.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
December 22, 2011January 28, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance programProgram (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program underthrough which the
federal federal
government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula or block grant funds), which are allocated
to all states using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to
one or more states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the
LIHEAP statute.
States may use LIHEAP funds to help low-income households pay for heating and cooling costs,
for crisis
assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the
need for
energy assistance. According to the most recent data available from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), in FY2008, 53.3% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 3.1% was
used for cooling aid, 19.0% of funds went to crisis assistance, and 10.1% was used for
weatherization. energy assistance. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with
incomes at
or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher,
although states
may set lower limits. In both the FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations acts, Congress gave states
the authority to raise their LIHEAP eligibility standards to 75% of state median income. In
FY2009, the most recent year for which HHS data are available, an estimated 35 million
households were eligible for LIHEAP under the federal statutory guidelines (45 million were
eligible based on the appropriations provision). According to HHS, 7.4 million households
received heating or winter crisis assistance and approximately 900,000 households received
cooling assistance that same year.
For FY2012, the House and Senate approved a bill (H.R. 2055) to provide $3.472 billion for
LIHEAP formula grants; there is no appropriation for emergency contingency funds. (As of the
date of this report, H.R. 2055was awaiting the President’s signature.) Funding for most federal
programs, including LIHEAP, was included in the conference report for H.R. 2055 (H.Rept. 112331). The amount provided for formula grants in the conference report was $3.478 billion, but
application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for discretionary accounts resulted in the
final appropriation of $3.472 billion. Funding for LIHEAP in FY2012 is about $1.2 billion less
than was provided in FY2011, when Congress appropriated $4.5 billion for regular funds and
$200 million for emergency contingency funds, but exceeds the President’s total request ($1.98
billion for regular funds and $590 million for emergency contingency funds) by about $900
million.
The amount included for LIHEAP in H.Rept. 112-331 resolved differences between proposals in
the House (H.R. 3070) and Senate (S. 1599) that would have distributed funds to the states via
different applications of the LIHEAP formula. Of the total appropriated as part of H.R. 2055,
$497 million is to be distributed using the statutory, or “new,” LIHEAP formula, with the
remainder, about $2.9 billion, distributed according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP
formula.
This report describes LIHEAP funding, program rules, and eligibility. It will be updated as events
warrant.
Congressional Research Service
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) may set lower limits.
Available federal information regarding use of LIHEAP funds and households assisted is dated.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases annual LIHEAP Reports to
Congress, but the most recent report available is from FY2009. In its FY2015 budget
justifications, HHS reported limited preliminary LIHEAP data for FY2011. Of funds expended
for heating, cooling, crisis assistance, and weatherization, 60% of funds went to pay for heating
assistance, 6% was used for cooling aid, 24% went to crisis assistance, and 10% was used for
weatherization. (Note that these percentages do not account for administrative expenses or
services to reduce the need for energy assistance.) Also in FY2011, an estimated 6.8 million
households received an average of $370 in heating assistance for the year.
For FY2015, Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP as part of the FY2015
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). This is the same as the
amount distributed to LIHEAP grantees in the previous year pursuant to the FY2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76), though not the same amount appropriated in
FY2014. In that year, Congress provided approximately $3.425 billion for LIHEAP, but $34
million was transferred elsewhere within HHS and not distributed to grantees. The $3.39 billion is
the same amount proposed for FY2015 by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and exceeds the amount
proposed by the President by $1 billion.
P.L. 113-235 provides that the total for LIHEAP in FY2015 be distributed as regular funds. Of
that amount, $491 million is distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and the
remainder ($2.9 billion) according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. (See Table
B-1 for amounts available to states, tribes, and territories pursuant to the FY2015 appropriations
act.)
Congressional Research Service
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
LIHEAP Funding..Program Rules and Benefits ............................................................................................................ 1
How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used? .............................. 1
FY2012 LIHEAP Funding.......................................................................... 1
Who May Receive Assistance?............................... 1
Funding Under the FY2012 Continuing Resolutions.......................................................... 2
FY2011 LIHEAP Funding.................. 4
How Is LIHEAP Administered? ................................................................................................ 3
FY2011 Emergency Contingency Funds5
Households Served ............................................................................. 4
Program Rules and Benefits ....................................... 6
Benefit Levels..................................................................... 5
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility......................................................... 5
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available.....8
Types of LIHEAP Funds .................................................................................. 6
Use of Funds.............................. 10
Regular Funds................................................................................................ 6
Households Served .......................... 10
Tribal Allotments.......................................................................................... 6
Benefit Levels........................ 10
Funds for the Territories .................................................................................................... 7
Funds and Their Distribution ....11
Emergency Contingency Funds ..................................................................................................... 10
Regular Funds. 11
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds ............................................................................... 13
Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance .......................................... 10
Tier I14
LIHEAP Appropriations ................................................................................................................ 14
The LIHEAP Program Year .................. 10
Tier II................................................................................... 14
Recent LIHEAP Funding.............................................. 11
Tier III ........................................................... 15
FY2015 LIHEAP Funding .................................................................... 11
Contingency Funds............................ 15
Other Issues ...................................................................................... 11
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds ............................................. 18
Program Integrity.................................. 12
Other Funds ................................................................................... 18
Performance Measures .......................................... 12
Legislative History.................................................................. 19
Tables
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2009 ....................................................... 12
Tables..... 3
Table 1. FY2011 Enacted LIHEAP Funding and FY2012 Proposed Funding2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance ................................. 4 9
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid for Select Years3. FY2014-FY2015 LIHEAP Funding .......................................................... 9
Table A-1. FY2012 LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments to States, Tribes, and Territories as
of December 22, 2012 ............................................. 17
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP ............................................................... 24
Table B-1. FY2015 Regular Fund Allotments to States, Tribes, and Territories ........................... 1527
Table A-2. FY2011 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to States, Tribes,
and TerritoriesB-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2007 to FY2014 .......................................................... 30
Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2015 ..................................................................... 17
Table A-3. LIHEAP Funding by State FY2006 to FY2010 ... 33
Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislative History of Energy Assistance................................................................. 19
Table A-4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY201221
Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels................................................................ 27
Congressional Research Service
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Contacts
Author Contact Information.................................... 22
Appendixes
Appendix. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels ....................................................................... 14
Contacts
Author Contact Information35
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 2435
Congressional Research Service
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established by Title XXVI of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program underthrough which
the federal
government gives states, tribes, and territories annual grants to operate home energy
assistance assistance
programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute provides for two primary types of
program funding: regular funds (sometimes referred to in this report as “as block grant or formula funds”) and
emergency contingency funds. (sometimes referred to in this report as “contingency funds”).
Regular funds are allotted to states according to a formula
prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.1
Contingency Emergency contingency funds may be released and allotted to
one or more states at the discretion of the
President and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
The first section of this report describes funding for LIHEAP in FY2012 and FY2011. The second
section of this report discusses LIHEAP rulesdiscusses LIHEAP program rules and benefits, including household
eligibility and how funds may
be used, and presents the most recent data available from HHS
regarding household
characteristics and benefit levels (see “Program Rules and Benefits”). The
second section of this report discusses. The third section discusses how each category of LIHEAP
funds is distributed to states, as well as a breakdown of funds to the states during the last several
fiscal years. Finally, the Appendix contains tables showing recent LIHEAP allocations to the
states, as well as appropriations for the program since its inception.
LIHEAP Funding
FY2012 LIHEAP Funding
Funding for LIHEAP in FY2012 was finalized when the House and Senate approved the
conference report for H.R. 2055, the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 112331). While the bill itself contained funding for Military Construction and the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the conference report provided funding for most other federal programs.
The total for LIHEAP regular funds in FY2012 is approximately $3.472 billion; no funding was
provided for emergency contingency funds. The amount actually provided for formula grants in
H.Rept. 112-331 is $3.478 billion, but application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for
discretionary accounts resulted in the final appropriation of $3.472 billion.2 Compared to
FY2011, LIHEAP funding is reduced by approximately $1.2 billion, when Congress appropriated
$4.5 billion for regular funds and $200 million for emergency contingency funds.
Prior to approval of H.R. 2055, the President had proposed to provide a total of $2.57 billion for
LIHEAP in FY2012—$1.98 billion for regular funds and $590 million for emergency
contingency funds. According to HHS budget documents, the reason for the proposed reduction
compared to FY2011 was that the Administration did not expect energy prices to be as high in
FY2012 as they were in FY2008.3 Another proposed change in the budget was to increase the
1
See Section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), as amended.
The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).
2
See H.Rept. 112-331, Division F, Title V, Section 527.
3
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2012 Congressional
Justification, p. 31, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/LIHEAP.pdf. Historical energy prices, as
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
amount of funding for LIHEAP training and technical assistance from the $300,000 that has been
set aside for this purpose to $3 million.4 H.Rept. 112-331 followed this proposal and included $3
million for training and technical assistance.
FY2012 Congressional proposals for LIHEAP regular funds provided in bills introduced in the
House (H.R. 3070) and approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 1599) were similar
to each other. H.R. 3070 would have appropriated $3.39 billion, while S. 1599 proposed to
provide $3.4 billion (and $200 million in emergency contingency funds). However, despite the
nearly identical proposals, the two bills would have used different applications of the LIHEAP
formula to distribute funds to the states. H.R. 3070 would have used the statutory, or “new,”
LIHEAP formula to distribute funds, while S. 1599 would have used the proportions of the “old”
LIHEAP formula. (For more information on how funds would have been distributed to the states
under these proposals, see Table C-1 of CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula:
Legislative History and Current Law, by Libby Perl.)
The amount included for LIHEAP in H.Rept. 112-331 resolved differences between H.R. 3070
and S. 1599 by using language similar to the appropriations laws for FY2009 through FY2011:
For making payments under subsections (b) and (d) of section 2602 of the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, $3,478,246,000: Provided, That all but $497,000,000
of such funds shall be allocated as though the total appropriation for such payments for fiscal
year 2012 was less than $1,975,000,000....
The effect of the appropriations language is that $497 million of the total appropriated is to be
distributed using the “new” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder, about $2.9 billion, using the
“old” formula.
Funding Under the FY2012 Continuing Resolutions
As of the date of this report, H.R. 2055 was awaiting the President’s signature, and LIHEAP was
being funded as part of a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) that maintained funding at
FY2011 levels through December 23, 2011 (P.L. 112-68).5 However, states did not receive the
same amount of LIHEAP funding that they received in FY2011 due to a standard provision in
continuing resolutions that states the following:
For those programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete
distribution of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2012 because of distributions of
funding to States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or
complete distribution shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs
funded by this Act that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.6
(...continued)
well as predictions for the next year, are available from the Energy Information Administration. See the Short Term
Energy Outlook, http://www.eia.doe.gov/EMEU/steo/realprices/index.cfm.
4
The $300,000 set-aside is authorized at 42 U.S.C. §8628a.
5
Prior to enactment of P.L. 112-68, LIHEAP had been funded by four other continuing resolutions, P.L. 112-33
(through October 4, 2011), P.L. 112-36 (through November 18, 2011), P.L. 112-55 (through December 16, 2011), and
P.L. 112-67 (through December 17, 2011).
6
See Section 109 of P.L. 112-36.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not
exceed the amount that Congress ultimately appropriates for it. Typically, states are eligible to
receive their entire LIHEAP formula allocations in the first quarter of the fiscal year if they so
choose, qualifying as a program “that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or
complete distribution of appropriations” at the beginning of FY2012 as stipulated in the CR.
Because both the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill (S. 1599) and the bill introduced
in the House (H.R. 3070) proposed lower LIHEAP funding levels for FY2012 compared to
FY2011 ($3.40 billion and $3.39 billion, respectively), if HHS would have released regular fund
allocations at the FY2011 level of $4.50 billion, and less funding ultimately was enacted (as
occurred in FY2012), then states would have received higher allocations than the amount to
which they would be entitled under the final appropriation, impinging on “final funding
prerogatives.” Further, although the proposed regular fund levels in the Senate and the House
were nearly identical to each other, the allocations to the states under each proposal would have
been different, which could also have impinged on final funding prerogatives.
