The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and
Current Law
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
September 8, 2010May 21, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33275
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
The LIHEAP Formula
Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds to states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. territories and commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) primarily to help low-income households pay home energy
expenses. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of funding: regular funds (sometimes
referred to as block grant funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allocated to
grantees based on a formula, while emergency contingency funds may be released to one or more
grantees at
the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based on
emergency need.
on emergency need. This report focuses on the way in which regular funds are distributed.
Regular LIHEAP funds are allocated to the states according to a formula that has a long and
complicated history. (Tribes receive funds based on either their number of federally eligible
LIHEAP households compared to the total number in the state or on agreements with their states,
whereas territories receive a set percentage of total LIHEAP regular fundsand territories receive funds through set asides.) In 1980, Congress
created the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program
(LIEAP), as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223). Because Congress was
particularly concerned with the high costs of heating, funds under LIEAP were distributed
according to a multi-step formula that benefitted cold-weather states. In 1981, Congress enacted
LIHEAP as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), replacing LIEAP.
However, the LIHEAP statute specified that states would continue to receive the same percentage
of regular funds that they did under the LIEAP formula (this is sometimes referred to as the “old”
LIHEAP formula).
When Congress reauthorized LIHEAP in 1984 as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 98-558), it changed the program’s formula by requiring the use of more recent population
and energy data and requiring that HHS consider both heating and cooling costs of low-income
households (a change from the focus on the heating needs of all households). The effect of these
what had largely been a focus on the need for heating assistance). The
effect of these changes meant that, in general, fundssome funding would be shifted from cold-weather
states to warm-weather
states. To prevent a dramatic shift of funds, Congress added two “hold-harmlessholdharmless” provisions to
the formula. The result of percentage of funds that states receive under the
formula enacted in 1984 is sometimes referred to as the “new” formula.
The result of these provisions is a current law, three-tiered formula (sometimes
referred to as the “new” formula), the application of which
depends on the amount of regular
funds that Congress appropriates.
The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP regular fund appropriation is
less than or equal to the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
Above this level, funds are allocated according to Tier II of the formula, which includes a holdharmless level to prevent certain states from losing LIHEAP funds. Finally, Tier III applies to
appropriations at or above $2.25 billion, and includes a second hold-harmless provision, the holdharmless rate. Since FY1986, LIHEAP regular fund appropriations have exceeded the equivalent
of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion in FY2006, when the regular fund appropriation
was $2.48 billion; in FY2008, when appropriations slightly exceeded the trigger; and in FY2009
and FY2010, when Congress directed that $840 million be distributed according to the “new”
LIHEAP formula.
This report will be updated when new formula data are released and when proposed funding
levels change (see Appendix C).
Congressional Research Service
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Contents
Introduction funds that Congress appropriates. When appropriations are at or
below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, states receive the
“old” formula percentage of funds. If appropriations exceed this level, then funds are allocated
according to the “new” formula percentage of funds, with certain states held harmless at the level
of funds they would have received at an appropriation of $1.975 billion in FY1984. Finally, when
appropriations are at or above $2.25 billion, there is a second hold-harmless provision in place, a
hold-harmless rate that ensures that certain states receive a set percentage of funds.
For many years after the enactment of the “new” LIHEAP formula, appropriations did not exceed
the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, so funds were distributed according
to the “old” formula percentages. However, in FY2006, and in FY2009 through FY2014, regular
fund appropriations have ranged from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion, and the “new” formula has been
incorporated into the way in which funds are distributed to the states. In FY2015, the President’s
budget proposal would incorporate the “new” LIHEAP formula into the fund distribution. For
estimated allocations to the states, see Table C-1.
Congressional Research Service
The LIHEAP Formula
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP ................................................................................................... 2
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs .......................................... 2
The 2
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula ................................................................5
The LIEAP Formula...................................................... 5
Enactment of LIHEAP ..................................................6
Enactment of LIHEAP ................................................................................................................8 9
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula ...................................................................................... 9
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula ............................................................... 9
Formula Discussions ........................................................................................................... 9
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level............................................................................. 10
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate ........................................................................... 10... 11
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language .............................................................................. 11
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments Using the “New” Formula ................................ 12
Calculating the New Formula Rates ........................................................................................ 13 12
Using the New Formula RatesPercentages to Allocate Funds to the States ............................................. 14
Tier I: 15
“Old” Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion .................................................... 15
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
Billion and $2.25 Billion ...................................... 15
Tier II: From $1.975 Billion up to $2.25 Billion .............................................................. 15
Tier III: At or Above $2.25 Billion 16
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or Above
$2.25 Billion.......................................................................................................... 16......... 17
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula .................................................................... 18 17
Figures
Figure B-1. Estimated Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP)LIHEAP Allocations at
Various Hypothetical Appropriations
Levels for Three Types of States ..................................... 27
Tables
Table 1. Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980 ........................................................... 28
Tables
Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980 ............................ 4
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP .................................................................................. 8
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): “Old” and “New” Allotment
RatesPercentages by State, 2010........FY2014 ....................................................................................................... 17 18
Table 4. Recent State Allotment RatesPercentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula ............................... 20
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various
Hypothetical Appropriation Levels .......................................................................................... 23... 24
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allotments for FY2006 through FY2010
and Estimated FY2011 Allotments .Allocations for FY2008 through FY2014
and Estimated Allocations for FY2015........................................................................................ 30 31
Congressional Research Service
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Appendixes
Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical
Appropriations Levels ................................................................................................................ 23 22
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation
Levels .......................................................................................................................................... 2627
Appendix C. Actual LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to the States, FY2006-FY2010
and Estimated Allocations, FY2011FY2008-FY2014, and
Estimated FY2015 Allocations ................................................................................................... 2829
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 3436
Congressional Research Service
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a block grant program
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under which the federal
government gives annual grants to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and
commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations to operate multi-component home energy
assistance programs for needy households. 1 Established in 1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, LIHEAP has been reauthorized and amended a number of
times, most recently in 2005, when P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act, authorized annual regular
LIHEAP funds at $5.1 billion per year from FY2005 through FY2007.2
The federal LIHEAP statute has very broad guidelines, with almost allmany decisions regarding the
program’s operation made by the states. Recipients may be helped with their heating and cooling
costs, receive crisis assistance, have weatherizing expenses paid, or receive other aid designed to
reduce their home energy needs. Households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income, are federally eligible for
LIHEAP benefits. States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below
110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. Note, however, that in the FY2009
and FY2010 appropriations acts (P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-117), Congress gave states the
authority to raise eligibility limits to 75% of state median income. The most currentThe most recent HHS data
show show
that an estimated 5.57.4 million households received winter heating or winter crisis assistance
in FY2006 in
FY2009 (the largest share of LIHEAP funds pay for heating assistance).3
The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of program funding: regular funds—sometimes
referred to as block grant funds—and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to
states on the basis of the LIHEAP statutory formula, which was enacted as part of the Human
Services Reauthorization Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-558).4 The way in which regular funds are
allocated to states depends on the amount of funds appropriated by Congress. The second type of
LIHEAP funds, emergency contingency funds, may be released and allotted to one or more states
at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of HHS.5 The funds may be released at any
point in the fiscal year to meet additional home energy assistance needs created by a natural
disaster or other emergency.6
The remainder of this report discusses only the history and methods of distributing regular
LIHEAP funds to the state. Funds for tribes are included in each state’s formula allocations and
are distributed at the state level based on eligible tribal members. Territories receive funds
separately as a percentage set aside of regular funds, so neither tribes nor territories are included
in the formula discussion.
1
.
1
For additional information on LIHEAP, see CRS Report RL31865, The Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)LIHEAP: Program and Funding, by Libby Perl.
2
LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
3
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2006 LIHEAP Report
to Congress, April 22, 2009, p. 21LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009, September 2011, p. 30.
4
The formula section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623.
5
Depending on how Congress appropriates them, contingency funds may remain available for distribution in more than
one fiscal year or they may expire with the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
6
The statutory definition of emergency includes a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant
increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in
participation in a public benefit program, a significant increase in unemployment, or an event meeting such criteria as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §8622.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP
The mid- to late-1970s, a time marked by rapidly rising fuel prices, also marked the beginning of
federal energy assistance funding for low-income households. The first national program to help
low-income households was created in early 1975 to assist families with energy conservation
primarily through home weatherization. This assistance was provided through a new Emergency
Energy Conservation Program (EECP), enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity,
and Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). The funds were administered by the
Community Services Administration (CSA), the successor agency to the Office of Economic
Opportunity, which was responsible for many of the programs created as part of the 1964 war on
poverty. Beginning in 1977, funds were also made available through the CSA to help families
directly pay for fuel (as opposed to weatherization expenses) via a variety of programs. Each of
these programs had in common a focus on the need for heating assistance (versus cooling
assistance).
Congress continued to appropriate funds for energy assistance programs through FY1980, at
which point a new program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP), was enacted
as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). LIEAP, which was
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was funded for one year,
FY1981, before the creation of LIHEAP. Like the CSA programs, LIEAP emphasized heating
over cooling needs. This preference was reflected in both the CSA program formulas and the
LIEAP set of formulas, which used variables that benefitted cold-weather states to determine how
funds would be distributed. The LIEAP set of formulas continues to have relevance for the way in
which LIHEAP funds are distributed. This section of the report describes these predecessor
programs to LIHEAP and their distribution formulas.
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs
On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and
Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644), which contained funds for a new program,
called the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP). The program was to be
administered by the Community Services Administration (CSA), and its purpose was
to enable low-income individuals and families, including the elderly and the near poor, to
participate in energy conservation programs designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of
energy ... and to reduce ... energy consumption.
The law governing EECP listed a number of eligible activities in which states could participate,
including energy conservation and education programs; weatherization assistance; loans and
grants for the purchase of energy conservation technologies; alternative fuel supplies; and fuel
voucher and stamp programs. Despite the variety of activities that could be funded through the
program, the first CSA funding notice regarding the program limited eligible activities to
“winterizing” homes and to giving emergency assistance “to prevent hardship or danger to health
Congressional Research Service
2
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
due to utility shutoff or lack of fuel.”7 During the four years the EECP was funded, the majority
of funds were used for weatherization expenses. 8
EECP funds were distributed to states via a formula that benefitted those states with high heating
costs. One formula variable in particular, a measure of “coldness” called heating degree days,
benefitted cold-weather states. Heating degree days measure the extent to which a day’s average
temperature falls below 65° Fahrenheit. For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days. Because heating degree days are higher in cold
weathercoldweather states, including the heating degree day variable in a formula favors states with greater
heating needs. Squaring the heating degree days magnifies this effect.9 The EECP formula took
the number of population-weighted heating degree days in each state, squared them, and
multiplied the result by the number of households in poverty that owned their homes to determine
how funds would be allocated.10 The CSA acknowledged the emphasis on heating needs in its
formula, stating that the FY1975 allocation “was heavily weighted to the coldest areas.”11 In the
three fiscal years that followed the first appropriation for the EECP, from FY1976 through
FY1978, the CSA changed somewhat the way in which it allocated funds to the states; however,
the factors continued to favor cold-weather states through use of either heating degree days or
heating degree days squared.12
The first year that Congress specifically appropriated funds for direct assistance to help lowincome households (those at or below 125% of poverty) pay their energy costs (instead of funds
that went primarily for weatherization and conservation activities) was FY1977. The FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26) provided $200 million for a Special Crisis
Intervention Program to be administered by CSA. States could use funds to make direct payments
to fuel providers on behalf of low-income families lacking the financial resources to pay their
energy bills. The CSA directed states to target households where utilities had been shut off (or
were threatened with shut off) andor who could prove “dire financial need” as the result of paying
dire need due to large energy bills.13
Although the law did not reserve funds exclusively for heating costs, the way
in which funds
were allocated to the states emphasized heating need. Funds were distributed to
the states based
on a formula that used (1) heating degree days squared, (2) the number of
households in poverty,
(3) the number of persons above age 65 with incomes below 125% of
poverty, and (4) the relative
cost of fuel in the region. 14 Congress again appropriated $200 million for crisis intervention in
7
Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency
Energy Conservation Program,” Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 145, July 28, 1975, p. 31603.
8
See, for example, House Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-68, March 11, 1977: “The funds in this program are used primarily
to purchase materials to insulate the homes of low-income families.”
9
For example, if a southern state experiences 700 heating degree days in a year and a northern state experiences 7,000,
the northern state has 10 times as many heating degree days as the southern state. However, if both numbers are
squared, the northern state has 100 times as many heating degree days as the southern state.
10
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,”
Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
11
Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096Ibid.
12
See Ibid., pp. 47096-47097.
13
Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: General Information, Application
Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements,” Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 125, June 29, 1977, p. 33240.
14
The formula was described in the Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977. The CSA implemented this
formula, which it described in guidance to the states. See the Federal Register, Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
for crisis intervention in both FY1978 and FY1979.15 In FY1978, funds were available to
households with the need for
assistance as the result of an energy-related emergency such as lack
of fuel, a natural disaster, fuel
shortages, and widespread unemployment.16 In FY1979, funds
were made available to assist
families facing “substantially increased energy costs and/or life- or
health-threatening situations
caused by winter-related energy emergencies.”17
In FY1980, Congress appropriated a total of $1.6 billion for energy assistance. Of this amount,
$400 million was appropriated for the Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP, a CSA program
similar to the Special Crisis Intervention Program) through two separate appropriations.18 The
remainder, $1.2 billion, was appropriated as part of the FY1980 Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126) to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW, the
predecessor to HHS) for cash assistance and crisis intervention due to high energy costs. This
appropriation to HEW is sometimes referred to as Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances.
Of this $1.2 billion, $400 million was to be distributed specifically to recipients of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). The rest of the funds appropriated to HEW, approximately $800 million,
as well as the ECAP funds, were distributed to states on the basis of three factors: heating degree
days squared, the number of households below 125% of poverty, and the difference in home
heating energy expenditures between 1978 and 1979. The formula used to distribute the $400
million for SSI recipients used these same factors but also included the number of SSI recipients
in each state relative to the national total.
Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980
Emergency Energy
Conservation Program:a
FY1975
(P.L. 93-644)
(Heating degree days)2 * number
of homeowners in poverty
Special Crisis
Intervention Program:b
FY1977
(P.L. 95-26)
Low Income Supplemental Energy
Energy Allowances:c
FY1980
(P.L. 96-126)
(Heating degree days)2
½
(Heating degree days)2 * number of
households below 125% of poverty
Number of households in poverty
½
Difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and
1979(Heating degree days)2
(Heating degree days)2
Number of homeowners in
poverty
Number of households in poverty
Number of households below 125% of
poverty
Number of persons over age 65 with
income less than 125% of poverty
Difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and 1979
Relative cost of fuel
SourceSources: For the formula under P.L. 93-644, see Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy
Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,” Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p.
p. 47096. For the formula under P.L. 95-26, see Senate Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R.
4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977.
The formula for P.L. 96-126 is contained within the law.
15
Funds were appropriated through the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240) and in FY1979
through a continuing resolution (P.L. 95-482). In FY1978, Congress called the program Emergency Energy Assistance
Program and in FY1979 called it the Crisis Intervention Program (excluding the word “Special” from the title).
16
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Funding Requirements for
Emergency Energy Assistance Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 46, March 8, 1978, p. 9476.
17
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Fiscal Year 1979 Crisis
Intervention Program,” “Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 250, December 28, 1978, pp. 60466-60467.
18
Congress appropriated $250 million for ECAP as part of an FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-123, referencing
the FY1980 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 4389), and
appropriated an additional $150 million as part of the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126).
Congressional Research Service
4
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977.
The formula for P.L. 96-126 is contained within the law.
Note: * Multiplied by.
a.
Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the
formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree
days.
b.
The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to
determine allocations.
c.
Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980, $400 million was set aside for SSI
recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ heating degree days2 * number of households below
125% of poverty, ⅓ difference in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1979, and ⅓ SSI recipients
in each state relative to the national total.
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP)
a.
Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the
formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree
days. The formula involved multiplying heating degree days squared by the number of homeowners in
poverty to arrive at the percentage share for each state.
b.
The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to
determine allocations.
c.
The Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances arrived at states’ shares of funds through the formula ½
(heating degree days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ½ (difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and 1980). Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980,
$400 million was set aside for SSI recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ (heating degree
days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ⅓ (difference in home heating expenditures
between 1978 and 1979) + ⅓ (SSI recipients in each state relative to the national total).
The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula
In April 1980, Congress replaced the patchwork energy assistance programs of the late 1970s
with one program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). LIEAP, the direct
predecessor program to LIHEAP, was established as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The program was introduced in the Senate as the Home Energy
Assistance Act (S. 1724) and was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the bill that would become the
Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, on the Senate floor.19 Like the energy assistance programs of
the late 1970s such as the Special Crisis Intervention Program and the Low Income Supplemental
Energy Allowances, LIEAP allocated funds to states in order to help low-income households pay
their home energy costs. Also like these predecessor programs, LIEAP allocated funds to states
using a method that put more emphasis on the heating needs of cold-weather states than it did on
cooling needs.
During the 1970s, home energy costs had increased substantially while wages failed to keep up.
According to the report from the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources that
accompanied the Home Energy Assistance Act (S. 1724), between 1972 and 1979, heating oil
prices increased by 293%, natural gas prices by 155%, and electricity prices by 91%, while wages
grew by 59% during the same period.19 During 1978, low-income households spent an estimated
18.4% of their income, on average, to pay their utilities, with expenditures in New England by
low-income households exceeding 30% of income. 20 The Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources held numerous hearings about the need for energy assistance to address the
“dramatically rising cost of home heating.”21
The resulting formula in S. 1724 reflected, in part, the committee’s concern that the problem of
rising energy costs were “most critical in areas with high home heating costs.”22 Although
subsequent changes were made to the LIEAP formula in S. 1724 before it was enacted, the need
for heating assistance continued to be paramount. The formula developed under LIEAP has been
19
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 2.
20
Ibid., p. 3.
21
Also discussed at the hearings was “the need for some level of assistance to be provided to certain eligible
households, where excessive heat is a factor in threatening life and health.” Ibid., p. 5. This did not figure prominently
into the formula, however.
22
Ibid., p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
5
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
used to distribute LIHEAP funds as recently as FY2007, so the variables used are important in
understanding the current formula and the way in which it is used to distribute funds.
The LIEAP Formula
When the Home Energy Assistance Act (S. 1724) was introduced, it contained a formula that
would have distributed funds to the states on the basis of half on residential energy expenditures
and half on heating degree days (the heating degree day measure is described in the previous
section “Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs”). However, on the
Senate floor, the program formula was amended, resulting in a multi-part formula under which
states would receive funds.
Formula Under P.L. 96-223
Under the final LIEAP formula in P.L. 96-223, states received funds under one of four alternative
formulas used to measure home energy need, depending on which one benefitted a state the most.
Three of the four formulas contained different combinations of several factors: residential energy
expenditures; heating degree days or heating degree days squared; and the number of low-income
households in the state.
•
Under the first formula alternative, half of the allocation was based on residential
energy expenditures and half on heating degree days squared multiplied by the
number of households at or below the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) lower
living standard.23
•
Under the second formula alternative, one-quarter of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and three-quarters based on heating degree days
squared multiplied by the number of households at or below the BLS lower
living standard.
•
Under the third formula alternative, half of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and half based on heating degree days (not
squared) multiplied by the number of households with incomes at or below the
BLS lower living standard.
The fourth option guaranteed states a minimum benefit of $120 for each household that received
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Food Stamp benefits. (See Table 2 for a
breakdown of these formulas.)
All formulas in P.L. 96-223 effectively gave preference to states with colder climates due to the
variables used. As discussed earlier in this report, the heating degree day variable is a measure of
temperatures below 65° F and therefore favors cold-weather states. Squaring the heating degree
day variable magnifies the discrepancy between warm- and cold-weather states. In addition,
23
The formula developed under LIEAP continues to be relevant in several ways: (1) it has been
used to distribute LIHEAP funds as recently as FY2007, (2) the percentage shares of funds that
states received continue to be the benchmark for the way in which states are held harmless under
the current LIHEAP formula, and (3) from FY2009 through FY2012, Congress has distributed the
bulk of LIHEAP funds using the LIEAP formula percentages (for more information, see
Appendix C). As a result, the variables used are important in understanding the current formula
and the way in which it is used to distribute funds.
Ultimately, Congress developed the LIEAP formula through two different laws: P.L. 96-223, the
law that authorized LIEAP, and P.L. 96-369, a continuing resolution enacted six months later. The
following two subsections describe the elements of the formula developed through each.
Formula Under P.L. 96-223
The formula developed as part of S. 1724, and subsequently incorporated into P.L. 96-223,
reflected, in part, the concern that the problem of rising energy costs were “most critical in areas
with high home heating costs.”20 The formula for LIEAP arose from a Senate compromise over
three different proposals. The debate centered around the degree to which heating should be
19
“Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-32 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980)
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
20
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
5
The LIHEAP Formula
emphasized over energy expenditures generally. Some Members wanted a formula that accounted
for all energy uses and was not based solely on geographic location,21 while others saw the
program’s purpose as solely to provide heating assistance.22 The debate on the Senate floor was,
at times, contentious, with Senator Edmund Muskie (ME) resolved to filibuster in order to
support the heating needs of northern states.23 Primarily at issue was the measure of heating
degree days, particularly the extent to which they would be weighted and whether they would be
squared.
Under the final compromise LIEAP formula in P.L. 96-223, states received funds under one of
four different alternatives used to measure home energy need, depending on which one benefitted
a state the most. Three of the four options contained different combinations of several formula
factors: residential energy expenditures; heating degree days or heating degree days squared; and
the number of low-income households in the state.
•
Under the first formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 50% on heating degree days squared
multiplied by the number of households at or below the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) lower living standard.24
•
Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 75% based on heating degree days squared
multiplied by the number of households at or below the BLS lower living
standard.
•
Under the third formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 50% based on heating degree days (not
squared) multiplied by the number of households with incomes at or below the
BLS lower living standard.
•
The fourth option guaranteed states a minimum benefit of $120 for each
household that received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), SSI,
or Food Stamp benefits. The option was added to S. 1724 at the Finance
21
See, for example, Senator Russell Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol.
125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32278. “But the formula [as passed by the Senate Finance Committee] went a
long way toward considering the total household expense for energy, not just heating.”
22
Senator Rudy Boschwitz, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32290. “I refer back to the committee report, which talks about the intent of the act being to
‘offset high heating costs (and cooling where medically necessary) and that assistance not be a supplement of all
utilities and their use to run appliances, etc.’... It is very clear that it is the intent of the Senate to help keep people
warm.”
23
Senator Edmund Muskie, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32288. “I do not often do this. As a matter of fact, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I can
recall only one other time in which I have sought to use delay and extended debate to make a point and to achieve
justice. I am not a filibusterer. If I did not believe deeply about this, I would not be standing here.”
24
The BLS determined the lower living standard income level through its annual family budgets, which it maintained
from 1947 to 1981. At the time the LIEAP program was enacted, the BLS developed annual family budgets assuming
three different standards of living: lower, intermediate, and higher. The budget was calculated using costs of consumer
goods including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and health care (unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which
are based on the amount of money needed to buy food). The budget was then adjusted for family size and the prices of
goods in various cities throughout the country. See David S. Johnson, John M. Rogers, and Lucilla Tan, “A Century of
Family Budgets in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, 124, no. 5 (May 2001): 28-45.
Congressional Research Service
6
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
residential energy expenditures of all households (rather than energy expenditures of low-income
households only) are higher in cold-weather states because, on average, the proportion of poor
families in warm-weather states is higher than that in cold-weather states. However, the LIEAP
law did allow states to
Committee level in recognition of the fact that (in general) funds were not being
provided for cooling costs.25
(See Table 2 for a breakdown of these formulas.)
While the focus of the formula was on heating assistance, the LIEAP law did allow states to
provide for cooling when households could demonstrate medical
necessity.2426 Congress authorized
LIEAP for one year, FY1981, at $3 billion, but funds were not
appropriated as part of P.L. 96-22396223.
Formula Under P.L. 96-369
Before the formula in P.L. 96-223 could be used to allocate funds, Congress introduced an
alternative method for computing the state distribution rates. It did so when it appropriated $1.85
billion in LIEAP funds for FY1981 in a continuing resolution (P.L. 96-369), in October of 1980,
six months after enactment of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The new allocation method
was not described in P.L. 96-369, however. Instead, the continuing resolution referred to a House
Appropriations Committee report (H. Rept. 96-1244) accompanying another bill—the FY1981
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. It was in
this committee report that the specificadditional formula components for LIEAP were laid out.25 H. Rept.
96-1244 did little to erode the de facto cold-weather states preference enacted in the original
LIEAP formula.27 The
additional formula components appeared to be intended to act as a counter to the formula
developed in P.L. 96-223, which some argued benefitted warmer weather states more than was
necessary.28
The first step in the new set of formulas was to determine each state’s share of funds using two
calculations set out in H. Rept. 96-1244 and assign states the greater of the two amounts.
•
Under the first formula alternative, half50% of the allocation was based on the
increase in home heating expenditures, and half was based on the number of
heating degree days squared times the population with income less than or equal
to 125% of poverty.
•
Under the second formula alternative, one-quarter of the allocation was based on
total residential energy expenditures, and three-quarters was based on heating
degree days squared multiplied by the number of low-income households in the
50% was based on the number of
heating degree days squared times the population with income less than or equal
to 125% of poverty. This was the same formula used for the Low-Income
Supplemental Energy Allowances Program.
25
Senator Russell B. Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 15, 1979), p. 32561. “This language was evolved in the Finance Committee. When the majority of the
committee voted to exclude such items as air-conditioning and anything related to cooling a house and limited that
formula to heating, this Senator contended that, if that were to be the case, there should be at least a minimum on which
people could depend.”
26
According to the law, “The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of
cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards
established by the Secretary.”
27
House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp.
75-76.
28
See, for example, Representative David Obey, “Low Income Energy Assistance,” House debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), p. 23505. “Last year the Congress adopted a formula which, very frankly,
was unfair to the South. It provided a much larger amount of the money available than it should have to Northern
States. In response to that, Senator Long, on the windfall profit tax legislation, adopted an amendment which, for the
block grant portion of the program, provided phenomenal increases for the Southern States at the expense of the
Northern States.”
Congressional Research Service
7
The LIHEAP Formula
•
Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on total
residential energy expenditures, and 75% was based on heating degree days
squared multiplied by the number of low-income households in the state.
The greater of the two percentages calculated using the formula in H. Rept. 96-1244 was then
assigned to each state. After adjusting state allotments proportionately so that the total allocation
reached 100% of funds available, the second step in the amended formula was to compare these
state allotments to 75% of the amount each state would receive under the formula in P.L. 96-223.
States would then receive the greater of these two amounts. To see the percentage of funds that
each state received under the LIEAP formula, see Table 3, column (a).
Although the alternative formulas under H.Rept. 96-1244 used factors similar to those in P.L. 96223, the original set of formulas was slightlysomewhat more favorable to warm-weather states. For
example, the BLS lower living standard was higher than 125% of poverty for most household
24
According to the law, “The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of
cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards
established by the Secretary.”
25
House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp.
75-76.
Congressional Research Service
7
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
sizes, which , used in all of the P.L. 96-223 formulas but only one of
those in H.Rept. 96-1244, was higher than 125% of poverty for most household sizes, which
benefitted the South, where the low-income population was higher.2629 The original set
of formulas
in P.L. 96-223 also provided for a minimum benefit to states on the basis of the number of AFDC
,
SSI, and Food Stamp recipient households, unconditioned on their household heating
expenditures. In
addition, the inclusion of the increase in home heating expenditures in H. Rept.
96-1244
benefitted northeasternNortheastern states, where heating oil prices had increased substantially.2730
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP
P.L. 96-223
P.L. 96-369
Assign each state the option under which they receive the
the greatest proportion of funds. If Options 2 and 3
both result in
a greater proportion than Option 1,
assign the state the
lesser of Option 2 or 3.
Each state receives the greater of 75% of the amount
amount under P.L. 96-223 or Option 1 or Option
2 under P.L.
