
degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature rises above
65°F. For example, a day with an average temperature of 80° F results in a measure
of 15 cooling degree days. States qualified for contingency funds if they experienced
at least 341 cooling degree days during the three-week period ending August 25,
2007, and if they experienced 61 or more excess cooling degree days compared to
their 30-year norm for the same time period. Fund distributions were weighted on
the basis of the number of low-income households in each state.
The remaining $131 million in contingency funds was released on September
27, 2007. Of the $131 million, just over $106 million went to all states, tribes, and
territories for anticipated winter heating needs. The funds were allocated based on
each stategrantee’s share of block grant funds. The remaining $25 million was allocated to
to seven states according to the percentage of low-income households that use heating
heating oil and according to average temperature. States qualified if at least 30% of lowincome
low-income households use heating oil and if the average temperature between October
October 1, 2006, and March 31, 2007 was at or below 47° F. The seven states that received
received funds were Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Rhode Island, and Vermont. (See Table 4 at the end of this report for the total
amount of
contingency funds allocated to each state.)
Table 2 shows recent federal
funding levels for LIHEAP, including the amount
of contingency funds released.
Table 2. Recent LIHEAP Funding
(dollars in millions; sums may not equal totals due to rounding)
Fiscal
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Funds
Appropriated
Regularc
Contingency
Contingency
1,700
1,788
1,789
1,885
2,480
1,980
1,980
300
0
99
298
681
181
590
Contingency Funds
Distributeda
To
To All
To Some
Subtotal
States
States
0
100
100
200
0
200
40
59
99
250
27
277
100
580
680
106
75
181
150
300
450
Total Funds
Distributedb
Subtotal
(to all
Total
states (To
Total
All States)
1,700
1,800
1,988
1,988
1,829
1,889
2,135
2,162
2,580
3,160
2,086
2,161
2,130
2,430
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 distributed in that fiscal year for two reasons: First, the LIHEAP
statute gives the Administration discretion to release (or not release) any of the 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 included 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 (with total set-asides of 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. Regular LIHEAP funds are made available to states on a quarterly basis (October, January, April,
and July). However, states may specify what percentage of their total allotment they wish to
CRS-5
receive in each quarter, and many states receive all, or the great majority of, their LIHEAP funds
in the first two quarterly disbursements.
CRS-6
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110th Congress
Bills that addresswould affect aspects of LIHEAP have been introduced in the 110th
Congress.
!
Two bills, H.R. 4275 and S. 2405, both entitled the Keeping
Americans Warm Act, would appropriate $1 billion for LIHEAP
contingency funds in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated.
!
The LIHEAP Equity Act
The LIHEAP Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 153), would mandate that no
more more
than 50% of the funding provided under LIHEAP be made
available available
for heating purposes.
!
S. 669, the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act, concerns contingency
funds. The bill would allow a state governor to apply to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services for certification that there
is an emergency in his or her state (as defined by the LIHEAP
statute), and for an allotment of contingency funds in response to the
emergency.
!
The Home Energy Assistance Targeted for Seniors Act (H.R. 2984)
would rename LIHEAP the “Low Income and Senior Home Energy
Assistance Act” and make eligible for benefits households with
incomes at or below state median income, as long as at least 50% of
the household’s income was attributable to persons age 65 and older.
(Currently households may not have incomes above 60% of state
median income and still be eligible for LIHEAP.)
!
The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 1252) would make
it illegal to charge excessive prices for various types of fuel if an
“energy emergency” is declared by the President. The illegal
practices would include selling oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum at unconscionably excessive prices; intentionally
reporting false price information; or manipulating the market.
Penalties imposed for violations of these provisions would be used
to provide LIHEAP assistance. On May 23, 2007, the bill bypassed
committee consideration and went straight to the House floor, where
it passed under suspension of the rules.
!