As a result, on October 28, 2011, HHS announced that it would base the first-quarter distribution
of LIHEAP funds on the President’s funding proposal of $1.98 billion. States were eligible to
receive up to 95% of their first quarter allocation at this level, resulting in a distribution of
approximately $1.7 billion.7 However, after both the House and Senate had approved the
conference report accompanying H.R. 2055, on December 22, 2011, HHS announced a second
release of $845 million to states, tribes, and territories.8 This amount brought grantees’ allocations
to 75% of the total that they are to receive pursuant to the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations
Act.
For the amounts distributed to the states, tribes, and territories thus far, see Table A-1.
FY2011 LIHEAP Funding
In FY2011, LIHEAP was funded by a series of seven continuing resolutions (CRs) through April
14, 2011, prior to enactment of the full-year funding bill. On April 15, 2011, the President signed
the full-year appropriations law, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10), which provided a total of $4.71 billion for LIHEAP. Of this
amount, $4.51 billion was allocated to regular funds and $200 million to emergency contingency
funds. The appropriation for LIHEAP was also subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%
applied to all discretionary accounts, bringing the total for the program to about $4.70 billion. In
distributing the regular funds to states, tribes, and territories, HHS did not reserve funds for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants (which had been $27 million in FY2010). As a result,
after reducing the total regular funds for the across-the-board rescission ($9 million) and
subtracting funds for training and technical assistance ($300,000), approximately $4.50 billion
was distributed to states, tribes, and territories. In addition, $200 million in emergency
7
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS provides more than $1.7 billion to states to help low-income
households with energy costs,” press release, October 28, 2011, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/10/
20111028a.html.
8
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS releases more than $845 million to states to help low-income
households with energy costs,” press release, December 22, 2011, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/12/
20111222a.html.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
contingency funds was distributed to all grantees in January. For the total amounts of LIHEAP
funds distributed to grantees, see Table A-2.
FY2011 Emergency Contingency Funds
On January 24, 2011, HHS announced that it would release $200 million in FY2011 emergency
contingency funds. All states, the District of Columbia, tribes, and territories received funding.
HHS based allocations on each state’s “old” LIHEAP formula percentage (84% of the
distribution) as well as the percentage of low-income households in each state that use heating oil
or propane to heat their homes (16% of the distribution). For the distributions of funds to the
states, see column (b) of Table A-2.
Table 1. FY2011 Enacted LIHEAP Funding and FY2012 Proposed Funding
(dollars in millions)
Type of
Funding
FY2011
Enacted:
P.L. 112-10a
FY2012
President’s
Request
FY2012
Senate
CommitteePassed LHE
Bill
S. 1599
FY2012
LHE Bill
Introduced in
the House
H.R. 3070
FY2012
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act
H.R. 2055 and
H.Rept. 112-331b
LIHEAP Regular
Funds
4,501
1,980
3,401
3,392
3,472
Training and
Technical
Assistance
0.3c
3
3
2
3
Leveraging
Incentive/
REACH
Grants
—d
27e
27f
—g
—g
200
590
200
0
0
4,701
2,570
3,601
3,392
3,472
Contingency
Funds
Total
Sources: The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), the FY2011 Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10), the HHS FY2011 Operating Plan for the Administration
for Children and Families, the FY2012 budget appendix, the FY2012 HHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
Senate Committee-passed version of the FY2012 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education (LHE) Appropriations bill (S. 1599), the version of the LHE bill introduced in the House (H.R. 3070),
and the Conference Report to accompany the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 112-331).
a.
P.L. 112-10 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% on discretionary accounts. HHS reduced the
regular fund distribution by the amount of the rescission (approximately $9 million) to bring the total from
$4.51 billion to $4.50 billion.
b.
H.Rept. 112-331 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% on discretionary accounts, bringing the
total available for LIHEAP down from $3.478 billion to $3.472 billion. See Division F, Title V, Section 527.
c.
The LIHEAP statute gives the HHS Secretary authority to set aside up to $300,000 from the regular fund
appropriation for training and technical assistance. 42 U.S.C. §8628a.
d.
HHS did not reserve funds for leveraging incentive and REACH grants in FY2011.
e.
The amount proposed to be set aside for leveraging incentive and REACH grants in FY2012 was noted in
the HHS Congressional Budget Justifications and did not appear in the budget appendix.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
f.
The amount proposed for leveraging incentive and REACH grants appeared in the Senate Appropriations
Committee Report, S.Rept. 112-84.
g.
H.R. 3070 and H.Rept. 112-331 did not specify a funding level for leveraging incentive and REACH grants.
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program decisions to the
states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) that receive federal funds. The federal government (HHS)
may not dictate how grantees implement “assurances” that they will comply with general federal
guidelines.
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility
Federal law limits LIHEAP eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal
poverty income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median income). States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty guidelines may be
considered ineligible. States may separately choose to make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any
household of which at least one member is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other aid
programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to include, what income
limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The statute gives priority for aid to
households with the greatest energy needs or cost burdens, especially those that include disabled
individuals, frail older individuals, or young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat
owners and renters “equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs,
and to have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need. The LIHEAP
definition of “energy crisis” leaves room for each state to define the term slightly differently,
although generally, crisis assistance is provided to households that are in danger of losing their
heating or cooling due to problems with equipment, receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or
exhaustion of a fuel supply.9 Federal rules also require outreach activities, coordination with the
Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal
controls, and fair hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar range of
benefits, choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will administer the
program.10
9
The LIHEAP statute defines an energy crisis as “weather-related and supply shortage emergencies and other
household energy-related emergencies.” 42 U.S.C. §8622(3). For the state definitions of “crisis” see the HHS LIHEAP
Networker FY2007 compilation of definitions, available at http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2007/
CrisisDef2007.doc.
10
Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at http://www.liheap.ncat.org/
sp.htm.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available
Funds are available for four types of energy assistance to eligible households:
•
help paying heating or cooling bills;
•
low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other homeenergy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless a grantee has a waiver
for up to 25%);
•
services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment, counseling
on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of allotment); and
•
help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds
The greatest share of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In FY2008,
approximately 53.3% of all LIHEAP funds was used to provide heating assistance; all states
(including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.11 Nearly all states also
offered crisis assistance, most of which is used for heating needs. In FY2008, 19.0% of LIHEAP
funds was used to provide winter/year-round crisis assistance in 48 states and summer crisis
assistance in six states.12 Also in FY2008, 3.1% of funds went for cooling aid (offered by 15
states); 10.1% of total LIHEAP funds was used for weatherization services (provided by 44
states); 8.4% of available funds went for administration and planning purposes (51 states); and
1.2% of the FY2008 funds was used to offer services to reduce the need for energy assistance
(provided by 23 states).13
Households Served
In FY2009, it is estimated that 7.4 million households received LIHEAP heating and/or winter
crisis assistance.14 This estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received
both heating and winter crisis assistance. The number of households receiving heating and/or
winter crisis assistance in FY2009 increased by 2 million compared to FY2008, when an
estimated 5.4 million households were served. This was due to an increase in LIHEAP funding
that occurred in FY2009, with Congress appropriating $5.10 billion, compared to $2.59 billion in
FY2008. This represents the largest number of households served since the program was enacted.
Shortly after LIHEAP began, in FY1983, approximately 6.8 million households received heating
and/or winter crisis assistance. Since that time, the number of households receiving assistance
declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients in FY1999. After
FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing again to the current level. (See
Table 2.)
11
Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2008 of $2.7 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 2008, September 6, 2011, p. 16 (hereinafter, FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress).
12
Ibid., Table I-8, pp. 17-19 and Table III-11, pp. 45-46.
13
Ibid., p. 16.
14
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009, September 2011, p. 30 (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook).
Congressional Research Service
6
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households that receive heating
and/or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million households that received funds
represented 31% of federally eligible households. By FY1999, the number of federally eligible
households receiving LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis assistance had dropped to 12%. Since
FY2003, the percentage of federally eligible households receiving assistance hovered between
14% and 16%, settling at 16% for FY2006 through FY2008. However, in FY2009, with increased
funding for LIHEAP, 21% of those households statutorily eligible for LIHEAP were served. Note
that due to a provision in the FY2009 appropriations act (P.L. 110-329) that allowed states to
increase household eligibility to 75% of state median income, only 16% of those federally
eligible were served in FY2009.15
Prior to FY2009, the number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance
reached a high point of 700,000 recipients in FY2006. In FY2009, with increased funding,
900,000 households received cooling assistance.16
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance in FY2008, about
32% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 32% had at least one member with a
disability; and some 21% included at least one child five years of age or younger.17
Benefit Levels
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what extent LIHEAP is
able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in meeting their home energy
needs. These include the following:
•
the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price fluctuations
and variation in kinds of fuels used);
•
the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the weather, energy
efficiency of housing, and expected standards of comfort); and
•
the number of eligible households (influenced by population size and health of
the economy).
In FY2009, the constant dollar value of the average LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit
increased by about $58 from the previous year. Measured in constant 1981 dollars (the year in
which LIHEAP was enacted), the average LIHEAP benefit per household in FY2008 was $209,
up from $151 in FY2008.18 Until FY2009, when funding for the program increased by more than
$2 billion compared to the previous fiscal year, the general trend in the constant dollar value of
LIHEAP benefits since the program’s beginning had been one of decline. In FY1983, the average
heating and winter crisis benefit, measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $209. By FY1998, it had
declined to $117, and although the average benefit reached $187 in FY2001, it generally declined
again thereafter, with the exception of $171 in FY2006, when funding was higher than in the
immediately preceding and subsequent years. (See Table 2.)
15
Ibid.
See the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 31, and the FY2006 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
17
FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 49.
18
FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
16
Congressional Research Service
7
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Through FY2008 (prior to the FY2009 increase in funding), LIHEAP has generally covered a
smaller portion of home heating bills than in earlier years. In FY2008, the LIHEAP benefit
covered 43% of the heating costs of LIHEAP-recipient households, compared to 54% in 1981.19
Between FY1990 and FY2008, the percentage of home heating bills covered by the average
LIHEAP benefit has ranged from 40% to 73% (a high reached in FY2000).
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is available to a more
limited number of households in far fewer states, has fluctuated over the years. While the average
benefit in 1981 was $129, in the years that followed the average benefit in constant 1981 dollars
declined as low as $57 in FY1983 and $49 in FY1990. However, the average benefit grew from
FY1990 levels, and by FY2000 and FY2001 the average benefit had reached $107. In recent
years, between FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value has ranged from $72 (in FY2008)
to $105 (in FY2006). In FY2009, when funding for LIHEAP increased significantly, the constant
dollar value of cooling benefits rose to $142.20
19
20
FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 38.
FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid for Select Years
Fiscal Years
1983
1990
1993
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2006
2007
6.8
5.8
5.6
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.8
4.4
4.8
5.0
Number
federally
eligible
(millions)
22.2
25.4
28.4
29.1
29.0
29.4
30.4
32.7
34.5
Federally
eligible and
receiving aid
31%
23%
20%
13%
12%
13%
16%
13%
Average
benefit
(nominal $)
$225
$209
$201
$213
$237
$270
$364
Average
benefit
(constant
1981 $)b
$209
$147
$129
$117
$128
$140
2008 2009
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.4
7.4
35.4
34.8
34.4
33.6
33.5
35.0a
14%
14%
15%
16%
16%
16%
21%
$291
$312
$277
$304
$385
$320
$362
$502
$187
$147
$154
$132
$140
$171
$139
$151
$209
Households
Number
receiving aid
(millions)
Benefit Levels
LIHEAP Coverage
LIHEAP
household
heating
expenditures
as a
percentage of
income
7.0%
5.2%
7.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
7.4%
6.2%
8.6%
8.4%
9.4% 11.2%
6.5%
7.1%
6.9%
Percentage of
heating costs
offset by
LIHEAP
benefit
54%
51%
49%
—c
—c
73%
68%
64%
48%
43%
40%
45%
43%
—d
42%
Source: Data regarding households assisted, benefit levels, and heating expenditures as a percentage of income
for FY2000 to the present are drawn from the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks for FY1998 through FY2009.
Data for FY1983, FY1990, and FY1993 come from the LIHEAP Reports to Congress.
a.