96-369.
Option 1:
Option 1:
½ Residential energy expenditures
½ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with
income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 2:
¼ Residential energy expenditures
¾ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with
income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 3:
½ Increase in home heating expenditures
from 1978-1980a
½ (Heating degree days)2 * Population with
income ≤ 125% of poverty
Option 2:
¼ Total residential energy expenditures
1980
¾ (Heating degree days)2 * Households
with income ≤ BLS lower living standard
½ Residential energy expenditures
½ Heating degree days * Households with
income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 4:
Funds sufficient for a minimum benefit of
$120 per AFDC- and/or Food Stamprecipient household
, SSI, and Food Stamprecipient household
29
“The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
30
H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be
measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.
Congressional Research Service
8
The LIHEAP Formula
Source: The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) and the House Appropriations Committee
Report to Accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980.
Notes: * Multiplied by.
≤ Less than or equal to.
a.
H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify which years would be used to determine residential energy expenditures;
1978 and 1980 were the years used by HHS.
Enactment of LIHEAP
In August 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 97-35, created LIHEAP, replacing
its predecessor, LIEAP. The new program was not substantially different from the previous
program. Some of the changes to the program included less restrictive federal rules and more
state flexibility in determining how to operate their LIHEAP programs. The program was
26
“The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
27
H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be
measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.
Congressional Research Service
8
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
authorized at $1.85 billion for FY1982-FY1984. In FY1982, Congress appropriated $1.875
billion for LIHEAP; in FY1983, it appropriated $1.975 billion; and in FY1984, $2.075 billion.
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula
When the formula for LIEAP was initially created in 1980 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits
Tax Act (P.L. 96-223), it brought about a good deal of debate on the floor of the Senate, where the
formula provisions were added to the legislation.2831 Discussion over the formula also occurred
leading up to the enactment of P.L. 96-369, the FY1981 continuing resolution that funded LIEAP
and amended the formula.2932 Despite these earlier disagreements over formula allocations, the
process to enact LIHEAP in 1981 did not engender the same level of debate or result in a different
formula. Instead, the law creating LIHEAP provided that the allotment percentages for each state
would remain the same as they had been in FY1981 under the LIEAP formula as amended by P.L.
96-369. From FY1982 through FY1984, then, states continued to receive the same proportionpercentage of
funds that they received under the LIEAP formula.
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula
Formula Discussions
When Congress began to consider reauthorizing LIHEAP in 1983, two aspects of the formula
were debated. First, some legislators recognized that the multi-step LIEAP formula benefitted coldweather states relative to warm-weather states.30 This was due to the heating degree day variable
and the fact that residential energy costs of all households (instead of just low-income
households) were used under the various LIEAP formulas. The second debated aspect of the
formula centered on the appropriateness and timeliness of the data used in formula calculations.
In 1983, the energy information used to calculate state allotments was not the most current data
available. 31
cold-weather states relative to warm-weather states.33 The second debated aspect of the formula
centered on the appropriateness and timeliness of the data used in formula calculations. In 1983,
the energy information used to calculate state allotments was not the most current data
31
See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 3208232086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565, and 32576-32589.
32
House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
33
See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, U.S. Congress, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees of the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, Energy Costs and Low Income
Energy Assistance, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.
Congressional Research Service
9
The LIHEAP Formula
available.34 For example, the most recent data the formula used were the change in the cost of
energy between 1978 and 1980, or the cost of energy in 1980, depending on the sub-formula one
chose to apply. No aspect of the formula took account of increased costs after 1980.3235
Legislative sentiment in favor of changing the formula was evident, when, in September 1983,
the House adopted an amendment to the Emergency Immigration Education Act (H.R. 3520) that
would have adjusted the LIHEAP formula and resulted in a change in allocations to the states.
The amendment’s formula took into account the energy expenditures of poor families, which,
according to the amendment’s sponsor, Representative Carlos Moorhead (California), would
result in lower percentage allocations for 23 states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, gains
28
See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 3208232086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565.
29
House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
30
See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees on Energy and
Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.
31
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
32
Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
9
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
for 27, primarily in the South, and the same allocation for one state. 3336 The amendment was
eventually dropped from H.R. 3520 in conference with the Senate.
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level
Efforts to reauthorize LIHEAP had begunbegan in April 1983 with the introduction of the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 2439). The bill was referred to two
committees: Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce. Within the Energy and Commerce
committee, two subcommittees held mark-ups: Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy
Conservation and Power.
As introduced, H.R. 2439 did not contain changes to the LIHEAP formula. The Subcommittees
on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy Conservation and Power worked together to arrive at a
formula change, which had the effect of shifting funds from states in the Northeast to the South
and West. Unlike the previous set of formulas developed under LIEAP, the new formula directed
the Department of Health and Human Services to determine states’ allotments “using data relating
to the most recent year for which data is available.” Because the cost of heating oil remained
steady between 1981 and 1983, and the price of natural gas rose 33%, this meant that states in the
Northeast—where heating oil was the primary source of energy—would lose LIHEAP dollars,
while states in the South and the Midwest would gain under this provision.3437 In addition,
population growth in the South (as well as its higher poverty rates) meant that southern states
would benefit from the use of more recent population data.
To offset the losses to certain states resulting from the use of current data, H.R. 2439 also
included a hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless level; this provision ensured that if
appropriations were less than or equal to $1.875 billion, states would receive no less than their
allotment would have been under the old formula at this appropriations level. The bill
additionally increased the LIHEAP authorization level to $2.075 billion for FY1984, $2.26 billion
for FY1985, $2.5 billion in FY1986, $2.625 billion for FY1987, and $2.8 billion for FY1988.
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate
After the House34
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee reportedto accompany H.R. 2439 to the House floor—but
before the full House could act on the bill—the Senate passed its version of LIHEAP
reauthorization as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (S. 2565) on October 4,
1984.35 The Senate bill contained language very similar to H.R. 2439, but made several changes
and additions to the formula.
•
S. 2565 specified that states’ shares of LIHEAP funds would be based on the
home energy expenditures of low-income households, not on expenditures of all
households.
33
, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
35
Ibid., p. 4.
36
Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 17 (September 13, 1983), p. 23877. The greatest increases in percentage
allocations were for Florida at 51%, Texas at 44%, and Alabama at 37%. The states whose percentage allocations
decreased the most were Vermont at 32%, North Dakota at 24%, and New Hampshire at 23%.
3437
“The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 9.
35
The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p.
S13393.
Congressional Research Service
10
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Congressional Research Service
10
The LIHEAP Formula
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate
After the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported H.R. 2439 to the House floor—but
before the full House could act on the bill—the Senate passed its version of LIHEAP
reauthorization as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (S. 2565) on October 4,
1984.38 The Senate bill contained language very similar to H.R. 2439, but made several changes
and additions to the formula.
•
S. 2565 specified that states’ shares of LIHEAP funds would be based on the
home energy expenditures of low-income households, not on expenditures of all
households.
•
The hold-harmless level was altered. S. 2565 directed that no state in FY1985
would receive fewer fundsless funding than it received in FY1984, and for FY1986 and
thereafter, no state would receive less than the amount they would have received
in FY1984 if the appropriations level had been $1.975 billion.
•
A second hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless rate, was created. The
provision maintained the percentage allocated rather than a total funding level
allocated to each affected state.
The hold-harmless rate provision guaranteed that certain states would receive increased
allotments when appropriations reached $2.25 billion. States would qualify for this increase if
their total allotment percentage at an appropriation of $2.25 billion were less than 1%. These
states would instead receive the allotment rate they would have received at an appropriation of
$2.14 billion if that allotment rate were higher than the rate at $2.25 billion. In itstheir debate about S.
S. 2565, Senators referred to the hold-harmless rate as the “small States hold harmless,” as the intent
intent was to protect the small (population) states’ shares of LIHEAP funds.36 Otherwise, these states’
percentage shares of LIHEAP funds might decline, even as total appropriations increased. No rate
protection was guaranteed for more populous states beyond the aforementioned hold-harmless
level39 Otherwise, the
concern was that appropriations might have to increase significantly before small state allotments
would increase above their hold-harmless levels, with the states’ percentage shares of funds
declining even as total appropriations increased.
The Senate bill also included different authorization amounts for LIHEAP, $2.14 billion for
FY1985 and $2.275 billion for FY1986. After S. 2565 passed the Senate, the House debated and
passed the bill on October 9, 1984, retaining all the provisions included in the Senate version. The
bill became P.L. 98-558, the Human Services Reauthorization Act, on October 30, 1984.
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language
Unlike the allocation formulas under LIEAP and the other energy assistance programs that
preceded LIHEAP, which dictated the use of specific variables to determine allotments to the
states, the LIHEAP formula as drafted by Congress gives more general guidance to HHS. The
LIHEAP statute, as enacted in P.L. 98-558 and codified at 42 U.S.C. §Section 8623(a)(2) provides as
follows.
as follows.
38
The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p.
S13393.
39
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.
Congressional Research Service
11
The LIHEAP Formula
(A) a State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by
low-income households in that State bears to such expenditures in all States, except that
States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments by reason of the
application of this paragraph from the amount they received pursuant to P.L. 98-139 [the
FY1984 appropriation] shall have their allotments reduced to the extent necessary to ensure
that—
(i) no State for fiscal year 1985 shall receive less than the amount of funds the State
received in fiscal year 1984; and
(ii) no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this
subchapter for fiscal year 1984 had been $1,975,000,000, and
(B) any State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total
appropriation of $2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when
36
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.
Congressional Research Service
11
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
total appropriations equal or exceed $2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced
from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation of $2,140,000,000.
The next section of this report describes how funds are allocated to the states according to this
statutory language.
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments
Using the “New” Formula
Current law as enacted in P.L. 98-558, sometimes referred to as the “new” LIHEAP formula,
provides for three different methods to calculate each state’s allotment of regular LIHEAP funds.
The calculation method used to determine state allotments depends upon the size of the
appropriation for that fiscal year.
•
If the annual appropriation level does not exceedis at or below the equivalent
of a hypothetical
FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, then the allocation ratespercentages under the
“old”
LIHEAP formula apply. This is sometimes referred to as “Tier I” of the LIHEAP formula. If
•
If appropriations exceed a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion,
then new formula
rates percentages apply and are used to calculate state allotments. To
calculate the new formula rates, the most
percentages, HHS uses the most recent data available are used
to determine the heating and cooling costs of low-income
households. When
appropriations exceed the $1.975 billion level, but are less than $2.25 billion,
the the
new formula ratespercentages are used together with the hold-harmless level. This is sometimes referred
to as “Tier II” of the LIHEAP formula.
•
Finally, if appropriations equal or exceed $2.25 billion,
the new rates percentages
apply and both the hold-harmless level together with the hold-harmless rate are in
effect. This is sometimes referred to as “Tier III” of the LIHEAP formula.
This section describes
the steps involved in allocating LIHEAP funds to the states under the three tiers of the formula.each of
the appropriations triggers.
Congressional Research Service
12
The LIHEAP Formula
Calculating the New Formula Rates
As mentioned previously, when Congress considered a new formula for distributing LIHEAP
funds in 1983 and 1984, one of its concerns was the appropriateness and timeliness of the data
used in formula calculations. At the time, the energy information used to calculate state
allotments under the LIEAP formula did not use the most current data available. 37 For example,
the formula used the change in cost of energy between 1978 and 1980, but did not take account of
increased costs after 1980.40 In fact, the
formula factorsallocations were fixed ratespercentages, and the LIHEAP statute at
that time had no provision
for allowing newer information to be incorporated into the
determination of state allotments. For
example, the formula used the change in cost of energy between 1978 and 1980, but did not take
account of increased costs after 1980. The LIHEAP formula as created by P.L. 98-558 requires HHS
HHS to use the most recent data available. HHS updates these data periodically. The most recent data
data were provided to CRS in June 2010September 2013.
As directed by the statute as enacted in 1984, the LIHEAP formula uses the home energy
expenditures of low-income households in each state as a first step in determining the proportion
of total regular funds that each state will receive. 38 Specifically, this means estimating the amount
37
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
38
“[A] State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households
in that State bears to such expenditures in all States.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
Congressional Research Service
12
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
41 Specifically, this means estimating the amount
of money that all low-income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute39)statute)42 in each state
spend on heating and cooling from all energy sources. This method accounts for variations in
heating and cooling needs of the states, the types of energy used, energy prices, and the lowincome population and their heating and cooling methods. The process for capturing the
expenditures of low-income households for the most current year possible involves the following
steps.
•
Total Residential Energy Consumption. The first step in calculating new
formula rates is determining total residential energy consumption for each
heating and cooling source in every state. Residential energy consumption is
usually measured in terms of the total amount of British Thermal Units (Btus)
used in private households and generally captures energy used for space and
water heating, cooling, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and the energy needed to
operate appliances. The most recent data used in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates come from the 20072011 Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy
Data System consumption estimates.
•
Temperature Variation. The next step in determining the formula rates involves
adjusting the amount of energy consumed for each fuel source by temperature
variation in each state. This is done by using a ratio consisting of the 30-year
average heating and cooling degree day data to each state’s share of the most
recent year’s average heating and cooling degree days. A heating degree day
measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature falls below 65°F and a
cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature
rises above 65°F.4043 For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°F
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days; a day with an average temperature
40
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
41
“[A] State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households
in that State bears to such expenditures in all States.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
42
The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income
(whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
43
A state’s heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.
Congressional Research Service
13
The LIHEAP Formula
of 80°F results in a measure of 15 cooling degree days. The purpose of the
adjustment to fuel consumption is to account for abnormally warm or cool years,
where energy usage might attain extreme values. This information is collected by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The most recent year’s
average heating and cooling degree day data are from 20072011, and the 30-year
average was computed from 1971 to 2000.
44
45
•
Heating and Cooling Consumption. As mentioned above, total residential
energy consumption encompasses other uses in addition to heating and cooling
(e.g., operation of appliances). So the next step in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates is to derive the portion of fuel consumed specifically to heat and cool homes
as opposed to other uses. The EIA, as part of the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS), uses an “end use estimation methodology” to
estimate the amount of fuel used for heating and cooling (among other uses). The
most recent information on heating and cooling consumption comes from the
2005 RECS.4144 HHS adjusts the EIA heating and cooling consumption estimates
using HDD and CDDheating degree day and cooling degree day data.