Two other bills would similarly use penalties imposed on energy
providers to fund LIHEAP. The Federal Energy Price Protection Act
(H.R. 2460) would penalize oil, gas, and petroleum suppliers for
price gouging with the fees going to LIHEAP, while the Clean,
Reliable, Efficient and Secure Energy Act of 2007 (S. 1602) would
give a portion of penalties collected from energy suppliers to
LIHEAP.
!
The Low Carbon Economy Act (S. 1766) would set greenhouse gas
emissions targets for entities such as natural gas processing plants,
electric power plants, and refineries. Under the program, these
CRS-7
regulated entities would trade allowances that entitle them to emit a
CRS-6
certain amount of greenhouse gases. A portion of the proceeds from
the auction of these allowances would be allocated to fund LIHEAP.
!
America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is like S. 1766 in that it
would set up a system under which regulated entities would trade
allowances to emit greenhouse gases. During the years 2012 to
2050, a portion of proceeds from the auctions (20%) would be
allocated to an Energy Assistance Fund, of which 50% would be
available to the LIHEAP program. On December 5, 2007, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S.
2191.
!
Another bill, the Energy Security and Corporate Accountability Act
(S. 1238) would not affect LIHEAP, but would create a program for
LIHEAP-eligible households called the Low-Income Transportation
Energy Assistance Fund.
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life
Because of Extreme Indoor Air Temperatures
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) required HHS to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used more effectively to prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures.” On February 15, 2007, HHS released a report in which
it summarized state recommendations for ways to use LIHEAP funds to prevent heatand cold-related deaths due to indoor air temperature.35 Recommendations were in
five categories:
!
!
!
!
!
Education and outreach;
Weatherization and energy-related home repairs;
Special assistance for vulnerable populations;
Partnerships with other social services programs and energy
providers; and
Research on the needs of, and best practices for helping, vulnerable
households.
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.
5
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress on: Preventing Loss of
Life Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures, February 15, 2007.
CRS-8
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility
Federal law limits LIHEAP 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
3
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress on: Preventing Loss of
Life Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures, February 15, 2007.
CRS-7
veterans’ programs. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under
other aid 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. The
LIHEAP definition of “energy crisis” leaves room for each state to define the term
slightly differently, although generally, crisis assistance is provided to households
that are in danger of losing their heating or cooling due to problems with equipment,
receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or exhaustion of a fuel supply.46 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.57
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 a
grantee has a 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
FY2004, the most recent year for which data regarding total obligations are available,
approximately 55.4% of all LIHEAP funds were used to provide heating assistance;
all states (including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.6
46
The LIHEAP statute defines an energy crisis as “weather-related and supply shortage
emergencies and other household energy-related emergencies.” 42 U.S.C. §8622(3). For
the state definitions of “crisis” see the HHS LIHEAP Networker FY2007 compilation of
definitions, available at [http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2007/CrisisDef2007.doc].
57
Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.liheap.ncat.org/sp.htm].
6
Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2004 (including federal and any
(continued...)
CRS-
CRS-9
Use of Funds
The majority of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In
FY2004, the most recent year for which data regarding total obligations are available,
approximately 55.4% of all LIHEAP funds were used to provide heating assistance;
all states (including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.8
Nearly all states also offered crisis assistance, most of which is used for heating
needs. In FY2004, 16.5% of LIHEAP funds were used to provide crisis assistance
in 46 states. Five of these 46 states provided summer as well as winter crisis
assistance, and one state — Hawaii — provided only summer crisis assistance.79 Also
in FY2004, 2.9% of funds were used for cooling aid (offered by 13 states); 11.3% of
total LIHEAP funds were used for weatherization services (provided by 45 states);
8.7% of available funds were used for administration and planning purposes (51
states), and 1% of the FY2004 funds were used to offer services to reduce the need
for energy assistance (provided by 22 states).810
Households Served
When the LIHEAP program began in FY1983, approximately 6.8 million
households received heating or winter crisis assistance (or both), representing 31%
of federally eligible households. Since that time, the number of households receiving
assistance declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients
in FY1999. After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing
again. In FY2005, the most recent year for which information related to the broad
heating and cooling categories is available, it is estimated that 5.3 million households
received this LIHEAP assistance.911 (See Table 3.) The same trend can be seen in the
percentage of federally eligible households that receive funds. By FY1999, the
number of federally eligible households receiving LIHEAP heating or winter crisis
assistance had dropped from 31% to 12%. In FY2005, 15% of federally eligible
households received assistance. The number of households receiving cooling
assistance reached its high point in FY2002, with more than half a million recipients.