In FY2009, the appropriations bill (P.L. 110-329) gave states the option of increasing LIHEAP household
eligibility to 75% of state median income. This meant that approximately 45 million households were eligible
for LIHEAP in FY2009. However, for the sake of comparison, this table includes only those households
federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute (those with incomes at or below the greater of 150% of poverty
or 60% of state median income).
b.
The constant dollars are based on the 1981 value of the benefit (using the CPI-U index).
c.
CRS does not have data for heating costs offset in FY1998 and FY1999.
d.
As of the date of this report, HHS had not released the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress, the source
for heating costs offset by the LIHEAP benefit.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Funds and Their Distribution
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular funds appropriations, which are allocated to all states on
the basis of a statutory formula, and contingency fund appropriations, which are allocated to one
or more states at the discretion of the Administration. The statute also authorizes a smaller
amount of funds for incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their energy
assistance programs.
Regular Funds
Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-tier formula in the LIHEAP statute and
based on the level of funds appropriated in a given fiscal year.21 The three-tier formula is the
result of changes to the LIHEAP statute in 1984 through the Human Services Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 98-558). Prior to the changes in P.L. 98-558, LIHEAP allotments to the states were based
largely on home heating needs with minimal consideration of cooling costs, and did not provide
for the use of updated data, including population and energy costs.
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the Department of
Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory data available” and consider
home energy costs of low-income households (not simply all households, as was previously the
case). These changes to the calculation of state allotments mean that some states will receive a
smaller percentage share of regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to
offset the losses to certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe
disruption to programs,”22 Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current law
formula, which is described in more detail below.
Tier I
The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP regular fund appropriation is
less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS
allocates funds according to the allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old
formula is used because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years, no state
shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the LIHEAP funding in that
year been $1.975 billion.23 According to HHS, then, the LIHEAP statute requires use of the old
allotment percentages when funding is less than $1.975 billion.24 Until FY2006, funding levels
for LIHEAP only twice exceeded the $1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, from
21
States are defined to include the District of Columbia. Indian tribes receive funds out of state allotments that are
proportionate to their share of LIHEAP-eligible households in the state. Before state allotments are made, the statute
provides that at least one-tenth (but not more than one-half) of 1% of the total appropriation must be set aside for
energy assistance in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
22
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to accompany H.R. 2439, May 15,
1984, p. 13.
23
42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A).
24
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to
Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
Congressional Research Service
10
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
FY1987 through FY2005, states continued to receive the same allotment percentages they
received under the previous LIHEAP formula.
Tier II
For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the Tier II rate applies, and HHS
uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold
harmless level applies, and no state may receive less funding than it would have received under
the Tier I distribution rate as it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion
appropriation.25 State allotment percentages may be different, however. To ensure that states
receive their hold harmless levels of funding, those states that gain the most funding under the
new formula must have their percentage share of funds ratably reduced to bring other states up to
the hold harmless level.26
Tier III
The Tier III formula applies to funding levels at or above $2.25 billion. The Tier III rate uses the
Tier II methodology to distribute funds, but adds a second hold-harmless requirement, a hold
harmless rate. States that would receive less than 1% of a $2.25 billion appropriation must have
their funds allocated using the rate that would have been used at a hypothetical $2.14 billion
appropriation (if this rate is greater than the calculated rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II
and Tier III rates, a state will not be allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I
distribution as it was in effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975 billion).
Contingency Funds
The statute currently provides an annual authorization of $600 million for LIHEAP contingency
funds (contingency funds are authorized indefinitely).27 Appropriated contingency funds may
only be released at the discretion of HHS and may be allocated to one or more states according to
their needs. The statute authorizes the appropriation of contingency funds “to meet the additional
home energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency.” The term “emergency” is defined in the LIHEAP statute to include a natural disaster;
a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home
energy, home energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment;
or an “event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be appropriate.”
25
Since this language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular LIHEAP funds
appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425). It also authorized Leveraging Incentive Grants
(P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-252)—both of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds.
These debits on the regular funds account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular funds
available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million, it is possible but not certain that HHS would not
implement the newer formula before a regular funds appropriation level of approximately $2.0028 billion.
26
42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
27
42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
Congressional Research Service
11
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
In 1990, P.L. 101-501 amended the program statute to provide a separate funding authorization of
$50 million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants
to states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.28 Such resources might
include negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or separate state funds. States
are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that takes into account
their previous fiscal year success in securing non-federal resources for their energy assistance
program. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that of any incentive
funds appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge
Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded competitive grants for their
efforts to increase efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and to reduce those
families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high energy costs.
The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate from regular
funds, and the programs were not reauthorized in P.L. 109-58. In practice, however, Congress has
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of annual regular
fund appropriations.
Other Funds
States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous fiscal year (limited to 10% of funds
awarded a state). A diminishing amount of money may also be available from previously settled
claims of price control violation by oil companies.29 In addition, the Social Services Block Grant
program allows states to transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy
assistance,30 while the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gives states the
discretion to use funds for home heating and cooling costs.31
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (Title XXVI of
P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended seven times. The legislation
and some of the significant changes made are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP funds are to be
distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular appropriations exceed $1.975 billion.
This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986 and again in FY2006.
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L. 101-501 created the
Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and authorized a July to June program
year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow state program directors to plan for the fall/winter
heating season with knowledge of available money. This program year language was
28
42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge funds was available to one
state.
30
42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
31
42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
29
Congressional Research Service
12
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
subsequently removed, although the statute now states that money appropriated in a given fiscal
year is to be made available for obligation in the following fiscal year. Congress last provided
advance appropriations for LIHEAP in the FY2000 appropriations cycle.
In 1993, P.L. 103-43 extended the authorization of LIHEAP for one year but made no other
changes. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) Congress stipulated that LIHEAP benefits and outreach activities
target households with the greatest home energy needs (and costs), and it enacted a separate and
permanent contingency funding authorization of $600 million for each fiscal year. The 1994 law
also established the competitive REACH grant option. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 authorized annual
regular funding for each of FY2002-FY2004 at $2 billion and made explicit a wide variety of
situations under which HHS is authorized to release LIHEAP contingency funds.
In 2005, the Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized the program and raised the LIHEAP
regular funds authorization level for FY2005 through FY2007 to $5.1 billion. It also explicitly
permitted the purchase of renewable fuels as part of providing LIHEAP assistance; required the
Department of Energy to report on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid; and
required HHS to report (within one year of the legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program
could more effectively prevent loss of life due to extreme temperatures. The law also allowed the
Secretary of the Interior, when disposing of royalty-in-kind oil and gas taken as payment from
lessees using federal land, to grant a preference for the purpose of providing additional resources
to support federal low-income energy assistance programs. (Lessees of federal land may pay
royalties to the U.S. government in oil and natural gas rather than cash payments.) However, the
Government Accountability Office issued a decision determining that the law did not give the
Interior Department sufficient authority to grant such a preference.32 Because of a provision in
existing law that the Interior Department cannot sell oil and gas obtained as in-kind royalties for
less than market price,33 the provision in P.L. 109-58 does not allow a price preference.
32
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Interior—Royalty-in-Kind Oil and Gas Preferences, B307767, November 13, 2006, available at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/307767.pdf.
33
42 U.S.C. §15902(b)(3)(A).
Congressional Research Service
13
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Appendix. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels
In this appendix are three tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states,
tribes, and territories during recent fiscal years, as well as a table showing historical funding
levels from the time the program was created to the present.
Table A-1 shows two first-quarter regular fund distributions to states, tribes, and territories under
the FY2012 continuing resolutions. Allocations for the territories are in the next-to-last row, after
the states. On October 28, 2011, HHS announced that approximately $1.7 billion would be
distributed to the states, tribes, and territories based on the President’s regular fund budget request
of $1.98 billion. Column (a) of Table A-1 shows this distribution. Then, on December 22, 2011,
HHS announced that it would distribute an additional $845 million to grantees (see column (b)).
The second round of allocations brings grantee funding levels to 75% of their total allocation
under the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055), which was awaiting the
President’s signature at the time the second release was announced.
Table A-2 shows how LIHEAP regular funds and emergency contingency funds were distributed
in FY2011.
•
Column (a) of Table A-2 shows the amount of regular funds distributed to states
and tribes within the states. The first number shows the total amount of regular
funds distributed to each state and the tribes within the state, while the second
number, in parenthesis and italics, breaks out the amount set aside for tribes
within each state. Tribes may operate their own LIHEAP programs if they wish.
Their allotments are taken from the state’s award of LIHEAP regular and
contingency funds based on the number of LIHEAP-eligible households in the
tribe. Not all states have funds set aside for tribes.
•
Column (b) shows the amount of emergency contingency funds allocated to each
state and tribe on January 24, 2011, when HHS announced the release of $200
million.
•
Column (c) shows total FY2011 funding to the states.
•
Finally, allocations to the territories are in the next-to-last row, after the states.
Table A-3 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and contingency funds distributed to each
state from FY2006 through FY2010; the totals include funds distributed to tribes within the
states.
Table A-4 provides historic funding levels for LIHEAP from the time the program was initially
funded, in FY1982, through FY2011. The table shows authorization levels for LIHEAP regular
funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and contingency funds, the total amount of
regular and contingency funds appropriated in each fiscal year, and the total amount of
contingency funds distributed.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-1. FY2012 LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments to States,Tribes, and
Territories as of December 22, 2012
(dollars in millions)
State and Tribal Regular Fund
Allotments
Distribution
Announced
12-22-11:
$845 million
(b)
Total Distributed:
$2.56 billion
(c)
7.594
27.961
35.556
Alaska
10.156
3.158
13.314
Arizona
2.488
15.401
17.889
Arkansas
9.585
11.818
21.403
California
85.357
30.577
115.933
Colorado
29.761
5.720
35.481
Connecticut
36.781
22.868
59.649
Delaware
4.340
3.814
8.154
District of Columbia
6.030
1.986
8.015
Florida
23.851
33.354
57.205
Georgia
18.858
27.419
46.277
Hawaii
0.528
4.053
4.580
Idaho
7.539
7.893
15.432
Illinois
107.460
31.803
139.263
Indiana
48.655
11.349
60.004
Iowa
32.667
8.442
41.110
Kansas
15.836
8.214
24.049
Kentucky
23.987
9.498
33.485
Louisiana
15.410
17.156
32.566
Maine
23.877
6.219
30.096
Maryland
29.727
22.615
52.343
Massachusetts
77.662
21.886
99.548
Michigan
70.052
60.035
130.087
Minnesota
73.502
14.127
87.629
Mississippi
12.924
10.768
23.693
Missouri
42.924
8.250
51.173
Montana
12.434
4.485
16.918
Nebraska
15.258
7.411
22.669
3.614
4.788
8.402
State
Alabama
Nevada
Congressional Research Service
Distribution
Announced
10-28-11:
$1.72 billion
(a)
15
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
State and Tribal Regular Fund
Allotments
State
Distribution
Announced
10-28-11:
$1.72 billion
(a)
Distribution
Announced
12-22-11:
$845 million
(b)
Total Distributed:
$2.56 billion
(c)
New Hampshire
14.700
4.841
19.541
New Jersey
72.097
30.462
102.559
New Mexico
9.633
3.185
12.818
235.408
46.375
281.782
North Carolina
35.083
27.175
62.258
North Dakota
14.792
4.872
19.663
Ohio
75.051
49.047
124.098
Oklahoma
13.927
12.498
26.425
Oregon
23.066
4.433
27.499
Pennsylvania
113.138
44.023
157.161
Rhode Island
12.784
4.647
17.431
South Carolina
6.651
20.552
27.202
South Dakota
11.493
4.477
15.970
Tennessee
21.599
19.955
41.554
Texas
37.475
59.899
97.374
Utah
8.829
4.555
13.384
Vermont
11.018
3.629
14.647
Virginia
24.776
24.116
48.892
Washington
37.941
7.413
45.354
West Virginia
14.110
8.164
22.275
Wisconsin
66.162
12.716
78.879
Wyoming
5.537
1.824
7.361
1,714.124
841.929
2,556.053
2.509
3.246
5.754
1,716.633
845.175
2,561.807
New York
Subtotal to states
Territories
Total
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families.