•
Low-Income Household Heating and Cooling Consumption. After estimating
heating and cooling consumption for all households, the next step is to calculate
39
The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income
(whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
40
A state’s heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.
41
For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
Congressional Research Service
13
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
heating and cooling consumption in Btus for low-income households. HHS uses
Census data to determine fuel sources used by low-income households. The most
recent information on low-income households and the fuel sources they use
comes from the American Community Survey three-year estimates for 2005200720092011. In addition, low-income consumption data are adjusted to account for the
fact that low-income households might use more or less of a fuel source than is
used by households on average. This is done using consumption data from the
2005 RECS.
•
Total Spending on Heating and Cooling. To arrive at the amount of money that
low-income households spend on heating and cooling, the number of Btus used
by low-income households that were estimated in the previous step are multiplied
by the average fuel price for each fuel source. The total amount spent on heating
and cooling by low-income households for each fuel source is then added
together to arrive at total spending for each state. Regional energy price variation
can be significant, and the formula takes expected expenditure differences into
account. This information is collected by the EIA and published in the State
Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates.4245 The most
recent price data used to calculate formula rates are from 20072011.
•
New Formula RatePercentage. Finally, these expenditure data are used to estimate the
the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in each state
relative to the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in
all states. The calculated proportion becomes the new formula percentage, or
rate, for for
each state. Table 3 at the end of this section shows both the ratespercentages under
the “old” formula (column (a)) and the most recent “new” formula rates percentages
(column
(b)), received by CRS from HHS in June 2010September 2013. To see how the
formula rates for
each state have changed in recent years, see Table 4 (it follows Table 3).
These new formula rates.
For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
The EIA’s state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
The LIHEAP Formula
These new formula percentages are used to allocate LIHEAP funds to the states if the annual
appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
However, these new formula ratesthey do not represent the exact proportionpercentage of funds that states will
receive under the
new formula. The ultimate allotments are determined after application of the
both the hold-harmless
level and hold-harmless rate, described in the next section. The new rates
percentages are the starting
point for determining how funds will be allocated to the states.
Using the New Formula RatesPercentages to Allocate Funds to the States
The LIHEAP new formula ratespercentages that HHS calculates using the most current data available
do not
necessarily represent the proportionpercentage of funds that states will receive. State allotments depend
depend upon the application of the two hold-harmless provisions in the LIHEAP statute. Some states
states must have their share of funds ratably reduced in order to hold harmless those states that
would,
but for the hold-harmless provisions, lose funds. Other states see a gain in their share of funds
funds because they benefit from the hold-harmless provisions. The application of the hold-harmless
holdharmless provisions depends upon the size of the appropriation for a given fiscal year. These appropriation
level triggers are described below.
42
The EIA’s state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Tier I: Below $1.975 Billion
Current law requires that for fiscal years in which the regular LIHEAP fund appropriation is
equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion or less, states receive the
same percentage of funds that they would have received at that appropriation level under the
“old” LIHEAP formula.43 This FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion referred to in the LIHEAP
statute is hypothetical because this was not the amount actually appropriated in FY1984. The
actual FY1984 appropriation was $2.075 billion. In addition, the current year appropriation that is
“equivalent to” a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is not exactly $1.975
billion. In FY1984, with the exception of funds provided to the territories, all LIHEAP regular
funds were distributed to the states. Since then, two other funds have become part of the regular
fund distribution. These are funds for training and technical assistance and for the leveraging
incentive grants (which includes REACH grants) to the states. This means that an appropriation
that is equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion must account for these
new funds. Assuming that funds for leveraging incentive/REACH grants is $27 million and
training and technical assistance is $300,000 (the amounts allocated to these funds in FY2010),
then the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is approximately $2.0023
billion.44
The LIHEAP formula in FY1984 distributed funds by giving states the same share of funds that
they received in FY1981 under the predecessor program, the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIEAP). Table 3, at the end of this section of the report, shows rates under the old
formula in column (a). For example, at an appropriation at or below the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, Alabama would receive 0.86% of total
funds, Alaska would receive 0.55% of total funds, and so on. Table A-1, column (a) reports the
dollar amount of funds that each state would have received in FY1984 had the regular fund
appropriation been $1.975 billion.
Tier II: From $1.975 Billion up to
appropriation level triggers are described below.
“Old” Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion
The LIHEAP statute does not contain an explicit trigger for the “new” formula rates to be used.
However, the statute specifies that states must receive no less than “the amount of funds the State
would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this subchapter for fiscal year
1984 had been $1,975,000,000.” As a result, up to this appropriation level, states receive the same
percentage of funds that they would have received at a given appropriation level under the “old”
LIHEAP formula.46
The FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion referred to in the LIHEAP statute is hypothetical
because this was not the amount actually appropriated in FY1984. The actual FY1984
appropriation was $2.075 billion. In addition, the current year appropriation that is “equivalent
to” a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is not exactly $1.975 billion. In
FY1984, with the exception of funds provided to the territories, all LIHEAP regular funds were
distributed to the states. Since then, two other funds have become part of the regular fund
distribution. These are funds for training and technical assistance and for the leveraging incentive
grants (which includes REACH grants) to the states. This means that an appropriation that is
equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion must account for these new
funds. Assuming that funds for leveraging incentive/REACH grants would be $27 million and
training and technical assistance would be $3 million (amounts that have typically been set aside
in the appropriation), then the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is
approximately $2.005 billion.47
46
When appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law’s
hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress
for FY1987, p. 133.
47
This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $3 million to $1.975 billion.
Congressional Research Service
15
The LIHEAP Formula
The LIHEAP formula in FY1984 distributed funds by giving states the same percentage of funds
that they received in FY1981 under the predecessor program, the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIEAP). Table 3 (later, following the “Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP
Formula” section), shows rates under the old formula in column (a). For example, at an
appropriation at or below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975
billion, Alabama would receive 0.86% of total funds, Alaska would receive 0.55% of total funds,
and so on. Table A-1, column (a) reports the dollar amount of funds that each state would have
received in FY1984 had the regular fund appropriation been $1.975 billion. For comparison
purposes, the dollar amounts also assume that funds for the territories would be 0.5% of the total,
a change made by HHS beginning with the FY2014 appropriation.48
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
Billion and $2.25 Billion
If the regular LIHEAP appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984
appropriation of $1.975 billion for the fiscal year, all funds are to be distributed under a different
methodology, using the new set of ratespercentages described earlier. In addition, a hold-harmless level
level applies to ensure that certain states do not fall below the amount of funds they would have
received at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion. Table 3, at
the end of this section,
Table 3 shows whether a state benefits from the hold-harmless level. This is
indicated by a “Y” in
column (c), while the dollar amount of funds those states receive by being
held harmless appears
in column (d). For example, Alabama is not held harmless, while Alaska is
Colorado is held harmless. The
dollar amount of funds that AlaskaColorado receives pursuant to the hold-harmless
level is $10.828 31.613
million. But for the hold-harmless level, AlaskaColorado would receive less than this
dollar amount at
its new formula rate at certain appropriation levels. Eventually, when
43
It is important to understand, however, that although the new formula rates are always applied to all appropriations,
when appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law’s
hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress
for FY1987, p. 133.
44
This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $300,000 to $1.975 billion.
Congressional Research Service
15
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
appropriations increase sufficiently, the allotments for states that are held harmless will exceed
their hold harmless amounts. This appropriation level varies for each state.
The hold-harmless level is achieved by reducing the allocation of funds to those states with the
greatest proportional gains under the new formula rates.45 For example, under the most recent
LIHEAP formula rates, states with the greatest proportional gains were Florida, Texas, and
Nevadapercentage at certain appropriation levels. Eventually, when appropriations
increase sufficiently, the percentage of funds under the “new” formula for hold-harmless states
will exceed their hold harmless amounts and they will begin to receive their “new” percentage of
funds. This appropriation level varies for each state. For example, at lower appropriation levels,
the $31.613 million hold-harmless level for Colorado exceeds the state’s “new” percentage share
of 1.267% of total funds. However, at an appropriation of just over $2.5 billion, Colorado’s new
percentage share exceeds $31.613 million and the state begins to receive funds at the “new”
percentage. Eventually, many states will receive the percentage of funds at their “new”
percentage.49
The hold-harmless level is achieved by reducing the allocation of funds to states with the greatest
proportional gains under the new formula percentages.50 For example, under the most recent
LIHEAP formula percentages, states with the greatest proportional gains were Florida, Arizona,
and Texas. Depending on the appropriation level, these states (and others with the greatest gains)
may then have their allotments reduced to hold harmless those states that would otherwise see
the states that would otherwise see
48
HHS Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Dear Colleague Notice
Allocation for Territories FY2014, November 22, 2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheapallocation-for-territories-fy-2014.
49
The exceptions to this are states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate, described in the next section, and the states
that are ratably reduced in order to compensate states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate.
50
“States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced
to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Congressional Research Service
16
The LIHEAP Formula
reduced benefits. So although these states with the greatest proportional gains will see their
LIHEAP allotments increase under the new formula, their allotments may not increase to reach
their new formula rates (column (b) of Table 3).
Columns (b) and (c) of Table A-1 show estimated allotments to the states at hypothetical
appropriations levels under Tier II of the LIHEAP formulabetween $1.975 billion and $2.25 billion. Column (b) shows the estimated
allotment of funds that each state would receive when the regular fund appropriation is at $2.14
billion and column (c) shows the estimated allotment of funds when the regular fund
appropriation is just under $2.25 billion ($2,249,999,999).
Tier III: At or “New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or
Above $2.25 Billion
The LIHEAP statute stipulates additional requirements in the method for distributing funds when
the appropriation is at or above $2.25 billion. At this level, all of the provisions specified in the
Tier II allocation methodology are in place, including the change in the formula factors and the
hold-harmless level. Inthe hold-harmless level still applies,
but, in addition, a new hold-harmless rate is applied. That isSpecifically, for all appropriation
levels at or
above $2.25 billion, states that would have received less than 1% of a total $2.25
billion billion
appropriation must be allocated the percentage they would have received at a $2.14 billion
appropriation level. 4651 (This assumes the percentage at $2.14 billion is greater than the percentage
originally calculated at the hypothetical $2.25 billion appropriation; this is not true for all states
that receive less than 1% of the $2.25 billion appropriation.) Then that state will receive the $2.14
billion allotment proportion
percentage share of funds it would have received at $2.14 billion for all appropriation levels at or
above $2.25 billion. This holdharmlesshold-harmless rate ensures a state specific share of the total available
funds.
As with the Tier II fundinghold-harmless level, the allocations to the states with the greatest proportional gains
are then ratably reduced again, using the methodology described in the Tier II discussion, until
until there is no funding shortfall. Column (e) of Table 3 shows
which states benefit from the holdharmlesshold-harmless rate, indicated by a “Y,” while column (f) shows the
proportion of funds that those states
receive. For example, AlaskaIdaho benefits from the hold-harmless
rate and receives 0.513587% of the
total appropriation when appropriations are at or above $2.25
billion.
The application of the hold-harmless rate creates another layer of discontinuity in the allocation
rates. States that are ratably reduced see their allocations at $2.25 billion fall below the amount
they would receive at $2.249 billion, while states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate see
their funding jump up slightly. Columns (d) through (h) of Table A-1 in Appendix A show estimated allotments to states
45
“States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced
to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).
46
estimated allotments to states at various hypothetical appropriations levels at or above $2.25
billion. Column (d) shows the estimated allotment of funds that each state receives when the
regular appropriation is at $2.25 billion after the hold-harmless rate is applied. Columns (e)
through (h) show the estimated allotment each state would receive at $2.5 billion, $3.0 billion,
$4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion.
51
“[A]ny State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total appropriation of
$2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when total appropriations equal or exceed
$2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation
of $2,140,000,000.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(B).
Congressional Research Service
16
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
at various hypothetical appropriations levels above at or above $2.25 billion. Column (d) shows
the estimated allotment of funds that each state receives when the regular appropriation is at
$2.25 billion after the hold-harmless rate is applied. Columns (e) through (h) show the estimated
allotment each state would receive at $2.5 billion, $3.0 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion.17
The LIHEAP Formula
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula
Until FY2006, appropriations for regular LIHEAP funds had only exceeded the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion in 1985 and 1986; thereforethereafter, from FY1987
through FY2005, and again in FY2007, states continued to receive the same percentage of
LIHEAP funds that they received under the program’s predecessor, LIEAP (see column (a) of
Table 3 for these proportionspercentages). In FY2006, funds were distributed under the “new” LIHEAP
formula when Congress appropriated $2.48 billion in regular funds for the program. In FY2008,
perhaps due to an oversight, the new formula was again used to distribute funds. The FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) failed to authorize a set-aside called leveraging
incentive grants. As a result, the funds for those grants were added to the LIHEAP regular funds,
triggering the new formula.4752 In FY2009, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329) appropriated $4.51 billion in regular funds.
However, the law further specified that $840 million be distributed according to the “new”
LIHEAP formula, with the remaining $3.67 billion distributed according to the proportionspercentages of the
“old” formula established by LIEAP. For FY2010, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117), Congress appropriated the same amount of regular funds as in FY2009 with the
same divisionFrom FY2010 to FY2014, Congress has continued to
appropriate funds using a version of a split between the “old” and “new” formulas. See Table C-1
in Appendix C of this
report for the distribution of funds to the states in FY2006 through FY2010from FY2008 through
FY2014.
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP):
“Old” and “New” Allotment RatesPercentages by State, 2010FY2014
Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
“Old”
Allotment
Rate Percentage
(%)
(a)
“New”
Allotment
Rate (%)
(b)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Level?
(c)
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Rate?
(e)
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(fPercentage
(%)
(b)
State Held
Harmless?