In FY2005, approximately 400,000 households received cooling or summer crisis
assistance.1012
The most recently available information that further breaks down the number
of households assisted by the type of assistance they received comes from FY2004,
a year in which 5.0 million households were estimated to have received LIHEAP
heating or winter crisis assistance, and 400,000 to have received cooling or summer
crisis aid. (Because many households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP
assistance, some households may be represented in more than one category.) States
reported that approximately 4.6 million households received assistance with heating
payments; 308,000 received cooling aid; approximately 1.1 million received winter
6
(...continued)8
Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2004 (including federal and any
supplemental non-federal funding) of $1.949 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2004, May 25, 2007, p. 14 (hereafter FY2004
LIHEAP Report to Congress).
79
Ibid., Table C-3, p. 55.
810
Ibid., p. 14.
911
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families,
FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, May 2007, p 28 (hereafter FY2005 LIHEAP
LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook).
10
12
Ibid., p. 29.
CRS-910
a year in which 5.0 million households were estimated to have received LIHEAP
heating or winter crisis assistance, and 400,000 to have received cooling or summer
crisis aid. (Because many households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP
assistance, some households may be represented in more than one category.) States
reported that approximately 4.6 million households received assistance with heating
payments; 308,000 received cooling aid; approximately 1.1 million received winter
or year-round crisis aid; 88,000 received summer crisis aid; and 112,000 received
weatherization assistance.1113
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance,
about 32% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 32% had at least
one disabled member; and some 22% included at least one child five years of age or
younger.1214
Benefit Levels
The constant dollar value of LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefits has
declined, generally, from the program’s beginning, as has the portion of home heating
bills covered by LIHEAP. In FY1983, the average heating and winter crisis benefit,
measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $209 dollars. By FY1998, it had declined to
$117,
and although the value of benefits went up from FY1999 through FY2001, it
declined declined
again thereafter, and in FY2005 the average constant dollar benefit was
$140.1315 (See
Table 3.) In addition, the LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit
now covers a
smaller portion of home heating bills than in earlier years, 8% in
FY2005 compared
to 18% in FY1983.1416
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is
available to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, had largely
risen from the program’s beginning until FY2002. In FY1983, the constant dollar
value of LIHEAP cooling benefits (in 1981 dollars) was $57. By FY2000 and
FY2001, the average benefit had reached $107. However, by FY2004 and FY2005,
the average cooling or summer crisis benefit had declined to $91.1517
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.1618 These include the following:
!
!
13
FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 18.
14
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
15
FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
16
Ibid., p. 31.
17
Ibid., p. 30.
18
See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.
CRS-11
!
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).
11
FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 18.
12
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
13
FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
14
Ibid., p. 31.
15
Ibid., p. 30.
16
See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.
CRS-10
Table 3. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years
Fiscal Year
1983 1990 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Households
Number receiving aid ( millions)
Number federally eligible (millions)
Federally eligible and receiving aid
Benefit Levels
Average benefit (nominal $)
Average benefit (constant 1981 $)a
Costs Offset
Portion of winter heating bill
covered by LIHEAP (for all
federally eligible households)b
6.8 5.8 5.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.8 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.3
22.2 25.4 28.4 29.1 29.0 29.4 30.4 32.7 34.5 35.4 34.8
31% 23% 20% 13% 12% 13% 16% 13% 14% 14% 15%
$225 $209 $201 $213 $237 $270 $364 $291 $312 $277 $304
$209 $147 $129 $117 $128 $140 $187 $147 $154 $132 $140
18% 15% 11%
9%
9%
11% 14% 12% NAc
8%
8%
Before receiving LIHEAP benefit
Portion of household income
required for home heating (for
LIHEAP-recipient households)
8.3% 4.5% 4.7% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 4.7% 3.6% 4.9% 4.8% 5.6%
After receiving LIHEAP benefit
2.6% 2.0% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% NAc 2.7% 3.3%
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, FY2002, FY2003, FY2004 and FY2005.