Note: The table does not include approximately $36,000 in recovered no-year funds that were released as part
of the 10-28-11 distribution.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-2. FY2011 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to States,
Tribes, and Territories
(dollars in millions)
State
Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Funds
Total State & Tribal Regular
Fund Allotments:
$4.50 billion
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(a)
January 2011:
Total State & Tribal
Contingency Fund Allotments:
$200 million
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(b)
Total
Funds
Distributed:
$4.70 Billion
(c)
Alabama
59.419
(0.409)
2.151
(0.015)
61.570
Alaska
23.667
(9.340)
1.060
(0.414)
24.727
Arizona
32.922
(2.707)
0.923
(0.075)
33.844
Arkansas
34.985
California
202.843
Colorado
62.139
2.896
65.035
Connecticut
98.254
4.665
102.919
Delaware
15.172
0.682
15.854
District of
Columbia
14.051
0.590
14.641
1.416
(1.726)
(0.028)
8.711
(0.074)
107.714
Georgia
85.164
2.697
87.862
Hawaii
6.027
0.208
6.235
Idaho
27.052
Illinois
238.712
Indiana
102.749
1.147
(0.001)
211.554
Florida
(1.316)
3.069
36.401
(0.056)
10.228
(0.007)
4.834
110.783
28.199
248.941
a
107.584
Iowa
68.137
3.452
71.589
Kansas
42.327
1.597
43.924
Kentucky
58.335
2.776
61.111
Louisiana
53.164
1.731
54.895
Maine
53.539
Maryland
85.523
(2.074)
3.002
(0.110)
3.403
56.541
88.926
Massachusetts
175.178
(0.074)
8.676
(0.003)
183.854
Michigan
228.294
(1.186)
10.131
(0.058)
238.425
Minnesota
145.241
Mississippi
38.834
Missouri
95.596
Montana
31.730
Nebraska
39.738
1.708
41.447
Nevada
15.462
0.406
15.868
Congressional Research Service
7.318
(0.078)
1.801
152.559
(0.003)
4.597
(5.819)
1.342
40.635
100.193
(0.235)
33.072
17
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
State
Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Funds
Total State & Tribal Regular
Fund Allotments:
$4.50 billion
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(a)
January 2011:
Total State & Tribal
Contingency Fund Allotments:
$200 million
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(b)
Total
Funds
Distributed:
$4.70 Billion
(c)
New
Hampshire
34.255
1.795
36.050
New Jersey
180.991
7.801
188.792
New Mexico
22.448
(1.875)
1.094
(0.087)
23.543
New York
495.801
(0.269)
26.125
(0.014)
521.925
North
Carolina
111.263
(1.979)
4.942
(0.088)
116.205
34.469
(7.895)
1.467
(0.317)
35.936
North Dakota
Ohio
225.398
9.477
234.875
Oklahoma
47.717
(4.378)
1.661
(0.152)
49.378
Oregon
45.579
(0.732)
2.282
(0.036)
47.861
Pennsylvania
280.478
Rhode Island
29.790
South Carolina
46.909
South Dakota
27.995
Tennessee
71.595
2.796
74.390
Texas
179.200
5.001
184.201
Utah
32.228
Vermont
25.675
1.284
26.959
102.839
4.375
107.215
Virginia
14.008
(0.089)
1.484
294.486
(0.004)
1.740
(5.117)
(0.521)
(3.197)
1.265
1.309
48.649
(0.225)
(0.022)
(0.151)
29.259
33.537
Washington
74.971
West Virginia
39.047
1.739
40.786
Wisconsin
130.738
6.652
137.390
Wyoming
12.904
(0.438)
3.717
31.274
78.688
0.540
(0.018)
13.444
199.772
(2.158)
4,694.030
Subtotal to
states
4,494.258
Territories
6.095
0.228
6.322
4,500.353
200.000
4,700.353
Total
(51.252)
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families.
a.
The tribal allotment for Indiana was less than $1,000.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-3. LIHEAP Funding by State FY2006 to FY2010
(dollars in millions)
State
(includes tribal
allotments)
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and contingency)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Alabama
31.972
22.205
19.221
64.274
69.016
Alaska
18.473
12.454
16.856
30.928
28.182
Arizona
15.399
8.551
9.296
31.084
37.422
Arkansas
23.336
15.749
14.667
39.711
40.000
California
157.626
94.855
103.117
248.487
234.215
Colorado
44.842
33.073
41.326
71.352
70.675
Connecticut
71.106
48.102
65.618
125.887
107.845
Delaware
10.954
5.727
6.929
18.748
16.847
8.165
6.700
7.284
16.249
16.067
Florida
49.798
27.977
30.414
101.701
129.014
Georgia
40.026
28.564
24.047
80.410
102.091
Hawaii
2.567
2.228
2.403
5.182
6.589
Idaho
14.772
12.901
13.916
30.012
30.158
Illinois
193.814
119.418
149.216
265.679
265.542
Indiana
75.336
54.069
67.561
116.487
117.575
Iowa
52.054
38.319
47.881
76.929
74.524
Kansas
27.722
19.746
22.137
49.541
46.262
Kentucky
45.320
32.010
30.588
75.055
67.832
Louisiana
32.671
22.499
19.651
61.502
59.054
Maine
45.146
33.719
46.536
79.187
60.428
Maryland
61.889
33.036
35.913
109.164
90.005
Massachusetts
126.476
93.795
126.492
213.500
196.602
Michigan
154.671
113.377
141.667
249.416
276.447
Minnesota
110.849
81.681
102.063
163.982
160.089
Mississippi
27.467
17.871
16.479
42.622
46.650
Missouri
78.220
52.645
59.603
114.902
107.145
Montana
22.789
15.132
18.907
35.202
34.530
Nebraska
28.643
18.950
23.679
44.086
42.893
7.247
4.016
4.366
14.599
18.218
27.740
18.769
25.635
47.737
37.423
New Jersey
115.046
80.120
108.707
185.773
199.455
New Mexico
12.491
10.705
11.638
27.451
24.739
District of Columbia
Nevada
New Hampshire
Congressional Research Service
19
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
State
(includes tribal
allotments)
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and contingency)
FY2006
New York
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
382.251
261.604
359.628
538.243
537.348
North Carolina
72.413
45.974
42.383
132.528
127.139
North Dakota
24.680
16.438
20.539
38.240
36.668
164.226
105.643
132.004
245.750
253.035
Oklahoma
29.543
19.282
17.668
52.878
53.190
Oregon
25.116
25.633
27.650
51.460
52.029
Pennsylvania
202.324
140.520
191.759
308.394
315.357
Rhode Island
23.131
15.471
20.875
38.653
34.444
South Carolina
25.279
17.636
15.266
51.047
56.232
South Dakota
20.117
13.350
16.681
31.058
29.989
Tennessee
47.139
33.568
30.985
80.512
84.899
Texas
84.005
46.545
50.599
169.196
212.807
Utah
23.285
15.369
19.204
35.755
35.003
Vermont
20.903
14.162
19.370
36.156
27.941
Virginia
75.053
40.241
43.746
127.668
109.927
Washington
41.226
42.163
45.481
84.645
83.989
West Virginia
24.543
18.621
20.157
45.019
43.363
Wisconsin
99.837
73.525
91.872
147.608
145.214
Wyoming
9.284
6.153
7.689
14.315
14.124
3,128.981
2,130.860
2,587.373
5,065.966
5,066.234
3.456
2.788
3.014
6.734
6.816
Leveraging/REACHc
27.225
27.225
—d
27.000
27.000
Training/tech. asst.e
0.297
0.297
0.292
0.300
0.300
Total
3,160
2,161
2,591
5,100
5,100.350
Ohio
Subtotal to states and
tribes
Territoriesb
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) data.
a.
The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states and tribes, and any contingency
funds awarded to states and tribes in that year.
b.
The statute provides that HHS must set aside not less then one-tenth of 1% and not more than one-half of
1% for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands).
c.
The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging incentive
program (designed to encourage states to increase non-federal support for energy assistance). It also
provides that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be reserved for competitive REACH
grants (for state efforts to increase efficient use of energy among low-income households and to reduce
their vulnerability to homelessness and other problems due to high energy costs). Congress has in recent
years stipulated that a certain portion of the LIHEAP regular funds be set aside for leveraging grants and, of
this amount, HHS has reserved 25% for REACH grants.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
d.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not specify funds for leveraging incentive
and REACH grants.
e.
The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into contracts
with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical assistance related to
achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program.
Congressional Research Service
21
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2012
(dollars in thousands)
Regular Funds
Contingency Fundsa
Fiscal
Year
Authorized
President’s
Request
Appropriated
President’s
Request
Appropriated
Distributed
Total
Distributed
1982
1,875,000
1,400,000
1,875,000
—
—
—
1,875,000
1983
1,875,000
1,300,000
1,975,000
—
—
—
1,975,000
1984
1,875,000
1,300,000
2,075,000
—
—
—
2,075,000
1985
2,140,000
1,875,000
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1986
2,275,000
2,097,765
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1987
2,050,000
2,097,642
1,825,000
—
—
—
1,825,000
1988
2,132,000
1,237,000
1,531,840
—
—
—
1,531,840
1989
2,218,000
1,187,000
1,383,200
—
—
—
1,383,200
1990
2,307,000
1,100,000
1,443,000
—
—
—
1,443,000
1991
2,150,000
1,050,000
1,415,055
NAb
195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992
2,230,000
925,000
1,500,000
100,000
300,000
0
1,500,000
1993
ssanc
1,065,000
1,346,030
0
595,200
0
1,346,030
1994
ssanc
1,507,408
1,437,402
0
600,000
300,000
1,737,402
1995
2,000,000
1,475,000
1,319,202
d
600,000
100,000
1,419,202
1996
2,000,000
1,319,204
900,000
e
180,000
180,000
1,080,000
1997
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
420,000
215,000
1,215,000
1998
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
300,000
160,000
1,160,000
1999
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
300,000
300,000
175,299
1,275,299
2000
ssanc
1,100,000
1,100,000
300,000
900,000
744,350f
1,844350f
2001
ssanc
1,100,000
1,400,000
300,000
600,000g
455,650h
1,855,650
2002
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,700,000
300,000
300,000
100,000i
1,800,000
300,000
0
200,000k
1,988,300
2003
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,788,300j
2004
2,000,000
1,700,000
1,789,380
300,000
99,410
99,410
1,888,790
5,100,000
1,900,500l,m
1,884,799
200,000
297,600
277,250
2,162,050
2006
5,100,000
1,800,000l
2,480,000
200,000
681,000
679,960
3,160,000
2007
5,100,000
1,782,000
1,980,000
0
181,000
181,000
2,161,000
2008
—n
1,500,000
1,980,000
282,000
590,328
610,678o
2,590,678
2009
—n
1,700,000
4,509,672
300,000
590,328
590,328
5,100,000
2010
—n
2,410,000p
4,509,672
790,000
590,328
590,678
5,100,350
2011q
—n
2,510,000r
4,500,653
790,000
200,000
200,000
4,700,653
2012
—n
1,980,000
—
590,000
—
—
—
2005
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of HHS data.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
a.
In 1994, Congress enacted a permanent $600 million annual authorization for contingency funding. As
shown, however, before this authorization contingency funds were sometimes made available.
b.
Congress first allocated emergency contingency funds in January of 1991 due to the price of home heating
oil (P.L. 101-517). Funds were not requested in the President’s budget until FY1992.
c.
Such sums as necessary.
d.
The President’s FY1995 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1994 (P.L. 103-112) available until expended.
e.
The President’s FY1996 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1995 (P.L. 103-333) available until expended.
f.
The Administration released $400 million of the FY2000 contingency funds in late September 2000, making
them effectively available to states in FY2001.
g.
The initial contingency fund appropriation for FY2001was $300 million (P.L. 106-554). The Administration
released the entire amount by December 30, 2000. On July 24, 2001, the 2001 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-20) provided an additional $300 million in contingency funds.
h.
The distributed contingency funds in FY2001 included the $300 million appropriated in P.L. 106-554 and the
amount remaining from FY2000 (approximately $156 million). The $300 million that was appropriated as
part of P.L. 107-20 was made available until expended; a portion was distributed in FY2003 and the
remainder was converted to regular funds that same year.
i.
The FY2002 contingency funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L.
107-116). With the end of FY2002, the remainder of the contingency funds expired ($200 million).
j.
The FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and converted into
regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
k.
FY2003 contingency funds were distributed out of contingency dollars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20).
l.
Of the amounts requested by the President in FY2005 and FY2006, $500,000 was to be set aside for a
national evaluation.
m.
In FY2005, the President’s initial budget request for LIHEAP regular funds was $1,800,000,500. However, on
November 14, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment to Congress, requesting $1,900,000,500
for LIHEAP regular funds.
n.
LIHEAP was not authorized in FY2008, FY2009, or FY2010 and has not been authorized for FY2011 or
FY2012.
o.
Of the contingency funds distributed in FY2008, $20 million came from funds appropriated in the FY2005
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447).
Contingency funds in P.L. 108-447 were made available until expended.
p.
In FY2010, the President proposed that a mechanism be created whereby additional LIHEAP funds would be
released when energy price increases reached certain levels; the proposal was not adopted by Congress.
The Administration estimated that this “trigger” would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of
$450 million. This estimate is not included in the table.
q.
P.L. 112-10 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% on discretionary accounts. As a result, the
regular fund allocation was reduced from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion.
r.
In FY2011, the President again proposed a trigger to release additional LIHEAP funds. In addition to
proposing that funds be released when energy prices increase, the FY2011 proposal would have released
funds when participation in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) increased above a certain level. The
Administration estimated that this trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $2 billion.
This estimate is not included in the table.
Congressional Research Service
23
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Congressional Research Service
24 funds and how they are
distributed to states, tribes, and territories (see “Types of LIHEAP Funds”). The third section
discusses LIHEAP funding and appropriations (see “LIHEAP Appropriations”). Appendix A
describes the legislative history of energy assistance, leading up to and including the enactment of
LIHEAP (see “Legislative History of Energy Assistance”). Finally, Appendix B contains tables
showing recent LIHEAP allocations to the states, as well as appropriations for the program since
its inception.
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program decisions to the
states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations that
receive federal funds (collectively referred to in this report as “grantees”). The law governing
LIHEAP sets up most requirements as part of a list of “assurances” that grantees must make when
they apply to HHS for funds.2 For example, grantees must make assurances about the sorts of
energy assistance they will provide, who will be served, and how funds will be administered. The
LIHEAP statute contains 16 assurances that govern various aspects of how the program operates
at the state, tribe, or territorial level. This section discusses how grantees implement the
assurances to provide energy assistance to low-income households.
How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used?
The LIHEAP statute outlines the ways in which grantees may use funds.3
•
Funds may be used to help households meet their home energy costs by making
payments for heating and cooling expenses.4 All state grantees provide heating
1
See §2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), as amended. The
section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).
2
42 U.S.C. §8624.
3
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(1).
4
“Home energy” is defined at 42 U.S.C. §8622 as “a source of heating or cooling in residential dwellings.”
Congressional Research Service
1
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
assistance to households, while a smaller number provide cooling assistance. See
Table 1.
•
States must reserve funds to assist when households face an energy crisis,5
defined as “weather-related and supply shortage emergencies and other
household energy-related emergencies.”6 Within this definition, states determine
the circumstances under which they will provide assistance. For example,
generally states provide crisis assistance to households that are in danger of
losing their heating or cooling due to problems with equipment, receipt of a
utility shutoff notice, or exhaustion of a fuel supply.7
•
Funds may be used for low-cost weatherization projects. Grantees are limited to
using 15% of their allotment for weatherization unless a grantee has a waiver
from HHS for up to 25%.8
•
Grantees may use funds to provide services to reduce the need for energy
assistance (e.g., needs assessment, counseling on how to reduce energy
consumption) limited to 5% of the allotment.9
•
Funds may be used for program administration, limited to 10% of the allotment.10
A Note About LIHEAP Data
HHS publishes data about how states use LIHEAP funds as well as the number and characteristics of recipient
households as part of annual LIHEAP Reports to Congress and LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks. The most recent
LIHEAP Report to Congress is from FY2009 and the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook is from FY2011. As a result,
comprehensive information about LIHEAP is dated.
As part of the FY2015 Congressional budget justifications for LIHEAP, HHS included some preliminary FY2011 data
regarding use of funds and households served.11 In FY2011, of funds expended for heating, cooling, crisis assistance,
and weatherization, 60% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 6% was used for cooling aid, 24% went to crisis
assistance, and 10% was used for weatherization. (Note that these percentages do not account for administrative
expenses or services to reduce the need for energy assistance, which were not provided in the budget justifications.)
Also in FY2011, an estimated 6.8 million households received an average of $370 in heating assistance for the year.
The greatest share of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In FY2009 (the most
recent year for which detailed HHS data are available), approximately 53% of all LIHEAP funds
was used to provide heating assistance; all states (including the District of Columbia) provided
5
42 U.S.C. §8623(c).
42 U.S.C. §8622(3).
7
For the state definitions of “crisis” see the compilation at the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/
FY2014/Crisis.pdf. The LIHEAP Clearinghouse, via a contract with HHS, collects information about how states
operate their energy assistance programs.
8
The limitation on use of weatherization funds is at 42 U.S.C. §8624(k).
9
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(16).
10
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(9).
11
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FY2015 Congressional Budget Justifications for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec2b_liheap_2015cj_complete.pdf.
6
Congressional Research Service
2
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
some heating assistance.12 All states also offered crisis assistance, most of which was used for
heating needs. In FY2009, 19% of LIHEAP funds was used to provide winter/year-round crisis
assistance in 48 states and summer crisis assistance in six states.13 Also in FY2009, 5% of funds
went for cooling aid (offered by 17 states); 10% of total LIHEAP funds was used for
weatherization services (provided by 49 states); 8% of available funds went for administration
and planning purposes (51 states); and 1% of the FY2009 funds was used to offer services to
reduce the need for energy assistance (provided by 26 states).14
In FY2009, funding for LIHEAP increased significantly compared to FY2008, from $2.6 billion
to $5.1 billion. In nearly all categories, funding percentages remained approximately the same,
with the exception of cooling programs. The number of states operating cooling programs
increased from 15 to 17, with expenditures increasing from 3% to 5% of the total. The number of
states offering weatherization services increased from 44 to 49 with expenditures remaining about
10% of total funding.
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2009
Use of Funds
Percentage of
Funds
Dollars
Obligated
($ in millions)a
Number of
States
Households
Assistedb
(in thousands)
Heating
53%
$2,779
51
6,642
Cooling
5
252
17
703
914
51d
2,029
49
6
164
Winter/Year Round Crisis
Assistance
19c
Summer Crisis
Weatherization
10
523
49
141
Administration
8
401
51
—
Services to Reduce Reliance
on Home Energy
1
62
26
—
Carry Over to Next Fiscal
Year
4
212
41
—
Source: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2009, June 6, 2014, p. 20
(percentage of funds, dollars obligated, and number of states), p. 35 (number of households assisted and number
of states for summer crisis), and p. ii of the executive summary (dollars obligated for winter/year round crisis and
summer crisis).
Notes: “States” includes the District of Columbia.
a.
Total dollars obligated include funds that were carried over from FY2008.
b.
Note that the numbers of households assisted by category are not unduplicated. For example, HHS estimates
that two thirds of households that receive winter/year round crisis assistance also receive heating assistance.
12
Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2009 of $5.2 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 2009, June 6, 2014, p. 20, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/
rpt_fy09_liheap_rtc_final_052114_2.pdf (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress).
13
Four states, Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Massachusetts, provide all crisis assistance as expedited heating
assistance to assist households in fuel crisis situations. Ibid., Table I-8, pp. 21-23.
14
Ibid., p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
3
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
c.
HHS provides the combined percentage for crisis assistance.
d.
Four states, Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Massachusetts, use expedited heating assistance to assist
households in fuel crisis situations.
Who May Receive Assistance?
Basic Eligibility: Federal law sets out parameters that grantees must follow in establishing
eligibility for LIHEAP assistance. The statute establishes households as the unit that is eligible for
LIHEAP assistance (versus a family). A household consists of an “individual or group of
individuals who are living together as one economic unit for whom residential energy is
customarily purchased in common or who make undesignated payments for energy in the form of
rent.”15 Grantees must have a system in place for a household denied assistance to appeal.16
•
Eligibility Based on Income: Grantees have the option of setting LIHEAP
eligibility for households at or below 150% of the federal poverty income
guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income.17 States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty
guidelines may be considered ineligible.
•
Eligibility Based on Receipt of Other Benefits: Grantees may separately choose
to make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which at least one
member is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs.18
The LIHEAP statute does not impose an asset test in establishing eligibility, but states may
choose to limit client assets. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other
state or federal aid programs.19 For example, this means that a LIHEAP payment would not count
toward the income or resources of a family applying for SNAP, housing assistance, or other types
of assistance programs. Each year, the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, through a contract with HHS,
makes available state eligibility guidelines on its website.20
Vulnerable and High-Need Populations: The LIHEAP statute requires that grantees conduct
outreach to eligible households, “especially” households with elderly individuals, individuals
with disabilities, or that have high energy burdens (home energy expenditures divided by
income), to ensure that they are aware of LIHEAP availability.21
15
42 U.S.C. §8622(5).
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(13).
17
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B). Each year HHS publishes updated poverty levels and state median income thresholds and
the LIHEAP Clearinghouse publishes them on their website, http://liheap.ncat.org/delivery/income_elibility.htm.
18
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(A). Eligible veterans’ benefits are compensation to parents for the service-connected death of
a child, to veterans with non-service connected disabilities, to the surviving spouse of a veteran, and to children of a
deceased veteran. In each case, benefits are need-based and are reduced based on the beneficiary’s income.
19
42 U.S.C. §8624(f).
20
For income guidelines, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/POP14.htm. For a list of states that use receipt of
other benefits to establish eligibility, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2013/autoeligtable.htm. For states that use
asset tests, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/assets.htm.
21
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(3).
16
Congressional Research Service
4
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Grantees must further ensure that households with the lowest incomes, together with the highest
home energy need in relation to income, receive the highest level of assistance.22 This provision
was added to the law as part of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252) with the
intention of ensuring that both income and energy burden together were considered so that
grantees would target households that are “most drastically burdened” and who have the “highest
health risk.”23
Owners and Renters: Under the LIHEAP statute, grantees must treat owners and renters
“equitably.”24 The way in which renters pay utilities may differ from homeowners, where, in
some cases, payments for heating and cooling are included in rent rather than paid directly by the
tenant. However, this should not affect eligibility for LIHEAP.
In addition, the issue of how to treat renters living in housing subsidized through the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been raised in the past. In general, HUD housing
subsidies are based both on rent levels and reasonable utility expenses. Tenants pay
approximately 30% of their income toward the total rent and utility costs, and HUD subsidizes
the remainder of the total. In cases where tenants pay their utilities directly (rather than as part of
their rent), they are reimbursed for the HUD share of utilities through a utility allowance, which
generally comes in the form of a rent reduction. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation to make
clear that states may not automatically deny LIHEAP benefits to subsidized tenants who pay their
utilities directly and receive utility allowances.25 However, states may take utility allowances into
account when determining the amount of benefits subsidized renters may receive. On its website,
the LIHEAP Clearinghouse compiles state policies regarding renters.26
How Is LIHEAP Administered?
Federal rules allow grantees to decide the mix and dollar range of benefits, choose how benefits
are provided (e.g., to utilities or directly to households), and decide which agencies will
administer the program. Grantees provide details to HHS about program operation via a state plan
submitted each year,27 and they are to provide a method for public participation in the state plan’s
development.28
The state agency administering LIHEAP is to coordinate with other low-income programs,
including the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).29 To the extent
possible, grantees are encouraged to follow WAP rules in order to increase consistency between
the two weatherization components.30 LIHEAP grantees are also required to establish fiscal
22
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(5).
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1994,
report to accompany S. 2000, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., April 19, 1994, S.Rept. 103-251, p. 55.
24
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(8).
25
See §927 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) as amended by P.L. 103-185, a
bill to provide increased flexibility to States in carrying out the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
26
See http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2012/subsidize.htm.
27
42 U.S.C. §8624(c).
28
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(12).
29
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(4).
30
Ibid. For more information about the Weatherization Assistance Program, see CRS Report R42147, DOE
Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies, by Fred Sissine.