(c)
Alabama
0.860
1.599%686
N
—
N
—
Alaska
0.549
0.511
Y
10.828
Y
0.513563
N
—
N
—
Arizona
0.416
1.098379
N
—
N
—
Arkansas
0.656
0.852876
N
—
N
—
California
4.614
4.453
Y
91.001536
Y
90.669
N
—
Colorado
1.609
1.247270
Y
31.729613
N
—
Connecticut
2.099
2.239371
N
—
N
—
Delaware
0.279
0.373427
N
—
N
—
District of
Columbia
0.326
0.192149
Y
6.428405
Y
0.305
State
47Florida
1.361
5.201
N
—
N
—
Georgia
1.076
3.166
N
—
N
—
Hawaii
0.108
0.230
N
—
N
—
Idaho
0.628
0.371
Y
12.331
Y
0.587
State
52
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
Hold-Harmless Rate
State Held
Harmless?
(e)
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)
For more information about this issue, see Appendix C of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1718
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
Hold-Harmless Levela
“Old”
Allotment
Rate Percentage
(%)
(a)
“New”
Allotment
Rate (%)
(b)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Level?
(c)
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Rate?
(e)
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)
Florida
1.361
4.583
N
—
N
—
Georgia
1.076
2.641
N
—
N
—
Hawaii
0.108
0.150
N
—
N
—
Idaho
0.628
0.349
Y
12.376
Y
0.587
Illinois
5.809
5.014
Y
114.565
N
—
Indiana
2.630
2.080
Y
51.872
N
—
Iowa
1.864
1.099
Y
36.762
N
—
Kansas
0.856
0.993
N
—
N
—
Kentucky
1.369
1.256
Y
26.994
N
—
Louisiana
0.879
1.365
N
—
N
—
Maine
1.360
1.090
Y
26.815
N
—
Maryland
1.607
2.080
N
—
N
—
Massachusetts
4.198
3.718
Y
82.797
N
—
Michigan
5.515
4.819
Y
108.770
N
—
Minnesota
3.973
2.025
Y
78.363
N
—
Mississippi
0.737
0.940
N
—
N
—
Missouri
2.320
2.011
Y
45.762
N
—
Montana
0.736
0.287
Y
14.517
Y
0.688
Nebraska
0.922
0.553
Y
18.180
Y
0.862
Nevada
0.195
0.526
N
—
N
—
New
Hampshire
0.795
0.605
Y
15.672
Y
0.743
New Jersey
3.897
4.105
N
—
N
—
New Mexico
0.521
0.441
Y
10.270
Y
0.487
12.725
10.018
Y
250.974
N
—
North
Carolina
1.896
2.823
N
—
N
—
North Dakota
0.800
0.256
Y
15.770
Y
0.747
Ohio
5.139
4.941
Y
101.350
N
—
Oklahoma
0.791
1.224
N
—
N
—
Oregon
1.247
0.702
Y
24.591
N
—
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.885
Y
134.810
N
—
Rhode Island
0.691
0.615
Y
13.629
Y
0.646
South Carolina
0.683
1.260
N
—
N
—
State
New York
Congressional Research Service
18
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
State
“Old”
Allotment
Rate (%)
(a)
“New”
Allotment
Rate (%)
(b)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Level?
(c)
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
Subject to
HoldHarmless
Rate?
(e)
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)
South Dakota
0.649
0.253
Y
12.808
Y
0.607
Tennessee
1.386
1.717
N
—
N
—
Texas
2.264
7.349
N
—
N
—
Utah
0.748
0.508
Y
14.745
Y
0.699
Vermont
0.596
0.419
Y
11.747
Y
0.557
Virginia
1.957
2.486
N
—
N
—
Washington
2.051
1.245
Y
40.450
N
—
West Virginia
0.906
0.639
Y
17.864
Y
0.847
Wisconsin
3.576
2.236
Y
70.538
N
—
Wyoming
0.299
0.129
Y
5.903
Y
0.280
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in June 2010.
Note: The actual proportion of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion may
differ substantially from the calculated new formula rate due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable
reductionsPercentage
(%)
(b)
Illinois
5.809
Indiana
Hold-Harmless Rate
State Held
Harmless?
(c)
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
State Held
Harmless?
(e)
4.510
Y
114.147
N
—
2.630
1.934
Y
51.683
N
—
Iowa
1.864
1.065
Y
36.628
N
—
Kansas
0.856
0.945
N
—
N
—
Kentucky
1.369
1.457
N
—
N
—
Louisiana
0.879
1.387
N
—
N
—
Maine
1.360
1.041
Y
26.717
N
—
Maryland
1.607
2.193
N
—
N
—
Massachusetts
4.198
4.138
Y
82.495
N
—
Michigan
5.515
4.681
Y
108.373
N
—
Minnesota
3.973
1.921
Y
78.076
N
—
Mississippi
0.737
0.953
N
—
N
—
Missouri
2.320
2.021
Y
45.595
N
—
Montana
0.736
0.314
Y
14.464
Y
0.689
Nebraska
0.922
0.561
Y
18.114
Y
0.863
Nevada
0.195
0.537
N
—
N
—
New
Hampshire
0.795
0.731
Y
15.615
Y
0.744
New Jersey
3.897
3.620
Y
76.584
N
—
New Mexico
0.521
0.394
Y
10.233
Y
0.487
12.725
9.318
Y
250.058
N
—
North
Carolina
1.896
2.891
N
—
N
—
North Dakota
0.800
0.254
Y
15.712
Y
0.748
Ohio
5.139
4.368
Y
100.980
N
—
Oklahoma
0.791
1.219
N
—
N
—
Oregon
1.247
0.781
Y
24.502
N
—
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.720
Y
134.318
N
—
Rhode Island
0.691
0.712
N
—
N
—
South
Carolina
0.683
1.403
N
—
N
—
South Dakota
0.649
0.240
Y
12.761
Y
0.608
Tennessee
1.386
1.848
N
—
N
—
Texas
2.264
6.942
N
—
N
—
State
New York
Congressional Research Service
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)
19
The LIHEAP Formula
Hold-Harmless Levela
“Old”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(a)
“New”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(b)
Utah
0.748
Vermont
Hold-Harmless Rate
State Held
Harmless?
(c)
HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)
State Held
Harmless?
(e)
0.494
Y
14.691
Y
0.700
0.596
0.425
Y
11.704
Y
0.557
Virginia
1.957
2.607
N
—
N
—
Washington
2.051
1.305
Y
40.302
N
—
West Virginia
0.906
0.631
Y
17.799
Y
0.848
Wisconsin
3.576
2.054
Y
70.280
N
—
Wyoming
0.299
0.160
Y
5.882
Y
0.280
State
HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)
Source: New allotment percentages were provided to CRS by HHS in September 2013. Information in columns
(c) through (f) are based on CRS calculations using the new allotment percentages. The calculations assume that
funding would be provided for leveraging incentive/REACH grants, training and technical assistance, and 0.5% for
the territories.
Notes: The actual percentage of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion
may differ from the new formula percentages due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable reductions of
some states to cover shortfall from these hold-harmless provisions.
a.
The states that benefit from the hold-harmless level vary depending on the amount appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds. The states listed here benefit from the hold-harmless level when appropriations just
exceed the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
Congressional Research Service
19
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Table 4. Recent State Allotment RatesPercentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula
Dates based on years in which CRS received data from HHS
States
“Old”
Formula
Rates
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
Alabama
0.860%
1.722%
1.932%
1.650%
1.582%
1.599%
Alaska
0.549
0.372
0.376
0.317
0.575
0.511
Arizona
0.416
0.838
0.992
0.813
1.018
1.098
Arkansas
0.656
0.929
1.082
0.910
0.884
0.852
California
4.614
6.255
5.690
5.303
4.479
4.453
Colorado
1.609
1.148
1.280
1.305
1.333
1.247
Connecticut
2.099
1.952
1.732
2.164
2.205
2.239
Delaware
0.279
0.432
0.435
0.453
0.375
0.373
District of
Columbia
0.326
0.321
0.309
0.328
0.181
0.192
Florida
1.361
3.583
4.187
3.781
4.728
4.583
Georgia
1.076
2.445
2.829
2.734
2.620
2.641
Hawaii
0.108
0.104
0.101
0.099
0.150
0.150
Idaho
0.628
0.330
0.386
0.331
0.396
0.349
Illinois
5.809
5.960
4.796
4.998
4.843
5.014
Indiana
2.630
2.204
2.209
2.128
2.147
2.080
Iowa
1.864
1.200
1.085
1.064
1.028
1.099
Kansas
0.856
1.094
1.105
1.106
0.978
0.993
Kentucky
1.369
1.811
1.688
1.621
1.243
1.256
Louisiana
0.879
1.679
1.704
1.514
1.324
1.365
Maine
1.360
0.929
0.722
0.908
1.127
1.090
Maryland
1.607
2.699
2.421
2.652
1.965
2.080
Massachusetts
4.198
3.117
3.043
3.311
3.757
3.718
Michigan
5.515
3.940
4.651
4.645
5.040
4.819
Minnesota
3.973
1.782
1.789
1.917
2.023
2.025
Mississippi
0.737
1.538
1.105
0.951
0.974
0.940
Missouri
2.320
2.431
2.497
2.309
2.014
2.011
Montana
0.736
0.392
0.414
0.441
0.295
0.287
Nebraska
0.922
0.539
0.598
0.558
0.547
0.553
Nevada
0.195
0.465
0.686
0.576
0.500
0.526
New
Hampshire
0.795
0.543
0.453
0.503
0.612
0.605
New Jersey
3.897
3.166
2.838
3.621
3.995
4.105
New Mexico
0.521
0.486
0.628
0.577
0.458
0.441
New York
12.725
9.313
8.491
9.393
9.520
10.018
Congressional Research Service
20
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
“Old”
Formula
Rates
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
North Carolina
1.896
3.247
3.186
3.261
2.766
2.823
North Dakota
0.800
0.209
0.235
0.273
0.246
0.256
Ohio
5.139
4.992
4.512
4.803
4.893
4.941
Oklahoma
0.791
1.275
1.452
1.275
1.236
1.224
Oregon
1.247
0.839
1.008
0.750
0.715
0.702
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.380
5.174
5.731
5.993
5.885
Rhode Island
0.691
0.612
0.596
0.665
0.635
0.615
South Carolina
0.683
1.418
1.425
1.349
1.278
1.260
South Dakota
0.649
0.275
0.268
0.235
0.249
0.253
Tennessee
1.386
1.893
2.055
1.801
1.743
1.717
Texas
2.264
5.752
7.095
6.524
7.668
7.349
Utah
0.748
0.555
0.648
0.599
0.559
0.508
Vermont
0.596
0.360
0.356
0.319
0.418
0.419
Virginia
1.957
2.956
2.817
3.041
2.428
2.486
Washington
2.051
1.264
1.621
1.204
1.225
1.245
West Virginia
0.906
0.973
0.960
0.907
0.663
0.639
Wisconsin
3.576
2.081
2.108
2.080
2.229
2.236
Wyoming
0.299
0.201
0.233
0.202
0.137
0.129
States
Source: State rate data were received by CRS from HHS in December 2005, May 2007, September 2008, April
2009, and June 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law(Fiscal years indicate when new formula rates would have been used to distribute funds to states)
States
“Old”
Formula
Percentages
“New” Formula Percentages
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Alabama
0.860%
1.932%
1.650%
1.582%
1.599%
1.583%
1.716%
1.686%
Alaska
0.549
0.376
0.317
0.575
0.511
0.398
0.522
0.563
Arizona
0.416
0.992
0.813
1.018
1.098
1.132
1.326
1.379
Arkansas
0.656
1.082
0.910
0.884
0.852
0.899
0.876
0.876
California
4.614
5.690
5.303
4.479
4.453
4.452
4.433
4.536
Colorado
1.609
1.280
1.305
1.333
1.247
1.267
1.264
1.270
Connecticut
2.099
1.732
2.164
2.205
2.239
2.398
2.416
2.371
Delaware
0.279
0.435
0.453
0.375
0.373
0.375
0.421
0.427
District of
Columbia
0.326
0.309
0.328
0.181
0.192
0.194
0.184
0.149
Florida
1.361
4.187
3.781
4.728
4.583
4.593
5.475
5.201
Georgia
1.076
2.829
2.734
2.620
2.641
2.742
3.137
3.166
Hawaii
0.108
0.101
0.099
0.150
0.150
0.205
0.185
0.230
Idaho
0.628
0.386
0.331
0.396
0.349
0.335
0.339
0.371
Congressional Research Service
20
The LIHEAP Formula
States
“Old”
Formula
Percentages
“New” Formula Percentages
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Illinois
5.809
4.796
4.998
4.843
5.014
5.243
4.655
4.510
Indiana
2.630
2.209
2.128
2.147
2.080
2.209
1.814
1.934
Iowa
1.864
1.085
1.064
1.028
1.099
1.080
1.001
1.065
Kansas
0.856
1.105
1.106
0.978
0.993
0.967
1.002
0.945
Kentucky
1.369
1.688
1.621
1.243
1.256
1.344
1.329
1.457
Louisiana
0.879
1.704
1.514
1.324
1.365
1.414
1.378
1.387
Maine
1.360
0.722
0.908
1.127
1.090
1.010
0.927
1.041
Maryland
1.607
2.421
2.652
1.965
2.080
2.197
2.344
2.193
Massachusetts
4.198
3.043
3.311
3.757
3.718
3.730
4.032
4.138
Michigan
5.515
4.651
4.645
5.040
4.819
4.863
4.966
4.681
Minnesota
3.973
1.789
1.917
2.023
2.025
2.047
1.849
1.921
Mississippi
0.737
1.105
0.951
0.974
0.940
0.990
0.955
0.953
Missouri
2.320
2.497
2.309
2.014
2.011
1.829
1.963
2.021
Montana
0.736
0.414
0.441
0.295
0.287
0.328
0.280
0.314
Nebraska
0.922
0.598
0.558
0.547
0.553
0.591
0.555
0.561
Nevada
0.195
0.686
0.576
0.500
0.526
0.498
0.563
0.537
New
Hampshire
0.795
0.453
0.503
0.612
0.605
0.742
0.623
0.731
New Jersey
3.897
2.838
3.621
3.995
4.105
4.010
3.812
3.620
New Mexico
0.521
0.628
0.577
0.458
0.441
0.430
0.407
0.394
New York
12.725
8.491
9.393
9.520
10.018
10.227
9.445
9.318
North
Carolina
1.896
3.186
3.261
2.766
2.823
2.619
2.954
2.891
North Dakota
0.800
0.235
0.273
0.246
0.256
0.302
0.215
0.254
Ohio
5.139
4.512
4.803
4.893
4.941
4.687
4.243
4.368
Oklahoma
0.791
1.452
1.275
1.236
1.224
1.152
1.207
1.219
Oregon
1.247
1.008
0.750
0.715
0.702
0.664
0.712
0.781
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.174
5.731
5.993
5.885
5.807
5.571
5.720
Rhode Island
0.691
0.596
0.665
0.635
0.615
0.670
0.753
0.712
South
Carolina
0.683
1.425
1.349
1.278
1.260
1.201
1.394
1.403
South Dakota
0.649
0.268
0.235
0.249
0.253
0.272
0.233
0.240
Tennessee
1.386
2.055
1.801
1.743
1.717
1.700
1.865
1.848
Texas
2.264
7.095
6.524
7.668
7.349
7.135
7.183
6.942
Utah
0.748
0.648
0.599
0.559
0.508
0.413
0.452
0.494
Vermont
0.596
0.356
0.319
0.418
0.419
0.396
0.417
0.425
Virginia
1.957
2.817
3.041
2.428
2.486
2.490
2.581
2.607
Congressional Research Service
21
The LIHEAP Formula
“Old”
Formula
Percentages
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Washington
2.051
1.621
1.204
1.225
1.245
1.145
1.244
1.305
West Virginia
0.906
0.960
0.907
0.663
0.639
0.638
0.625
0.631
Wisconsin
3.576
2.108
2.080
2.229
2.236
2.230
2.010
2.054
Wyoming
0.299
0.233
0.202
0.137
0.129
0.154
0.146
0.160
States
“New” Formula Percentages
Source: State data were received by CRS from HHS in December 2005, May 2007, September 2008, April
2009, June 2010, August 2011, August 2012, and September 2013.