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. HHS did not make FY2003 data for these trends available.
CRS-12
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. The statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for incentive
grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance
programs.
Regular Funds
Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-tier formula in the
LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds appropriated in a given fiscal year.17
17
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
(continued...)
CRS-1119
The three-tier formula is the result of changes to the LIHEAP statute in 1984 through
the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). Prior to the changes in P.L.
98-558, LIHEAP allotments to the states were based largely on home heating needs
with minimal consideration of cooling costs, and did not provide for the use of
updated data, including population and energy costs. (For more information on the
history of the LIHEAP formula, see CRS Report RL33275, LIHEAP Allocation
Rates: Legislative History and Current Law, by Libby Perl.)
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the
Department of Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory
data available” and consider home energy costs of low-income households (not
simply all households, as was previously the case). These changes to the calculation
of state allotments mean that some states will receive a smaller percentage share of
regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to offset the losses to
certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe disruption to
programs,”1820 Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current
law formula, which is described in more detail below.
Tier I. The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP
regular fund appropriation is less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless
provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS allocates funds according to the
allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old formula is used
because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years,
no state shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the
19
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.
20
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to
accompany H.R. 2439, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
CRS-13
LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion.21
LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion.19 According to HHS, then, the
LIHEAP statute requires use of the old allotment percentages when funding is less
than $1.975 billion.2022 Until FY2006, funding levels for LIHEAP only twice exceeded
the $1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, from FY1987 through
FY2005, states continued to receive the same allotment percentages they received
under the previous LIHEAP formula.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the
Tier II rate applies, and HHS uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state
allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold harmless level applies, and no state may
receive less funding than it would have received under the Tier I distribution rate as
17
(...continued)
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.
18
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to
accompany H.R. 2439, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
19
20
42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides
for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
CRS-12
it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation.21
it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation.23 State
allotment percentages may be different, however. To ensure that states receive their
hold harmless levels of funding, those states that gain the most funding under the
new formula must have their percentage share of funds ratably reduced to bring other
states up to the hold harmless level.2224
Tier III. The Tier III formula applies to funding levels at or above $2.25 billion.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds, but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement, a hold harmless rate. States that would receive less than
1% of a $2.25 billion appropriation must have their funds allocated using the rate that
would have been used 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).
Contingency Funds
The statute currently provides an annual authorization of $600 million for
LIHEAP contingency funds (contingency funds are authorized indefinitely).2325
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
the 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
21
21
42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A).
22
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides
for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
23
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). It also
authorized Leveraging Incentive Grants (P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103252) — 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 of approximately $2.0028 billion.
2224
42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
2325
42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
CRS-13
for their LIHEAP programs.2414
the 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.26 Such resources might include negotiated lower energy
rates for low-income 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 low-income families and to reduce those families’
vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high energy
costs. The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is
separate from regular funds, and the programs were not reauthorized in P.L. 109-58.
In practice, however, 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.2527 In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to
transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy assistance,2628 while
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gives states the discretion to
use funds for home heating and cooling costs.2729
26
42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
27
FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge
funds was available to one state.
28
42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
29
42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
CRS-15
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
seven times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
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
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986
and again in FY2006.
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
24
42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
25
FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge
funds was available to one state.
26
42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
27
42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
CRS-14
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.