23
Congressional Research Service
5
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
control and accounting procedures, which include a way of monitoring the assistance that is
provided.31
At the state level, many LIHEAP
Community Action Agencies
administrative functions such as intake and
Community
Action Agencies (CAAs) have been a
application processing are often delegated to
prominent part of administering energy assistance
local level agencies. In the early years of
programs since the 1970s. CAAs are community-based
energy assistance, prior to the existence of
organizations created as part of the Economic
LIHEAP, funds were administered by local
Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452), the law that
established the War on Poverty. CAAs were authorized
Community Action Agencies (CAAs). This
to administer a number of programs that assist lowrelationship continued when LIHEAP was
households. In addition to administering energy
enacted in 1981. The LIHEAP statute provides income
and weatherization assistance programs, CAAs run
that, if a state designates local agencies to
programs to assist families with housing, child
administer the program, then they agree to
development (including Head Start), food and nutrition,
senior services, legal affairs, community development,
“give special consideration” to public or
and education, among others. More than 1,000 CAAs
private nonprofit agencies receiving funds for
administer programs nationwide, and in many states
low-income energy assistance or
continue to administer LIHEAP funds.
weatherization prior to LIHEAP’s
enactment.32 According to the LIHEAP
Clearinghouse, in 30 states CAAs are involved in administering funds, another 13 states have
local programs administered by the counties, and the remaining states are either administered at
the state level or by nonprofit groups.33 In most cases, LIHEAP benefits are given directly to
utilities or fuel oil suppliers to be applied to recipients’ accounts rather than directly to recipients.
An exception to this may occur in cases of renters whose utility payments are included in rent and
who do not have their own account.
Households Served
Households Receiving Nominal
LIHEAP Benefits
For approximately five years, some states have
distributed nominal LIHEAP benefits to households
(ranging from $1 to $5) in order to leverage additional
SNAP benefits. This practice is sometimes referred to as
“heat-and-eat.” In 2014, the Farm Bill raised the amount
of the LIHEAP benefit required to leverage additional
funds to “greater than $20 annually.” It is unclear the
extent to which HHS data on LIHEAP recipient
households include those receiving nominal benefits. In
the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress, three states
acknowledged that they gave nominal benefits, and these
recipient households were not included in the total
31
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(10).
42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(6).
33
See the LIHEAP Clearinghouse website, http://liheap.ncat.org/admin/admintro.htm.
32
Congressional Research Service
6
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Unlike some other federal assistance
households reported to HHS. These were Connecticut,
programs, such as Medicaid or the
Maine, and Oregon.34
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), simply being eligible for LIHEAP does not entitle a household to LIHEAP benefits.
Available benefits are limited by the amount that Congress appropriates each year, so the number
of households that are served in a given year depends both on appropriations and how grantees
use their funding.
In FY2009, the most recent year for which detailed HHS data are available, increased
appropriations resulted in a record number of households receiving heating and/or winter crisis
assistance (the bulk of LIHEAP assistance that is provided). In FY2009, Congress appropriated
$5.10 billion, compared to $2.59 billion in FY2008. An estimated 7.4 million households
received assistance in FY2009,35 an increase of 2 million compared to FY2008, when an
estimated 5.4 million households were served. Prior to FY2009, the most households were served
shortly after LIHEAP was enacted, when approximately 6.8 million households received heating
and/or winter crisis assistance in FY1983. Since that time, the number of households receiving
assistance declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients in FY1999.
After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing again to the current level.
For the number of households receiving LIHEAP from FY2000 through FY2009, see Table 2.
The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households that receive heating
and/or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million households that received funds
represented 31% of federally eligible households. By FY2000, the number of federally eligible
households receiving LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis assistance had dropped to 13%. Since
FY2003, the percentage of federally eligible households receiving assistance hovered between
14% and 16%, settling at 16% for FY2006 through FY2008. However, in FY2009, with increased
funding for LIHEAP, 21% of those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute were
served. Note that due to a provision in the FY2009 appropriations act (P.L. 110-329) that allowed
states to increase household eligibility to 75% of state median income in that year, only 16% of
those eligible under the appropriations law were served in FY2009.36
Prior to FY2009, the number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance
reached a high point of 700,000 recipients in FY2006. In FY2009, with increased funding,
900,000 households received cooling assistance.37
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance in FY2009, about
31% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 32% had at least one member with a
disability; and 22% included at least one child five years of age or younger.38 Households may
include members in more than one of the three categories. Although some states set LIHEAP
34
As part of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79), Congress imposed a minimum LIHEAP payment of more than $20 per
household to leverage additional SNAP benefits. For more information about heat-and-eat, see CRS Report R42591,
The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl.
35
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009, September 2011, p. 30 (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook). This
estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received both heating and winter crisis assistance.
36
Ibid.
37
See the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 31, and the FY2006 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
38
FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 55.
Congressional Research Service
7
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
eligibility as high as 60% of state median income, on average, LIHEAP households served have
very low incomes. In FY2009, as reported by the states, 67% of LIHEAP-recipient households
had income at or below 100% of poverty.39
Benefit Levels
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what extent LIHEAP is
able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in meeting their home energy
needs. These include the following:
•
the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price fluctuations
and variation in kinds of fuels used);
•
the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the weather, energy
efficiency of housing, and expected standards of comfort); and
•
the number of eligible households (influenced by population size and health of
the economy).
The average LIHEAP benefit varies by state. For example, in FY2009, the most recent year in
which state-by-state data are available, the average heating benefit nationwide was $418, with a
range from $144 (Kentucky) to $1,826 (Alaska).40 When heating is combined with winter crisis
benefits, the average nationwide benefit in FY2009 rose to $505.41 The average benefit for
cooling assistance, available in 17 states in FY2009, was $359, ranging from $51 (Indiana) to
$680 (Texas). With the increase in LIHEAP appropriations in FY2009, average benefits increased
compared to the previous fiscal year. In FY2008, the average heating benefit was $293, the
average combined heating/winter crisis benefit was $363, and the average cooling benefit was
$199.
One way of looking at LIHEAP benefits over time is to measure them in constant dollars. Each
year, the HHS LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook presents average heating and winter crisis
benefits in nominal dollars and constant 1981 dollars (the year in which LIHEAP was enacted).
Until FY2009, when funding for the program increased by more than $2 billion compared to the
previous fiscal year, the general trend in the constant dollar value of LIHEAP benefits since the
program’s beginning had been one of decline. In FY1981, the average heating and winter crisis
benefit, measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $213.42 By FY1998, it had declined to $117, and
although the average benefit reached $187 in FY2001, it generally declined again thereafter, with
the exception of $171 in FY2006, when funding was higher than in the immediately preceding
and subsequent years. In FY2009, the constant dollar value of the average LIHEAP heating and
winter crisis benefit increased by about $58 from the previous year, to $209.43 By FY2011, with
funding down slightly, the average benefit in constant dollars was $184.44 (See Table 2.)
39
Ibid., p. 45.
Ibid., pp. 40-42.
41
Ibid. Note that the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook reports this average as $502.
42
FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
43
Ibid.
44
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2011, June 2014, p. 32, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy2011_hen_final.pdf.
40
Congressional Research Service
8
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Table 2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance
FY2000-FY2011
Average Benefits
Households Assisted
Percentage
of Federally
Eligible
Households
Receiving
Assistance
Nominal
Dollars
Constant
1981
Dollarsb
Fiscal
Year
Funding
Distributeda
($ in millions)
Households
Receiving
Assistance
(millions)
Households
Federally
Eligible for
Assistance
(millions)
2000
$1,844
3.9
29.4
13%
$270
$140
2001
1,856
4.8
30.4
16
364
187
2002
1,800
4.4
32.7
13
291
147
2003
1,988
4.8
34.5
14
312
154
2004
1,889
5.0
35.4
14
277
132
2005
2,162
5.3
34.8
15
304
140
2006
3,160
5.5
34.4
16
385
171
2007
2,161
5.3
33.6
16
320
139
2008
2,591
5.4
33.5
16
362c
151
7.4
35.0d
21
502e
209
22
467
191
19
462
184
2009
5,100
2010
5,100
8.1
37.1d
2011
4,701
7.6
40.1
Source: Data regarding households assisted, federally eligible households, and benefit levels for FY2000 to
FY2011 are drawn from the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks for FY1998 through FY2011.
a.
See Table B-3.
b.
Constant 1981 dollars are used by HHS to measure the value of LIHEAP benefits over time.
c.
Note that the FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $363.
d.
In FY2009 and FY2010, the appropriations bills (P.L. 110-329) and (P.L. 111-117) gave states the option of
increasing LIHEAP household eligibility to 75% of state median income. This meant that approximately 45
million households were eligible for LIHEAP in FY2009 and nearly 48 million in FY2010. However, for the sake
of comparison, this table includes only those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute (those
with incomes at or below the greater of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income).
e.
Note that the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $505.
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is available to a more
limited number of households in far fewer states, has fluctuated over the years. While the average
benefit in 1981 was $129, in the years that followed the average benefit in constant 1981 dollars
declined as low as $57 in FY1983 and $49 in FY1990. However, the average benefit grew from
FY1990 levels, and by FY2000 and FY2001 the average benefit had reached $107. In recent
years, between FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value has ranged from $72 (in FY2008)
to $105 (in FY2006). After FY2009, when funding for LIHEAP increased significantly, the
Congressional Research Service
9
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
constant dollar value of cooling and summer crisis benefits rose to $142.45 In FY2011, the
average constant dollar benefit was $126.46
Types of LIHEAP Funds
The LIHEAP statute authorizes several separate distributions of LIHEAP funds.47 The bulk of
funds are distributed as “regular” funds, sometimes also referred to as formula or block grant
funds. The regular funds are distributed via formula to the states and the District of Columbia.
Tribes receive a share of state funding, while a percentage of regular funds is set aside for
territories. The LIHEAP statute also authorizes emergency contingency funds, which may be
distributed to one or more states, tribes, or territories at the discretion of the Administration. The
statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for Leveraging Incentive grants, which are
distributed to grantees that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs.
And a portion of Leveraging Incentive grants may be used for competitive Residential Energy
Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants that grantees may use for various purposes that improve
the energy security of vulnerable low-income families.
Despite the different distribution methods, grantees may use each form of funding for the eligible
activities under LIHEAP (e.g., heating and cooling assistance, emergency crisis assistance, and
weatherization).
Regular Funds
When LIHEAP was created in 1981, the only funds available were regular funds, which were
distributed to the states via a formula developed under the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (discussed in Appendix A of this report). Regular funds
continue to be distributed to the states via a formula, though it was changed in 1984 as part of the
Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). The history and operation of the formula are
complicated, and the issues are addressed in a separate report, CRS Report RL33275, The
LIHEAP Formula, by Libby Perl. Tribes and territories are not directly included in the LIHEAP
formula distribution, and the way in which they receive regular funds is described in more detail,
below. Regular funds have not been authorized since FY2007, when they were authorized at $5.1
billion (P.L. 109-58).
Tribal Allotments
Indian tribes and tribal organizations have the option to request that they receive and administer
their own allotments of LIHEAP funds.48 Tribal allotments may be based on the number of lowincome households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute) residing on a reservation and any adjacent
trust land as a proportion of all low-income households in the state. Alternatively, a tribe may
work out its funding level with the state and enter into an agreement for an amount to be
45
FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
47
42 U.S.C. §8621.
48
42 U.S.C. §8623(d).
46
Congressional Research Service
10
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
allocated. A tribe’s allotment is then taken from the state’s LIHEAP allocation. There are 162
tribes in 25 states that administer their own LIHEAP funds.49
Funds for the Territories
The LIHEAP statute provides that at least one-tenth, but not more than one-half of 1% of the total
regular fund appropriation must be set aside for energy assistance in American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. HHS
sets the exact percentage of funds that goes to the territories. In FY2014, HHS set aside 0.5% of
funding for the territories, the first time that funding had reached the maximum allowed by the
statute. This set-aside continued in FY2015.