Congressional Research Service
22
The LIHEAP Formula
Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States
Under Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels
Table A-1, below, shows estimated allocations to the states at various hypothetical appropriations
levels. In column (a) are allotments at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of
$1.975 billion—under current LIHEAP practice where funds are set aside for leveraging incentive
grants and training and technical assistance, the equivalent appropriation level is approximately
$2.0023005 billion. The remaining columns show estimated allotments at appropriations of $2.14
billion, just under $2.25 billion, $2.25 billion, $3.0 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion, the
amount at which the LIHEAP program was last authorized in P.L. 109-58. In each case, the
estimates assume that 0.5% would be set aside for the territories, the amount set aside by HHS in
FY2014.
Congressional Research Service
2223
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds
at Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
($ in millions)
Tier II
Tier I“Old” Formula
State
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only
$2.14 Billion
(b)
Tier III
Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
$2.25 Billion
(d)
$2.5 Billion
(e)
$3.0 Billion
(f)
$4.0 Billion
(g)
$5.1 Billion
(h)
Alabama
16.963
22.588
28.942
28.113
39.480
47.463
63.430
80.993
Alaska
10.828
10.828
11.346
11.392
12.673
15.235
20.360
25.998
Arizona
8.203
10.924
13.997
13.596
19.991
28.476
41.864
53.455
Arkansas
12.943
17.236
18.903
18.903
21.029
25.282
33.786
43.142
California
91.001
93.955
98.847
98.847
109.965
132.201
176.673
225.592
Colorado
31.729
31.729
31.729
31.729
31.729
37.026
49.482
63.183
Connecticut
41.392
47.232
49.691
49.691
55.280
66.458
88.815
113.406
Delaware
5.494
7.316
8.278
8.278
9.209
11.071
14.795
18.892
District of
Columbia
6.428
6.428
6.428
6.763
7.524
9.045
12.088
15.434
Florida
26.840
35.741
45.794
44.483
65.408
93.168
136.972
174.898
Georgia
21.221
28.259
36.208
35.171
51.715
73.663
104.760
133.767
Hawaii
2.137
2.846
3.319
3.319
3.692
4.439
5.932
7.575
Idaho
12.376
12.376
12.376
13.021
14.485
17.415
23.273
29.717
Illinois
114.565
114.565
114.565
114.565
123.808
148.843
198.913
253.990
Indiana
51.872
51.872
51.872
51.872
51.872
61.760
82.536
105.389
Iowa
36.762
36.762
36.762
36.762
36.762
36.762
43.617
55.695
Kansas
16.883
20.954
22.046
22.046
24.525
29.484
39.403
50.313
Kentucky
26.994
26.994
27.872
27.872
31.007
37.277
49.816
63.610
Louisiana
17.342
23.093
29.588
28.741
33.701
40.516
54.145
69.138
Maine
26.815
26.815
26.815
26.815
26.928
32.373
43.263
55.242
CRS-23
Tier I
State
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)
Tier II
$2.14 Billion
(b)
Tier III
Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)
$2.25 Billion
(d)
$2.5 Billion
(e)
$3.0 Billion
(f)
$4.0 Billion
(g)
$5.1 Billion
(h)
Maryland
31.693
42.203
46.174
46.174
51.368
61.754
82.528
105.380
Massachusetts
82.797
82.797
82.797
82.797
91.812
110.378
147.508
188.352
108.770
108.770
108.770
108.770
119.001
143.064
191.190
244.128
Minnesota
78.363
78.363
78.363
78.363
78.363
78.363
80.355
102.605
Mississippi
14.543
19.366
20.865
20.865
23.211
27.905
37.292
47.618
Missouri
45.762
45.762
45.762
45.762
49.669
59.712
79.799
101.895
Montana
14.517
14.517
14.517
15.273
16.990
20.426
27.297
34.856
Nebraska
18.180
18.180
18.180
19.127
21.278
25.581
34.186
43.652
3.853
5.131
6.574
6.385
9.389
13.374
19.662
25.106
New
Hampshire
15.672
15.672
15.672
16.488
18.342
22.051
29.469
37.629
New Jersey
76.865
86.609
91.119
91.119
101.367
121.864
162.859
207.953
New Mexico
10.270
10.270
10.270
10.805
12.020
14.451
19.312
24.659
250.974
250.974
250.974
250.974
250.974
297.405
397.450
507.500
North
Carolina
37.403
49.806
62.652
61.988
69.699
83.793
111.980
142.986
North Dakota
15.770
15.770
15.770
16.591
18.457
22.189
29.653
37.864
101.350
104.255
109.683
109.683
122.020
146.693
196.040
250.322
Oklahoma
15.592
20.763
26.603
25.841
30.228
36.340
48.565
62.012
Oregon
24.591
24.591
24.591
24.591
24.591
24.591
27.868
35.584
Pennsylvania
134.810
134.810
134.810
134.810
145.320
174.705
233.474
298.121
Rhode Island
13.629
13.629
13.641
14.339
15.951
19.177
25.628
32.724
South
Carolina
13.472
17.940
22.986
22.327
31.108
37.398
49.979
63.817
South Dakota
12.808
12.808
12.808
13.475
14.990
18.021
24.084
30.752
Michigan
Nevada
New York
Ohio
CRS-24
Tier I
State
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)
Tier II
$2.14 Billion
(b)
Tier III
Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)
$2.25 Billion
(d)
$2.5 Billion
(e)
$3.0 Billion
(f)
$4.0 Billion
(g)
$5.1 Billion
(h)
Tennessee
27.344
36.221
38.107
38.107
42.393
50.965
68.109
86.968
Texas
44.653
59.461
76.187
74.005
108.817
155.000
227.875
290.971
Utah
14.745
14.745
14.745
15.512
17.257
20.747
27.726
35.403
Vermont
11.747
11.747
11.747
12.358
13.748
16.528
22.088
28.204
Virginia
38.606
51.408
55.190
55.190
61.397
73.812
98.642
125.955
Washington
40.450
40.450
40.450
40.450
40.450
40.450
49.390
63.065
West Virginia
17.864
17.864
17.864
18.794
20.908
25.136
33.591
42.892
Wisconsin
70.538
70.538
70.538
70.538
70.538
70.538
88.697
113.257
Wyoming
5.903
5.903
5.903
6.211
6.909
8.306
11.101
14.174
1,972.33
2,109.839
2,219.690
2,219.690
2,469.351
2,968.674
3,967.320
5,065.830
Total
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in June 2010.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, approximately 0.134% is allocated to the territories, $27
million to leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $300,000 to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations to leveraging incentive and REACH grants could
change state allotments.
CRS-25
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law901
22.303
27.610
27.007
41.255
49.822
66.597
85.049
Alaska
10.788
11.816
12.432
12.432
13.832
16.632
22.232
28.391
Arizona
8.174
10.786
13.353
13.061
19.951
30.557
44.777
57.402
Arkansas
12.896
17.019
19.355
19.355
21.535
25.894
34.613
44.203
California
90.669
95.224
100.188
100.188
111.471
134.036
179.166
228.808
Colorado
31.613
31.613
31.613
31.613
31.613
37.542
50.183
64.087
Connecticut
41.241
49.788
52.383
52.383
58.282
70.080
93.676
119.632
Delaware
5.474
7.224
8.942
8.747
10.487
12.610
16.856
21.527
District of
Columbia
6.405
6.405
6.405
6.739
7.498
9.015
12.051
15.390
Florida
26.742
35.291
43.687
42.732
65.277
99.977
146.502
187.809
Georgia
21.144
27.903
34.542
33.787
51.612
79.047
115.832
148.492
Hawaii
2.129
2.810
3.479
3.402
5.198
6.790
9.077
11.592
Idaho
12.331
12.331
12.331
12.974
14.435
17.357
23.202
29.630
Illinois
114.147
114.147
114.147
114.147
114.147
133.279
178.154
227.516
Indiana
51.683
51.683
51.683
51.683
51.683
57.139
76.378
97.540
Iowa
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
42.070
53.727
Kansas
16.821
19.831
20.864
20.864
23.214
27.913
37.312
47.650
CRS-24
“Old” Formula
State
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only
$2.14 Billion
(b)
Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
$2.25 Billion
(d)
$2.5 Billion
(e)
$3.0 Billion
(f)
$4.0 Billion
(g)
$5.1 Billion
(h)
Kentucky
26.895
30.586
32.180
32.180
35.804
43.052
57.547
73.492
Louisiana
17.279
22.802
28.227
27.610
34.083
40.983
54.782
69.960
Maine
26.717
26.717
26.717
26.717
26.717
30.776
41.139
52.537
Maryland
31.578
41.671
48.445
48.445
53.900
64.811
86.633
110.637
Massachusetts
82.495
86.870
91.399
91.399
101.692
122.277
163.448
208.735
108.373
108.373
108.373
108.373
115.030
138.316
184.887
236.115
Minnesota
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
96.919
Mississippi
14.490
19.122
21.040
21.040
23.410
28.149
37.626
48.051
Missouri
45.595
45.595
45.595
45.595
49.677
59.733
79.845
101.969
Montana
14.464
14.464
14.464
15.218
16.932
20.359
27.214
34.754
Nebraska
18.114
18.114
18.114
19.058
21.205
25.497
34.082
43.525
3.839
5.066
6.271
6.134
9.371
14.352
21.030
26.960
New
Hampshire
15.615
15.615
16.147
16.429
18.279
21.979
29.379
37.520
New Jersey
76.584
76.584
79.967
79.967
88.973
106.983
143.004
182.628
New Mexico
10.233
10.233
10.233
10.766
11.979
14.403
19.253
24.587
250.058
250.058
250.058
250.058
250.058
275.358
368.071
470.055
North
Carolina
37.266
49.178
60.880
59.549
71.053
85.436
114.202
145.845
North
Dakota
15.712
15.712
15.712
16.531
18.393
22.116
29.563
37.754
100.980
100.980
100.980
100.980
107.340
129.068
172.526
220.329
Michigan
Nevada
New York
Ohio
CRS-25
“Old” Formula
State
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only
$2.14 Billion
(b)
Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
$2.25 Billion
(d)
$2.5 Billion
(e)
$3.0 Billion
(f)
$4.0 Billion
(g)
$5.1 Billion
(h)
Oklahoma
15.535
20.501
25.379
24.825
29.970
36.037
48.171
61.518
Oregon
24.502
24.502
24.502
24.502
24.502
24.502
30.846
39.393
Pennsylvania
134.318
134.318
134.318
134.318
140.581
169.039
225.954
288.561
Rhode Island
13.579
14.956
15.736
15.736
17.508
21.052
28.140
35.937
South
Carolina
13.423
17.713
21.928
21.449
32.765
41.458
55.417
70.772
South Dakota
12.761
12.761
12.761
13.426
14.938
17.962
24.010
30.663
Tennessee
27.245
35.953
40.830
40.830
45.428
54.623
73.015
93.246
Texas
44.490
58.712
72.681
71.092
108.600
166.328
243.730
312.452
Utah
14.691
14.691
14.691
15.457
17.197
20.679
27.641
35.300
Vermont
11.704
11.704
11.704
12.314
13.701
16.474
22.021
28.122
Virginia
38.465
50.760
57.586
57.586
64.071
77.041
102.980
131.514
Washington
40.302
40.302
40.302
40.302
40.302
40.302
51.552
65.836
West Virginia
17.799
17.799
17.799
18.727
20.836
25.053
33.489
42.768
Wisconsin
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
81.137
103.618
Wyoming
5.882
5.882
5.882
6.189
6.885
8.279
11.067
14.133
1,965.125
2,099.450
2,208.900
2,208.900
2,457.650
2,955.150
3,950.150
5,044.650
Total
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in September 2013.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, 0.5% is allocated to the territories, $27 million to
leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $3 million to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations for these purposes could change state allotments.
CRS-26
The LIHEAP Formula
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State
Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
Figure B-1 graphically illustrates state allotments for three “typical” types of states over a range
of appropriations from $0 to $5.1 billion. Represented are (1) a hold-harmless level state, (2) a
hold-harmless level and rate state, and (3) a state whose increased allocations are ratably reduced
in order to maintain allocations for the hold-harmless level and rate states.