Finally, in 2005 the Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized the program
and raised the LIHEAP regular funds authorization level for FY2005 through
FY2007 to $5.1 billion. It also explicitly permitted the purchase of renewable fuels
as part of providing LIHEAP assistance; required the Department of Energy to report
on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid; required 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 allowed the
Secretary of the Interior, when disposing of in-kind oil and gas royalties taken from
oil and gas leases, to grant a preference for the purpose of providing additional
resources to support federal low-income energy assistance programs.
CRS-1516
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2004 to FY2007FY2005 to FY2008
(dollars in millions)
State
Total Funds Distributeda
(Regular and Contingency)
FY2004FY2005
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
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
$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
13.2
12.3
9.6
FY2005
$19.9
10.1
7.7
13.5
91.7
32.4
46.8
6.2
6.7
29.6
22.5
2.2
12.2
117.2
53.9
38.9
17.4
28.1
29.8
30.6
34.2
91.9
112.5
84.0
27.4
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
15.1
14.6
11.6
Regular Contingency
Allotment Distributed
FY2006
$
FY2006
31.787
12.839
14.230
23.336
156.441
44.806
71.106
10.954
8.165
49.785
40.026
2.567
14.055
193.814
75.327
52.054
27.709
45.320
32.671
43.496
61.889
126.425
153.615
110.849
27.415
78.220
19.259
28.634
7.247
27.740
114.759
11.555
381.719
71.125
19.272
164.226
26.921
24.575
202.324
23.066
25.279
16.540
Total
FY2007
$16.673
7.418
7.448
12.796
89.199
31.334
40.920
5.431
6.355
26.527
20.979
2.113
11.642
113.259
51.272
36.343
16.675
26.686
17.144
25.541
31.332
81.820
106.543
77.469
14.350
45.240
11.843
17.961
3.809
15.493
75.798
9.358
247.980
36.319
12.753
100.195
13.991
23.614
133.273
13.435
13.318
10.410
$5.404
1.213
0.405
2.953
4.852
1.706
7.182
0.295
0.346
1.442
7.585
0.115
0.633
6.159
2.788
1.976
3.053
5.324
5.355
6.946
1.704
11.937
5.802
4.213
3.488
7.405
0.644
0.977
0.207
3.276
4.122
0.509
13.470
8.838
0.693
5.448
3.513
1.291
7.247
1.992
4.317
0.566
$22.077
8.631
7.856
15.749
94.089
33.073
48.102
5.727
6.700
27.970
28.564
2.228
12.275
119.418
54.062
38.319
19.727
32.010
22.499
32.487
33.036
93.757
112.509
81.681
17.838
52.645
12.487
18.940
4.016
18.769
79.920
9.867
261.178
45.156
13.446
105.643
17.517
25.035
140.520
15.428
17.636
10.977
CRS-16
Total Funds Distributeda
(Regular and Contingency)
State
FY2004
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
FY2005
Regular Contingency
Allotment Distributed
FY2006
FY2007
24.9
40.7
14.0
11.4
37.5
35.4
17.4
64.3
5.2
28.3
46.2
14.7
13.8
41.7
39.9
18.5
75.3
5.9
47.139
84.005
22.848
20.903
75.053
39.631
24.543
99.837
8.987
27.033
44.144
14.233
11.613
38.166
38.355
17.660
69.773
5.558
Tribes
Territoriesc
Leveraging/REACHd
Training/Tech. Asst.e
$1,840
19.0
2.5
27.3
0.3
$2,111
20.1
2.9
27.3
0.3
$3,096
32.897
3.456
27.225
.297
$1,929
21.046
2.644
27.225
.297
Total
$1,889
$2,162
$3,160
$1,980
Subtotal
b
Total
6.535
2.400
0.777
2.549
2.075
2.086
0.960
3.792
0.306
33.568
46.545
15.062
14.162
40.241
40.443
18.621
73.525
5.932
$178.871 $2,107.659
2.155
23.201
0.144
2.788
—
27.225
—
.297
$181
$2,161Regular Contingency
Allotment Distributed
FY2007
22.077
8.631
7.856
15.749
94.089
33.073
48.102
5.727
6.700
27.970
28.564
2.228
12.275
119.418
54.062
38.319
19.727
32.010
22.499
32.487
33.036
93.757
112.509
81.681
17.838
52.645
12.487
18.940