Prior to FY2014, and since the inception of the program, the set-aside for territories had been
approximately 0.134% of regular funds. This percentage was based on the amount of funding that
the territories received under LIEAP, the predecessor program to LIHEAP. For that program,
Congress made $2.5 million available to the territories. Prior to implementation of LIHEAP, in
1981, the territories asked HHS that more funding be provided.50 However, according to HHS, it
decided to provide the same approximate percentage of LIHEAP funding to the territories as was
provided as part of LIEAP, concluding that
[HHS] should retain the funding levels originally proposed, since they are based on a
congressional determination of need for the 1981 program, and the comments did not include
any information demonstrating that changed conditions required a higher relative level of
funding as compared to the States than existed in 1981.51
HHS allocates funds among the five territories based on population, with Puerto Rico receiving
approximately 90% of funds. For the most recent allocations to the territories, see the end of
Table B-1.
Emergency Contingency Funds
Unlike LIHEAP regular funds, emergency contingency funds are not distributed by formula.
Instead, they are to be distributed at the Administration’s discretion “to meet the additional home
energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency.”52 The two terms are defined as follows:
•
“Emergency” includes a natural disaster; a significant home energy supply
shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home energy, home
energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or
unemployment; or an “event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may
determine to be appropriate.”53
49
Based on tribes receiving LIHEAP funding in FY2014.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Block Grant Programs: Final Rules,” 47 Federal Register 29485,
July 6, 1982.
51
Ibid.
52
42 U.S.C. §8621(e). Initially, the terms “natural disaster” and “emergency” were not defined in the statute, and,
several years later, in 1998, as part of P.L. 105-285, Congress amended the statute to include definitions.
53
42 U.S.C. §8622(1).
50
Congressional Research Service
11
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
•
A “natural disaster” is defined as “a weather event (relating to hot or cold
weather),” floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, or other events
as determined by the Secretary.54
Since the creation of the emergency contingency fund, funds have been released to grantees for
various reasons, including energy price increases, extreme periods of hot or cold weather, and
damage caused by natural disasters. In cases of natural disasters, grantees may be flexible in the
ways they assist households, particularly those without power due to damaged or destroyed
homes. According to HHS guidance, funds may be used to pay for temporary shelter, for
transportation to shelter, coats and blankets, as well as for utility reconnection and equipment
replacement.55
Congress has appropriated emergency contingency funds in every year since the funds have been
authorized with the exceptions of FY2003 (when funds appropriated in a previous year were
available for distribution), FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. In addition, just because Congress
appropriates funds does not mean that the Administration releases them to grantees. In a number
of years that Congress appropriated funds, HHS released only a portion of the funds available
(see Table B-3).
Some form of emergency contingency funds were first appropriated in FY1991, although the
funds were not authorized until enactment of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L.
103-252). Like the genesis of federal energy assistance programs in general, appropriations for
energy-related emergencies grew out of high heating oil prices coupled with cold temperatures.56
Congress appropriated $200 million in FY1991 and referred to the program as an “Energy
Emergency Contingency Fund” (see P.L. 101-517).57 Congress permanently authorized
emergency contingency funding at $600 million in FY1994, and they have remained authorized at
that same level.
Emergency Designation
On occasion, LIHEAP emergency contingency funds were designated as “emergency” for
purposes of budget scoring. The LIHEAP authorizing statute provided that emergency
contingency funds would be designated as emergency for purposes of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended by the Budget Enforcement
Act (BEA) of 1990 (enacted as part of P.L. 101-508).58 The BEA used spending limits to reduce
54
42 U.S.C. §8622(7).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Disaster Relief,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-disaster-relief, accessed November 15, 2012.
56
During the FY1991 appropriations process, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee noted that “[e]xtraordinary
circumstances in world oil markets pose a serious risk that low-income households will face skyrocketing home energy
prices in the 1990-1991 heating season.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Dire Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation Administration, and
Other Urgent Needs, and Transfers, and Reducing Funds Budgeted for Military Spending Act, report to accompany
H.R. 4404, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., March 27, 1990, H.Rept. 101-434, pp. 17-18.
57
Funds were to be made available if the average price of heating oil for a given month exceeded the four-year average
for the same month by 20% or more. Funds were distributed to all states but Hawaii in January 1991 based on
December 1990 heating oil prices. Pursuant to the law, states received funds based on the percentage of low-income
households using heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, and kerosene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991, October 1992, pp. 59-60.
58
For more information, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by
(continued...)
55
Congressional Research Service
12
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
the deficit. However, funds that were designated as an emergency by both the President and in
statute were not included in the spending limits.59 Congress first designated emergency
contingency funds as “emergency” for budgetary purposes in FY1992 and FY1993 appropriations
acts, and then incorporated the language into the LIHEAP statute upon the inclusion of the
emergency contingency fund in the law.60 The BEA expired in 2002, and while the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) further amended the law with new procedures to reduce the
deficit, the statutory reference to emergency contingency funds as an emergency designation
pursuant to the BEA is no longer operative.61
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
LIHEAP does not require grantees to match the federal funds they receive. However, a portion of
LIHEAP funds may be used for grants based on the amount of outside funds that grantees obtain
for energy assistance. These Leveraging Incentive grants were authorized in 1990, when P.L. 101501 amended the LIHEAP statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50 million ($30
million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants to states that
leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.62 Such resources might include
negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or separate state funds for energy
assistance. States are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that
takes into account their previous fiscal year’s success in securing non-federal resources for their
energy assistance program.
In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that, of any Leveraging
Incentive grants appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance
Challenge Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded competitive grants
for their efforts to increase the efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and to
reduce those families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high
energy costs.
The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate from regular
funds, and the grants have not been authorized since FY2004. In practice, however, Congress has
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of annual regular
fund appropriations. There was no set-aside for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants in
FY2013 and FY2014.
(...continued)
Megan S. Lynch.
59
See §251(b)(2)(D) of P.L. 101-508, later extended as part of P.L. 103-66.
60
The language reads “Funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection are hereby designated to be emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
except that such funds shall be made available only after the submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the
President (for all or a part of the appropriation pursuant to this subsection) that includes a designation of the amount
requested as an emergency requirement as defined in such Act.” See 42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
61
After expiration of the BEA, there were three years in which the appropriations language designated emergency
contingency funds as “emergency” for purposes of the budget resolutions (these were FY2005, FY2008, and FY2009).
Budget resolutions establish allocations for appropriators. For more information, see CRS Report R40472, The Budget
Resolution and Spending Legislation, by Megan S. Lynch.
62
42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
Congressional Research Service
13
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance
For a time, beginning in the mid-1980s, additional funds were available to LIHEAP grantees via
funds recovered as the result of oil company overcharges that violated price controls instituted in
1973 as part of the Emergency Fuels and Energy Allocation Act (P.L. 93-159). In cases where
aggrieved parties could not be identified for reimbursement, funds were distributed to states to be
used for energy efficiency purposes, including LIHEAP.63 Oil overcharge funds that were
allocated to LIHEAP reached a peak of $174 million in FY1989, and had diminished to $200,000
by FY2008, the most recent year for which HHS has data available.64
In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to transfer up to 10% of funds
to provide low-income home energy assistance, among other purposes.65 The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program also gives states the discretion to use funds for home
heating and cooling costs.66
LIHEAP Appropriations
The LIHEAP Program Year
The federal government’s fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30, is not ideally
placed for a program like LIHEAP. Most states release the bulk of their LIHEAP funds during the
winter months, shortly after federal appropriations are to be finalized. Further, in recent years,
appropriations often have not been finalized until well after the fiscal year is under way. This may
require states to enter the winter months without certainty as to the amount of funds they will
receive.
LIHEAP was not always funded exactly in concert with the federal fiscal year. Beginning in
FY1990, for four years (through FY1993) Congress provided “delayed funding” for the program,
making a portion of funds available on the last day of the fiscal year. The funds were for purposes
of “starting up activities” for the following winter’s program.67 These amounts were small
initially, totaling $60 million in FY1990 (P.L. 101-166) and $75 million in FY1991 (P.L. 101517), but growing to $406 million in FY1992 (P.L. 102-170) and $688 million in FY1993 (P.L.
102-394).
Then, in FY1993, Congress amended the LIHEAP statute to change the way that the program was
funded, recognizing the difficulty for grantees in running a program with little advance notice of
63
For example, §155 of the FY1983 Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 97-377) specified that the
Department of Energy distribute $200 million to the states to be used for five energy efficiency programs, including
LIHEAP. Funds were also made available via court orders and settlements. See, for example, Chuck Hill, Heather
Gonzalez, and Roger Colton, “Oil Overcharge and Percentage-of-Income Payment Plan Developments,” Clearinghouse
Review, vol. 22, no. 2 (June 1988), pp. 146-148.
64
FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 2-3.
65
42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
66
42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
67
See S.Rept. 102-104, p. 180, to accompany H.R. 2707, an appropriations bill that was vetoed, though the same
LIHEAP funding went into final bill.
Congressional Research Service
14
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
the funding level for the coming year.68 As part of the Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services
Reauthorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501), Congress provided that LIHEAP be funded on a
program year cycle, from July 1st to June 30th, with appropriations made in the fiscal year in
which the program year started. This funding structure is referred to as “forward funding.”
According to the Senate Committee report (where the forward funding provision originated),
forward funding was meant to give grantees time to plan once they knew how much funding
would be available.
Despite the statutory language, Congress never actually appropriated funds for a program year as
forward funding, and instead provided advance appropriations for LIHEAP. Advance
appropriations are simply made for the fiscal year subsequent to the year in which funds are
appropriated. From FY1994 through FY2001, Congress provided advance appropriations for
LIHEAP in every year but one (FY1997). When Congress enacted the FY2001 appropriations
law, it did not provide advance appropriations for FY2002. While Congress acknowledged the
benefits of advance funding,69 it appears that the failure to provide advance funding was due to
budget caps for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill.70 Since
FY2002, LIHEAP appropriations have been made for the current fiscal year.
Recent LIHEAP Funding
FY2015 LIHEAP Funding
LIHEAP was funded in FY2015 as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235), enacted on December 16, 2014. Prior to enactment of P.L.
113-235, LIHEAP and other federal programs were funded by three continuing resolutions.71 The
appropriations bill provided a total of $3.39 billion for LIHEAP, all appropriated as regular funds.
Of the total, P.L. 113-235 directed that $491 million be distributed according to the provisions of
the “new” LIHEAP formula, and the remainder, approximately $2.9 billion, according to the
proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. (For more information about the way LIHEAP funds
are distributed according to the “new” and “old” formulas, see CRS Report RL33275, The
LIHEAP Formula, by Libby Perl.) The appropriations bill also provided that not more than
68
“[T]he funding cycle for LIHEAP under current law is a major obstacle to effective state planning and management
of an efficient and timely winter heating or crisis program. LIHEAP funds are designed to be expended in the season
when home energy costs are incurred and in time to avoid household energy emergencies. However, in recent years, the
Department had most often been without a final appropriations figure by the October 1 program start date. States must
begin their planning for the program well before the level of funding is established. As a result of funding uncertainties,
benefits cannot be set, and especially when major cuts are proposed, eligibility levels cannot be determined.” U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to
accompany H.R. 4151, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 1990, S.Rept. 101-421, p. 75.
69
Instead the report stated that the “conferees fully intend” to provide FY2002 funding totaling $1.7 billion. Making
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2001, conference report to accompany
H.R. 4577, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., December 15, 2000, H.Rept. 106-1033, pp. 153-154.
70
See, for example, a discussion on the Senate floor about the Senate Committee on Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations failing to include advance funding for FY2002: “As you know, this is a very difficult year for
appropriators. The budget caps are very tight, and this bill contains many valuable programs.” Senator Spector, “The
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2001,”
Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 30, 2000), p. 13326.
71
These were P.L. 113-164 through December 11, 2014, P.L. 113-202 through December 15, 2014, and P.L. 113-203
through December 17, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
15
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
$2.988 million be available for training and technical assistance; no level was specified for
Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.
The amount appropriated for LIHEAP in FY2015 is the same amount that was distributed to
grantees in FY2014. In that year, Congress appropriated $3.425 billion for LIHEAP as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76). Approximately 1% of funds (about $34 million)
was not distributed to grantees and was transferred elsewhere within HHS.72 Pursuant to an
appropriations provision, the HHS Secretary has authority to transfer appropriated funds among
accounts, not to exceed 1% of the discretionary funds appropriated.73
On October 15, 2014, HHS announced the distribution of more than $3 billion in LIHEAP funds
pursuant to the first continuing resolution. After enactment of P.L. 113-235, HHS announced the
distribution of an additional $302 million on January 21, 2015. As of the date of this report, about
1% of the appropriation ($34 million) had not been distributed. As in the two previous years,
FY2013 and FY2014, this may be due to funds being transferred within HHS. See Table B-1 for
FY2015 distributions to the states, tribes, and territories.