In the figure, there are three vertical areas. These areas separate the three levels of appropriations
(Tiers I-III) that are triggers under current law and were explained previously in this report. The
figure also
graphs the three basic types of states. Reading from top to bottom of Figure B-1, these
three three
types of states are as follows.
•
Hold-Harmless Level Only States. These states are subject to only the holdharmless level provision. They do not qualify for the hold-harmless rate because
each state’s share of the regular funds at $2.25 billion is greater than 1%. An
example of a hold-harmless level only state is represented by the line that runs
from $0 to point G. The hold-harmless level is evident from point A to point F.
Here, despite increases in the appropriations level, the state allotment remains
fixed. In Table 3, these are the states that have a “Y” in the “Subject to holdharmless level?” column and a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless rate?”
columncolumn (c) and an “N”
in column (e).
•
Ratable Reduction States. These states are subject to a ratable reduction. Their
new formula ratepercentage is greater than their old, FY1984, rate. An (FY1984) percentage. An
example of these
states is depicted by the line that runs from $0 to point H. There
is a small
decrease in state allotments at point D that is attributable to the increased
increased shortfall on the distribution of funds that the hold-harmless rate
imposes. In
Table 3, these are the states that have a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless
level?” column and a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless rate?” columnan “N” in both column (c) and
column (e).
•
Hold-Harmless Level and Rate States. These states are subject to both the holdharmless level and the hold harmless rate provisions. An example of a typical
level and rate state is shown by the line that runs from $0 to point I. The holdharmless level is evident by the fixed state allotment from point C to point E.
However, the (subtle) jump at exactly $2.25 billion signals that this state is
subject to the hold-harmless rate provision. After the allotment jump at $2.25
billion, the state’s allotment continues to increase (at a rate lower than the old
rate, but higher than the new rate). In Table 3, these are the states that have a
“Y” in the “Subject to hold-harmless level?” column and a “Y” in the “Subject
to hold-harmless rate?” columncolumn (c) and a “Y” in the column (e).
Congressional Research Service
2627
Figure B-1. Estimated Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP)LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations
Levels for Three Types of States
$120
Tier II hold-harmless level
Tier I
G
Tier III hold-harmless rate
$100
Hold-harmless
level only stateHold-Harmless Level
"Old"Formula
G
Hold-Harmless Rate
$100
Hold-Harmless
Level Only State
State Allotment
($ in millions)
$80
H
A
F
Ratably reduced
state
$60
Hold-harmless
level and rate
state
$40
Reduced
State
$60
Hold-Harmless
Level and Rate
State
$40
I
D
$20
B
C
E
$0
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
Appropriation
($ in millions)
Source: Figure created by CRS using allotmentformula rates provided by HHS in June 2010.
CRS-27September 2013.
CRS-28
$4,000
$5,000
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Appendix C. Actual LIHEAP Regular Fund
Allocations to
the States, FY2006-FY2010 and
Estimated Allocations, FY2011FY2008-FY2014, and Estimated FY2015
Allocations
Table C-1, below, shows actual LIHEAP regular fund allocations to the states from FY2006FY2008
through FY2010FY2014 and estimated LIHEAP allocations for FY2011 based on the President’s budget
request and the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill (S. 3686). The actual and estimated
allocations include funds for tribes.
The President’s proposed budget for FY2011 would provide $2.51 billion for LIHEAP regular
funds. Column (g) of Table C-1 contains estimates of how funds would be distributed to the
states if this amount were to be appropriated in FY2011. The Senate Appropriations Committeepassed bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in
FY2011 (S. 3686) would provide $2.71 billion for LIHEAP regular funds. The bill would
maintain a proportional split between “old” and “new” formula funds that was introduced in the
FY2009 appropriation for LIHEAP—approximately 81.4% of funds, or $2.21 billion, would be
distributed according to the “old” formula proportions, while 18.6% of funds, or $505 million,
would be distributed according to the “new” formula. Column (h) of Table C-1 shows estimated
allotments to states under the provisions of S. 3686. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has recommended a total
of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP in FY2011.48 However, specifics about how funds would be divided
are not available, so estimates are not yet included in the table.
For FY2010, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), Congress funded
LIHEAP regular funds at the same level as in FY2009—approximately $4.51 billion. P.L. 111117 also maintained the same division of funds as in FY2009, with $840 million distributed
according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and $3.67 billion according to the “old” formula.
Column (f) of Table C-1 shows the allocations to the states under P.L. 111-117. Note that funds
are not distributed exactly as they were in FY2009 due to the fact that LIHEAP formula rates
changed in April 2009. Column (e) of Table C-1 shows the amount of regular funds that each
state received in FY2009 as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329).
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $1.98
billion in LIHEAP regular funds.49 The first distribution to the states of the regular funds
appropriated in P.L. 110-161 occurred in December 2007; allocations were made on the basis of
the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. The amount of funds that each state received under
this allotment is in column (c) of Table C-1. FY2015 based on the President’s budget request.
For FY2015, the President’s budget proposed a total of $2.550 billion for LIHEAP regular funds.
Of that amount, $366 million would be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula, with
the remainder, about $2.184 billion, distributed according to the “old” formula percentages. The
budget request would set aside $3 million for training and technical assistance and $27 million for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Column (h) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to
the states based on the President’s budget.
Congress appropriated approximately $3.425 billion for LIHEAP as part of the Consolidated
Appropriation Act (P.L. 113-76). Prior to distribution of funds, HHS reduced the amount available
by 1%, transferring $34.245 billion within the agency. Of the $3.390 billion available, HHS
increased the amount available for the territories to 0.5% of the total; this was the first time since
the program’s inception that the territorial allocation changed from 0.134%. Of the amount
available to the states and tribes, $491 million was distributed according to the “new” formula
and the remainder according to the “old” formula. See column (g) of Table C-1.
Column (f) of Table C-1 contains actual regular fund allocations to the states in FY2013. The
amount appropriated for LIHEAP as part of the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) was the same as the FY2012 level—$3.472 billion for regular
funds, with $497 million distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula. However,
application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%, sequestration, and a transfer of funds
within HHS reduced the total amount available to $3.255 billion.
Column (e) contains actual allocations for FY2012 at an appropriations level of $3.472 billion
(P.L. 112-74). The law provided a total of $3.478 billion for LIHEAP regular funds, but the
amount was reduced by an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for discretionary accounts,
resulting in the $3.472 billion funding level. P.L. 112-74 also provided that, of the amount
appropriated, all but $497 million be distributed according to the proportions of the “old”
LIHEAP formula. In addition, $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance.
In FY2009 (P.L. 110-329), FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), and FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) Congress
appropriated $4.51 billion for LIHEAP formula funds. Of this amount, $840 million was
distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and the remaining funds, approximately
$3.67 billion, according to the “old” formula. Column (d) of Table C-1 shows the allocations to
the states in FY2011, column (c) shows allocations to the states in FY2010, and column (b)
shows FY2009 allocations. Note that funds were not distributed in exactly the same way in each
year for several reasons. LIHEAP formula rates are updated each year, which affects the
percentage of funds that states receive. In addition, two factors changed the FY2011
appropriation. The appropriations bill subjected all discretionary accounts to an across-the-board
rescission of 0.2%, and HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, making
the total available to the states slightly more than in FY2009 and FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
29
The LIHEAP Formula
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $1.98
billion in LIHEAP regular funds.53 The first distribution to the states of the regular funds
appropriated in P.L. 110-161 occurred in December 2007; allocations were made on the basis of
the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. Then, on June 26, 2008, HHS announced that it
would distribute funds that were thought to have been allocated to leveraging incentive and
REACH grants in the FY2008 Appropriations Act as part of the regular fund formula grants.
Since the early 1990s, leveraging incentive and REACH grants have been made to states and
48
See the Subcommittee Summary Table, available on its website at http://appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/
lhhse/FY2011_LHHS_Summary_Tabel-07.15.2010.pdf.
49
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 Education programs. See Division G, Section 528 of P.L.
110-161. The $1.98 billion appropriation for regular funds was the amount available after this rescission.
Congressional Research Service
28
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
tribes on the basis of their ability to obtain non-LIHEAP resources for energy assistance
(leveraging incentive grants) and for increasing energy efficiency of low-income households
(REACH grants). In recent years, Congress has allocated about $27 million for these two funds.
However, in FY2008, P.L. 110-161 did not appropriate funds for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants. When HHS discovered that language to appropriate the funds was missing from
the law, it released the $26.7 million that would otherwise have been distributed as leveraging
incentive and REACH grants as part of the LIHEAP formula distribution. The addition of nearly
$27 million to the formula grants caused the funds to be released under the “new” LIHEAP
formula. Column (da) of Table C-1 shows the total amount of funds that each state received after
$26.7 million was added and funds were distributed under the new formula.
Column (b) of Table C-1 shows the amounts allocated to the states in FY2007 when Congress
appropriated $1.98 billion in regular LIHEAP funds as part of a year-long continuing resolution
(P.L. 110-5). Funds were distributed according to the proportions of the old formula. Column (a)
shows the amount allotted to each state in FY2006, when $2.48 billion was appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds through two different laws. The FY2006
53
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 Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) appropriated $1.98 billion
for LIHEAP and a bill to make available funds in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for LIHEAP
(P.L. 109-204) appropriated $500 millionprograms. See Division G, §528 of P.L. 110161. The $1.98 billion appropriation for regular funds was the amount available after this rescission.
Congressional Research Service
2930
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allotments for
FY2006 through FY2010 and Estimated FY2011 Allotments
($ in millions)
State
FY2006
Allotments:
$2.48 Billiona
(a)
FY2007
Allotments:
$1.98 Billionb
(b)
FY2008
Allotments
Prior to
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billionc
(c)
FY2008
Allotments
After
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billiond
(d)
FY2009
Allotments:
$4.5 Billione
(e)
FY2010
Allotments:
$4.5 Billionf
(f)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
President’s
Request:
$2.51 Billion
(g)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
S. 3686:
$2.71 Billiong
(h)
Alabama
31.310
16.769
16.774
17.111
60.063
58.799
39.640
41.332
Alaska
12.572
10.704
10.707
10.828
23.568
25.308
12.724
13.820
Arizona
15.142
8.110
8.112
8.275
29.047
33.729
20.257
21.017
Arkansas
22.765
12.796
12.799
13.057
36.497
35.773
21.115
22.417
California
153.184
89.963
89.985
91.797
225.894
202.749
110.410
119.615
Colorado
31.729
31.367
31.375
31.729
63.474
64.257
31.729
34.987
Connecticut
47.809
40.920
40.930
41.754
95.783
96.942
55.504
59.684
Delaware
10.141
5.431
5.433
5.542
17.384
15.189
9.246
9.799
District of
Columbia
7.852
6.355
6.356
6.484
14.653
13.992
7.554
8.205
Florida
49.542
26.534
26.541
27.075
95.037
110.354
66.279
68.764
Georgia
39.170
20.979
20.985
21.407
75.141
87.252
52.404
54.369
Hawaii
2.555
2.113
2.113
2.137
4.652
6.023
3.707
3.922
Idaho
14.370
12.235
12.238
12.376
26.939
26.939
14.544
15.797
Illinois
145.959
113.259
113.287
114.565
237.236
232.865
124.309
135.916
Indiana
53.986
51.280
51.293
51.872
103.609
104.151
51.872
57.198
Iowa
36.762
36.343
36.352
36.762
67.803
67.803
36.762
40.537
Kansas
26.798
16.690
16.695
17.031
45.349
41.757
24.624
26.327
Kentucky
44.347
26.686
26.693
27.230
68.353
57.742
31.132
33.865
Louisiana
32.010
17.144
17.148
17.494
57.196
51.870
33.838
35.576
CRS-30
State
FY2006
Allotments:
$2.48 Billiona
(a)
FY2007
Allotments:
$1.98 Billionb
(b)
FY2008
Allotments
Prior to
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billionc
(c)
FY2008
Allotments
After
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billiond
(d)
FY2009
Allotments:
$4.5 Billione
(e)
FY2010
Allotments:
$4.5 Billionf
(f)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
President’s
Request:
$2.51 Billion
(g)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
S. 3686:
$2.71 Billiong
(h)
Maine
26.815
26.509
26.516
26.815
49.457
54.309
27.037
29.756
Maryland
58.499
31.332
31.340
31.971
101.296
82.002
51.575
54.765
Massachusetts
82.797
81.853
81.873
82.797
162.981
175.524
92.184
100.569
108.770
107.529
107.556
108.770
222.412
233.524
119.482
130.500
Minnesota
78.363
77.469
77.488
78.363
144.528
144.528
78.363
86.408
Mississippi
26.843
14.377
14.381
14.670
39.011
39.661
23.305
24.769
Missouri
59.541
45.240
45.251
45.762
103.541
95.257
49.870
54.506
Montana
16.856
14.351
14.355
14.517
31.598
31.598
17.059
18.528
Nebraska
21.109
17.973
17.978
18.180
39.573
39.573
21.364
23.204
7.112
3.809
3.810
3.887
13.643
15.841
9.514
9.871
New Hampshire
18.197
15.493
15.497
15.672
34.112
34.112
18.416
20.003
New Jersey
77.540
75.988
76.007
76.865
166.690
177.196
101.777
109.542
New Mexico
11.925
10.153
10.156
10.360
24.901
22.355
12.069
13.108
250.974
248.112
248.173
250.974
475.935
479.526
250.974
276.742
North Carolina
69.038
36.976
36.985
37.730
123.243
109.339
69.981
73.733
North Dakota
18.310
15.590
15.594
15.770
34.325
34.325
18.531
20.127
122.259
100.194
100.219
101.350
220.588
223.108
122.513
132.766
Oklahoma
28.780
15.415
15.418
15.729
49.007
47.902
30.350
31.913
Oregon
24.591
24.311
24.317
24.591
45.355
45.355
24.591
27.116
Pennsylvania
134.810
133.273
133.306
134.810
274.925
282.279
145.907
159.566
Rhode Island
15.825
13.473
13.477
13.629
30.209
29.666
16.016
17.395
South Carolina
24.867
13.318
13.322
13.590
47.702
47.311
31.234
32.578
South Dakota
14.871
12.662
12.665
12.808
27.878
27.878
15.051
16.347
Michigan
Nevada
New York
Ohio
CRS-31
FY2006
Allotments:
$2.48 Billiona
(a)
State
FY2007
Allotments:
$1.98 Billionb
(b)
FY2008
Allotments
Prior to
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billionc
(c)
FY2008
Allotments
After
6-26-08:
$1.98 Billiond
(d)
FY2009
Allotments:
$4.5 Billione
(e)
FY2010
Allotments:
$4.5 Billionf
(f)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
President’s
Request:
$2.51 Billion
(g)
FY2011
Estimated
Allotments,
S. 3686:
$2.71 Billiong
(h)
Tennessee
46.363
27.033
27.039
27.584
73.723
72.092
42.564
45.319
Texas
82.421
44.144
44.155
45.044
158.110
183.593
110.266
114.401
Utah
17.120
14.576
14.580
14.745
32.094
32.094
17.327
18.819
Vermont
13.639
11.613
11.616
11.747
25.568
25.568
13.804
14.993
Virginia
71.259
38.166
38.175
38.944
118.084
100.856
61.645
65.532
Washington
40.450
39.988
39.998
40.450
74.603
74.603
40.450
44.603
West Virginia
23.818
17.660
17.665
17.935
40.584
38.884
20.993
22.800
Wisconsin
70.538
69.733
69.750
70.538
130.096
130.096
70.538
77.780
Wyoming
6.854
5.836
5.838
5.903
12.850
12.850
6.937
7.535
2,449.16
1,949.83
1,950.314
1,977.027
4,476.302
4,476.302
2,479.338
2,678.739
Total
Source: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regular fund allocations for FY2006 through FY2010. FY2011 levels are CRS estimates based on data
received from HHS in June 2010. Actual and estimated allocations to the states include tribal allotments.
a.