4.016
18.769
79.920
9.867
261.178
45.156
13.446
105.643
17.517
25.035
140.520
15.428
17.636
10.977
Total
FY2008
16.668
7.420
7.453
12.799
89.258
31.375
40.930
5.433
6.356
26.534
20.985
2.113
11.645
113.287
51.286
36.352
16.653
26.693
17.148
25.547
31.340
81.841
106.733
77.488
14.353
45.251
11.846
17.963
3.810
15.497
75.817
9.347
247.769
36.328
12.756
100.219
14.003
23.750
133.306
13.439
13.322
10.413
1.280
2.465
0.576
0.983
6.856
8.059
13.598
0.827
0.488
2.038
1.612
0.162
0.894
29.100
13.174
9.338
4.278
2.050
1.317
8.487
2.407
27.190
27.417
19.905
1.102
11.624
3.043
4.614
0.293
5.149
25.251
0.718
82.316
2.790
3.277
25.744
1.076
1.824
44.288
4.465
1.023
2.675
17.948
9.885
8.029
13.782
96.114
39.435
54.528
6.259
6.845
28.572
22.596
2.276
12.539
142.387
64.461
45.690
20.931
28.743
18.466
34.034
33.747
109.030
134.150
97.393
15.456
56.875
14.888
22.577
4.103
20.645
101.068
10.065
330.085
39.118
16.032
125.963
15.079
25.574
177.594
17.903
14.345
13.088
CRS-17
Total Funds Distributeda
(Regular and Contingency)
State
FY2005
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
b
Tribes
Territoriesc
Leveraging/REACHd
Training/Tech. Asst.e
Total
FY2006
Regular Contingency
Allotment Distributed
FY2007
FY2008
28.3
46.2
14.7
13.8
41.7
39.9
18.5
75.3
5.9
47.139
84.005
22.848
20.903
75.053
39.631
24.543
99.837
8.987
33.568
46.545
15.062
14.162
40.241
40.443
18.621
73.525
5.932
2,111
20.1
2.9
27.3
0.3
3,096
32.897
3.456
27.225
0.297
2,108 1,929.207
23.201
21.107
2.788
2.645
27.225
26.749
0.297
0.292
2,162
3,160
2,161
Total
27.039
44.155
14.289
11.616
38.175
38.367
17.665
69.750
5.628
1,980
2.077
3.391
3.670
3.859
2.932
2.947
1.357
17.917
1.446
29.116
47.546
17.959
15.475
41.107
41.314
19.021
87.667
7.073
445.368 2,374.574
4.429
25.536
.203
2.848
—
26.749
—
0.292
450
2,430
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.
b. 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 allotment
is based on tribal households in that state.
c. 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).
d. 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 HHS
has reserved 25% for REACH grants.
e. 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-1718
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2007FY2008
(dollars in thousands)
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
2007
2008
Regular Fundsa
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
1,782,000
1,500,000
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
5,100,000
5,100,000
5,100,000
—h
Contingency Fundsa
Appropriated
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
2,480,000
1,980,000
1,980,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
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
681,000
181,000
Distributed
590,328
Distributed
Total
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
277,250
679,960
181,000
Total
Distributed
$
450,000
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
2,162,050
3,160,000
2,161,000
2,430,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based onon the basis of HHS data.
a. Amounts listed under the Regular Funds heading are for regular funding only. In 1994, Congress
enacted 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 September 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 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 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).
g. Of this amount, the President requested that $500,000 be set aside for a national evaluation.
crsphpgwh. LIHEAP is unauthorized in FY2008.