The total regular fund appropriation for FY2006 was $2.48 billion, $1.98 billion of which was appropriated in P.L. 109-149, and $500 million in P.L. 109-204. Initially,
P.L. 109-149 appropriated $2.0 billion for regular funds, but the amount was subject to a 1% across-the-board rescission, resulting in a $1.98 billion appropriation (P.L.
109-148). In addition, both training and technical assistance and the leveraging incentive and REACH funds were reduced by 1% in column (a).
b.
Congress approved a year-long continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), which was enacted on February 15, 2007. The law provided that LIHEAP receive the
same amount of funds for FY2007 that was appropriated for FY2006 in P.L. 109-149, as reduced by a 1% rescission (P.L. 109-148).
c.
The initial allotments for FY2008 were slightly greater than for FY2007, despite the similar appropriations levels, due to a 1.747% across-the-board rescission for most
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs. See P.L. 110-161, Division G, Section 528. This meant that set asides for leveraging
incentive and REACH grants, and for training and technical assistance, were slightly reduced from FY2007 levels.
d.
On June 26, 2008, HHS released an additional $26.7 million in formula grants to the states. These funds had been set aside for leveraging incentive and REACH grants
until HHS realized that Congress had not appropriated these funds in P.L. 110-161. As a result, distributions were re-calculated under the “new” LIHEAP formula, and
additional funds were provided to the states.
e.
Congress appropriated approximately $4.5 billion for LIHEAP as part of a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329). Of this amount, $840 million was allocated under the
“new” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder allocated according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
CRS-32
f.
In FY2010, Congress appropriated the same amount for LIHEAP regular funds as it had in FY2009—approximately $4.5 billion—with the same division of funds
between “old” and “new” formulas (P.L. 111-117). Although FY2010 LIHEAP funds were divided between the “old” and “new” formula in the same way as FY2009, the
awards to the states are different because the formula factors were updated in April 2009.
g.
The estimated FY2011 allocations to the states in column (h) assume that $505 million of the total would be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula, and
that the remaining regular fund appropriation (approximately $2.21 billion) would be allocated according to the “old” LIHEAP formula. In estimating these allocations,
CRS followed the method used by HHS in allocating FY2010 funds. This means that funds for the territories were removed proportionately from the funds
appropriated under the “old” formula and the “new” formula. However, funds for leveraging incentive grants and training and technical assistance were subtracted only
from the $2.21 billion allocated under the “old” formula. In calculating how the $505 million would be allocated under the “new” formula, CRS assumed that funds
would be distributed as if approximately $2.48 billion were to be appropriated for LIHEAP regular funds with amounts over and above state allocations at $1.975
billion (the trigger for the “new” LIHEAP formula) assumed to be allocated to the states. This was the method used by HHS in FY2010.
CRS-33
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law
Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Congressional Research Service
34Allocations for
FY2008 through FY2014 and Estimated Allocations for FY2015
($ in millions)
FY2015
Estimated
Allocations
Actual Allocations, FY2008-FY2014
State
CRS-31
FY2008
Allocations:
$1.98
Billiona
(a)
FY2009
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)
FY2010
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionc
(c)
FY2011
Allocations:
$4.50
Billiond
(d)
FY2012
Allocations:
$3.47
Billione
(e)
FY2013
Allocations:
$3.26
Billionf
(f)
FY2014
Allocations:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)
FY2015
President’s
Budget
Request:
$2.55
Billionh
(h)
Alabama
17.111
60.063
58.799
59.419
47.408
48.269
48.885
35.828
Alaska
10.828
23.568
25.308
23.667
18.002
17.171
18.841
14.087
Arizona
8.275
29.047
33.729
32.922
23.852
23.343
23.641
17.327
Arkansas
13.057
36.497
35.773
34.985
28.537
26.746
27.505
21.579
California
91.797
225.894
202.749
202.843
154.574
145.410
153.592
113.867
Colorado
31.729
63.474
64.257
62.139
47.308
44.270
46.378
34.479
Connecticut
41.754
95.783
96.942
98.254
79.532
76.014
77.413
58.976
Delaware
5.542
17.384
15.189
15.172
11.957
12.573
13.016
10.436
District of
Columbia
6.484
14.653
13.992
14.051
10.687
9.976
10.474
7.686
Florida
27.075
95.037
110.354
107.714
78.040
76.376
77.351
56.691
Georgia
21.407
75.141
87.252
85.164
61.702
60.387
61.158
44.823
Hawaii
2.137
4.652
6.023
6.027
6.107
5.416
6.159
4.514
Idaho
12.376
26.939
26.939
27.052
20.576
19.207
20.166
14.799
Illinois
114.565
237.236
232.865
238.712
185.684
160.191
167.458
124.493
FY2015
Estimated
Allocations
Actual Allocations, FY2008-FY2014
State
FY2009
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)
FY2010
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionc
(c)
FY2011
Allocations:
$4.50
Billiond
(d)
FY2012
Allocations:
$3.47
Billione
(e)
FY2013
Allocations:
$3.26
Billionf
(f)
FY2014
Allocations:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)
Indiana
51.872
103.609
104.151
102.749
80.006
72.374
75.820
56.367
Iowa
36.762
67.803
67.803
68.137
54.813
51.292
53.735
39.948
Kansas
17.031
45.349
41.757
42.327
32.160
31.397
31.019
23.526
Kentucky
27.230
68.353
57.742
58.335
46.423
43.483
48.288
36.372
Louisiana
17.494
57.196
51.870
53.164
43.422
40.864
42.062
33.869
Maine
26.815
49.457
54.309
53.539
39.982
37.414
39.195
29.139
Maryland
31.971
101.296
82.002
85.523
69.790
70.390
68.513
53.947
Massachusetts
82.797
162.981
175.524
175.178
132.731
132.256
140.014
103.857
108.770
222.412
233.524
228.294
173.450
165.582
165.444
118.845
Minnesota
78.363
144.528
144.528
145.241
116.839
109.335
114.541
85.153
Mississippi
14.670
39.011
39.661
38.834
31.591
29.313
30.120
23.500
Missouri
45.762
103.541
95.257
95.596
68.231
66.553
70.882
51.215
Montana
14.517
31.598
31.598
31.730
24.135
22.529
23.654
17.358
Nebraska
18.180
39.573
39.573
39.738
30.226
28.214
29.623
21.739
3.887
13.643
15.841
15.462
11.203
10.964
11.104
8.138
New
Hampshire
15.672
34.112
34.112
34.255
26.055
24.321
25.536
18.739
New Jersey
76.865
166.690
177.196
180.991
136.746
124.480
124.570
91.267
Michigan
Nevada
CRS-32
FY2008
Allocations:
$1.98
Billiona
(a)
FY2015
President’s
Budget
Request:
$2.55
Billionh
(h)
FY2015
Estimated
Allocations
Actual Allocations, FY2008-FY2014
State
New Mexico
FY2009
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)
FY2010
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionc
(c)
FY2011
Allocations:
$4.50
Billiond
(d)
FY2012
Allocations:
$3.47
Billione
(e)
FY2013
Allocations:
$3.26
Billionf
(f)
FY2014
Allocations:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)
10.360
24.901
22.355
22.448
17.074
15.938
16.734
12.280
250.974
475.935
479.526
495.801
375.710
350.169
366.843
272.722
North
Carolina
37.730
123.243
109.339
111.263
83.011
87.702
88.271
70.719
North Dakota
15.770
34.325
34.325
34.469
26.218
24.473
25.695
18.856
101.350
220.588
223.108
225.398
165.463
144.794
154.314
110.886
Oklahoma
15.729
49.007
47.902
47.717
36.094
35.955
37.147
29.813
Oregon
24.591
45.355
45.355
45.579
36.666
34.311
35.945
26.722
Pennsylvania
134.810
274.925
282.279
280.478
209.548
190.810
203.071
146.492
Rhode Island
13.629
30.209
29.666
29.790
23.241
23.976
23.813
17.824
South Carolina
13.590
47.702
47.311
46.909
36.270
38.335
38.825
28.455
South Dakota
12.808
27.878
27.878
27.995
21.293
19.877
20.869
15.315
Tennessee
27.584
73.723
72.092
71.595
55.405
56.856
58.040
45.524
Texas
45.044
158.110
183.593
179.200
129.832
127.064
128.686
94.316
Utah
14.745
32.094
32.094
32.228
24.513
22.882
24.025
17.631
Vermont
11.747
25.568
25.568
25.675
19.529
18.230
19.140
14.046
Virginia
38.944
118.084
100.856
102.839
80.436
78.971
81.877
64.211
Washington
40.450
74.603
74.603
74.971
60.310
56.437
59.124
43.955
New York
Ohio
CRS-33
FY2008
Allocations:
$1.98
Billiona
(a)
FY2015
President’s
Budget
Request:
$2.55
Billionh
(h)
FY2015
Estimated
Allocations
Actual Allocations, FY2008-FY2014
State
FY2008
Allocations:
$1.98
Billiona
(a)
FY2009
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)
FY2010
Allocations:
$4.51
Billionc
(c)
FY2011
Allocations:
$4.50
Billiond
(d)
FY2012
Allocations:
$3.47
Billione
(e)
FY2013
Allocations:
$3.26
Billionf
(f)
FY2014
Allocations:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)
FY2015
President’s
Budget
Request:
$2.55
Billionh
(h)
West Virginia
17.935
40.584
38.884
39.047
29.700
27.723
29.108
21.361
Wisconsin
70.538
130.096
130.096
130.738
105.172
98.417
103.103
76.650
Wyoming
5.903
12.850
12.850
12.904
9.815
9.162
9.619
7.059
1,977.027
4,476.302
4,476.302
4,494.258
3,437.068
3,248.193
3,370.409
2,507.400
Total
Source: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided data on final regular fund allocations for FY2008 through FY2014 (columns (a) through (g)).
Allocations to the states include tribal allotments, and FY2015 estimates assume that approximately 0.5% of the total would be set aside for the territories.
a.
In FY2008, the funds that ordinarily would have been set aside for leveraging incentive and REACH grants—approximately $26.7 million—were distributed together
with the formula grants. This increased the total amount allocated to the states compared to FY2007 despite the similar appropriation levels, and meant that
distributions were calculated under the “new” LIHEAP formula.
b.
Congress appropriated approximately $4.5 billion for LIHEAP as part of a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329). Of this amount, $840 million was allocated under the
“new” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder allocated according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
c.
In FY2010, Congress appropriated the same amount for LIHEAP regular funds as it had in FY2009—approximately $4.5 billion—with the same division of funds
between “old” and “new” formulas (P.L. 111-117). Although FY2010 LIHEAP funds were divided between the “old” and “new” formula in the same way as FY2009,
the awards to the states are different because the formula factors were updated in April 2009.
d.
The FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for discretionary
accounts. This reduced the LIHEAP regular fund appropriation from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion. In addition, unlike appropriations in most years,
HHS did not set aside funds for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and instead included these funds in the formula grants to the states, bringing the total
distributed to $4.49 billion.
e.
The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% that reduced the total available to $3,47 billion. Of
the amount appropriated, $497 million was distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and the remainder according to the proportions of the “old”
LIHEAP formula. In addition, the law provided $3 million for training and technical assistance.
f.
In FY2013, Congress enacted a full-year continuing resolution funding LIHEAP (and most other federal programs) at FY2012 levels (P.L. 113-6). While LIHEAP was
funded at $3.472 billion in FY2012, a series of deductions meant that the total available for LIHEAP in FY2013 was $3.255 billion.
CRS-34
g.
The FY2014 regular fund appropriation for LIHEAP (P.L. 113-76) was reduced by 1% ($34.245 million) due to a transfer of funds within HHS, bringing the amount
available to $3.390 billion. HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and it increased the territorial allocation from 0.134% of total funds to
0.500%. Of the amount distributed to states and tribes by formula ($3.370 billion), $491 million was distributed according to the “new” formula and the remainder
according to the proportions of the “old” formula.
h.
The President’s FY2015 budget would provide a total of $2.550 billion for LIHEAP regular funds. Of this amount, $366 million would be distributed according to the
“new” formula, and the remainder, $2.184 billion, according to the “old” formula proportions. The proposal would set aside $27 million for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants and $3 million for training and technical assistance.
CRS-35
The LIHEAP Formula
Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Congressional Research Service
36