In FY2015, the President had proposed to provide a total of $2.800 billion for LIHEAP. Of this
amount, $2.550 billion was proposed to be distributed as regular funds, $200 million as
emergency contingency funds, and $50 million available as a competitive grant to help lowincome households reduce their energy burden. The budget proposed that, of the $2.550 billion
available for regular funds, $366 million be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula,
with the remainder, $2.184 billion, distributed according to the percentages of the “old” LIHEAP
formula.
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education (LHE) approved a funding bill on June 10, 2014. The bill would have
provided $3.390 billion for LIHEAP, the same amount that was distributed to states, tribes, and
territories in FY2014 after 1% of the funds appropriated was transferred within HHS.74 The bill
was not released, so it is unknown whether the funds would have been formula grants alone (with
no emergency contingency funds) and how they would have been distributed.
LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions
OMB determines the amount of LIHEAP funding that is released to the states pursuant to a CR.75
Despite the fact that the program is technically funded at the previous year’s level, states do not
necessarily receive the same amount of LIHEAP funding that they received in the previous year.
This is due to a standard provision in continuing resolutions that states the following:
72
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Dear Colleague
Notice Final Budget FY 2014, March 26, 2014, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-dear-colleaguenotice-final-budget-for-fy-2014.
73
See §206 of the Department of Health and Human Services General Provisions in P.L. 113-76.
74
Senate Appropriations Committee, FY15 LHHS Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary, June 10, 2014,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy15-lhhs-subcommittee-markup-bill-summary.
75
For more information about funding pursuant to CRs, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions
(CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by Clinton T. Brass.
Congressional Research Service
16
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
[F]or those programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete
distribution of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2014 because of distributions of
funding to States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or
complete distribution shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs
funded by this Act that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.76
The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not
exceed the amount that Congress ultimately appropriates for it or influence Congress in its
appropriations decision. Typically, states are eligible to receive their entire LIHEAP formula
allocations in the first quarter of the fiscal year if they so choose, qualifying as a program “that
would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of appropriations” at
the beginning of the fiscal year as stipulated in the CR.
OMB may gauge the amount of LIHEAP funding to release, in part, based on appropriations bills
in the House or Senate or, in their absence, on the President’s budget proposal. For example, if a
proposed funding level in one chamber is lower than what is proposed in the other, then the
amount subject to release could be based on the lower proposal (in the event that Congress would
ultimately enact the lower funding level).
Table 3. FY2014-FY2015 LIHEAP Funding
(dollars in millions)
FY2014 Funding
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Funding
(P.L. 113-235)
3,425
3,390
Training and
Technical Assistance
3
3
Leveraging Incentive/
REACH Grants
0
—a
Emergency Contingency
Funds
0
0
3,390b
3,356c
Type of Funding
LIHEAP Regular Funds
Appropriated
Total Available
Sources: The FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76) and the FY2015 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235).
76
a.
The appropriations act did not specify a level of funding for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.
b.
In FY2014, P.L. 113-76 provided $3.425 billion for LIHEAP. Of this amount HHS transferred 1% elsewhere
within the agency, bringing the total available to $3.390 billion.
c.
As of the date of this report, HHS had distributed all but 1% ($34 million) of the $3.39 billion appropriation.
See, for example, §109 of P.L. 113-164.
Congressional Research Service
17
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Other Issues
Program Integrity
In June of 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) entitled Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program: Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are Needed. The GAO report found
instances of benefit payments to ineligible applicants based on various factors, including the use
of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) from deceased or imprisoned individuals as well as the underreporting of income or over-reporting of household members.77 In another instance, the GAO set
up a fake utility company and through fake applicants was able to obtain LIHEAP benefits.
GAO recommended ways in which HHS could prevent instances of fraud such as these in the
future. Among the recommendations in the report were requiring applicants to provide SSNs and
checking applicant information against various databases (e.g., Social Security Administration
data, state vital records, and state directories of new hires).
HHS reacted to the GAO report and its recommendations in several ways:
•
The agency issued guidance that encouraged states to require LIHEAP applicants
to divulge their SSNs. The LIHEAP statute and regulations do not require grantee
states, tribes, and territories to collect SSNs or to verify applicant eligibility
against specific databases, and not all states follow such verification procedures.
Further, pursuant to the Privacy Act, HHS cannot require states to collect SSNs
as part of the LIHEAP application process. However, the Tax Reform Act of
1976 (P.L. 94-455) authorizes states to use SSNs in administering certain
programs, including “general public assistance” programs,78 which HHS has
interpreted to include LIHEAP.79 As a result, HHS released guidance that the law
“authorizes States to require SSNs as a condition of eligibility for use in verifying
the identity of individual applicants and their household members.” As of
FY2011, 40 states required LIHEAP applicants to provide SSNs, compared to 28
in FY2010.80
•
HHS released an Action Transmittal asking states to supplement the information
they provide to HHS for FY2011 to show that they are working to prevent
improper payments, fraud, waste, or abuse.81 The LIHEAP statute directs the
77
See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Greater Fraud
Prevention Controls Are Needed, GAO-10-621, June 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10621.pdf.
78
42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(i).
79
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, LIHEAP Information Memorandum 10-06, States are Strongly
Encouraged to Exercise their Discretion to Require Social Security Numbers in Determining Eligibility for LIHEAP,
May 5, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/information_memoranda/im10-06.html.
80
Lauren Christopher, “LIHEAP Program Integrity Activities at the State Level,” presentation at the National Energy
and Utility Affordability Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 11, 2012, http://www.energyandutilityconference.org/
Assets/2012%20Conference/2012%20Presentations/2C_Lauren%20Christopher.pdf.
81
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Action
Transmittal 2010-6: Plan Supplement Required for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011: LIHEAP Program Integrity Plan –
Application for LIHEAP Funding, June 8, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/
action_transmittals/at10-06_1.html.
Congressional Research Service
18
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
HHS Secretary to establish regulations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.82 The
regulations in turn require grantees to establish systems and procedures to
prevent these activities among clients, vendors, and administering agencies.83
However, the same section of the statute also states that “[t]he Secretary may not
prescribe the manner in which the States will comply with the provisions of this
subsection.”84 So while each year states must submit a plan to HHS in which they
make “assurances” that they will comply with statutory requirements, there is no
specific way that they must go about this. HHS suggested that states report on
compliance monitoring, fraud reporting mechanisms, verifying applicant
identities, cross-checking SSNs, and verifying applicant income, among others.85
•
HHS also assembled a Program Integrity Working Group to recommend ways in
which the agency could address some of the issues raised. The working group
released a report in April of 2012.86 Among its recommendations were that (1)
grantees require applicants to provide SSNs, but should provide for exceptions
due to the emergency nature of LIHEAP, (2) HHS collaborate with other
agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, to help with verification of
identity and income, (3) HHS conduct a cost-benefit analysis of third party
verification, and (4) grantees enter into vendor agreements that include
provisions to prevent vendor fraud.
Performance Measures
At the direction of OMB, beginning in 2008, HHS staff, together with LIHEAP state directors,
have worked to arrive at a set of performance measures that would guide data collection and serve
as a way of examining outcomes resulting from LIHEAP assistance.87 The performance measures
are also intended to respond to some of the issues raised in the GAO report described in the
previous section.
On June 6, 2013, HHS published a proposed information collection (and request for comment) in
the Federal Register, with three primary performance measures proposed.88 Each performance
measure would require collection of several types of data.
•
The Average Reduction in Energy Burden for Households Receiving Fuel
Assistance: Within this measure, data collected and reported would include the
average annual income of LIHEAP recipient households, average LIHEAP
benefits, the number of LIHEAP recipient households that use each primary
82
42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
45 C.F.R. §96.84(c).
84
42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
85
The template is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/action_transmittals/at1006_a.html.
86
LIHEAP Clearinghouse, National Center for Appropriate Technology, LIHEAP Program Integrity Working Group
Final Report, April 13, 2012, http://www.liheap.ncat.org/admin.htm#lhpi.
87
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Action Transmittal 20104, Implementing LIHEAP Outcome Performance Measures, March 17, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
resource/implementing-liheap-outcome-performance-measures.
88
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request,” 78 Federal Register 34105-34106, June 6, 2013.
83
Congressional Research Service
19
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
heating source, annual heating fuel consumption by LIHEAP recipient
households, and electricity consumption for cooling.
•
The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Prevented a
Potential Home Energy Crisis: Among the data collected for this performance
measure would be the number of households receiving utility past due or
disconnect notices, the number receiving a notice from a bulk fuel vendor of an
unpaid balance, the number of households who deplete deliverable fuel sources,
and the number of households where LIHEAP benefits resulted in repair or
replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
•
The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Benefits Restored
Home Energy: This measure would involve identifying households where
LIHEAP resulted in utility reconnection, purchase of bulk fuel, or repair or
replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
While LIHEAP state grantees would be the entities required to collect and report the data to HHS,
information on fuel and electricity consumption would require input from fuel vendors and utility
companies.
Congressional Research Service
20
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Appendix A. Legislative History of
Energy Assistance
LIHEAP was not the first federal energy assistance program created to help low-income
households with their energy bills. Congressional appropriations for home energy assistance
initially came about in the 1970s at the time of the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973-1974. In the fall
of that year, a number of countries in the Middle East stopped exporting oil to the United States, a
stoppage that continued until March of 1974.89 Prices of heating oil rose, while supplies were
restricted. What followed were several years in which Congress directed funds to assistance
focused on lowering energy bills through weatherization and education. Later in the 1970s,
assistance evolved to include crisis assistance for households facing shutoff or other emergencies,
followed by a system of direct payments to subsidize the energy bills of low-income households.
When LIHEAP was enacted, direct assistance for energy bills was the focus of the program, but
all of these forms of assistance―weatherization, education, and crisis assistance―were made
part of the program and continue to be eligible uses of funds. This appendix discusses the
evolution of energy assistance in the 1970s and early 1980s, culminating in the creation of
LIHEAP in 1982.
Energy Assistance Programs Prior to LIHEAP
The first federal funds for energy assistance were the outgrowth of a program that was created in
Maine just after the start of the oil embargo by OPEC countries. In 1973, the Maine Office of
Economic Opportunity applied to the federal Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO, the federal
agency in charge of administering War on Poverty programs in the 1960s and 1970s) to fund a
project they had conceived of called “Project Fuel.” Energy costs, particularly the costs of heating
oil and wood, were growing in Maine, and the state determined that it would assist low-income
and elderly households in meeting their energy needs.90 OEO approved funding for the state at the
end of 1973. Project FUEL used funding primarily to help “winterize” homes, but also to provide
crisis counseling, and purchase fuel for use in emergency situations such as equipment
breakdown or when dealers ran out of fuel.91
Project Fuel prompted what would become the first federal program to assist low-income
households during the energy crisis, the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP, P.L.
93-644) enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act
at the beginning of 1975.92 The law authorized the Community Services Administration (CSA,
89
Carol A. Kunze, A Chronology of International Economic Events: Oil Prices, the System of International Exchange
Rates, Conference Between Developing and Industrialized Countries, International Economic Summits and Related
Events 1971-976, Archived Congressional Research Service Report, February 11, 1977.
90
See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Federal Food
Programs—1974, Part 6 Fuel Crisis Impact on Low Income and Elderly, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., January 22 and 23,
1974, p. 706.
91
Ibid., pp. 741-742.
92
The bill originally proposing the new program was S. 3051, the Emergency Energy Conservation Economic
Opportunity Amendments. An identical program was included in the final version of P.L. 93-644. When S. 3051 was
introduced, its sponsor, Senator Javits, described the Maine program, as well as efforts in Vermont, and said “Through
this bill, the sponsors seek to prompt a duplication nationally of such efforts at the earliest moment.” See Senator Jacob
Javits, Introduction of S. 3051, Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 3 (February 25, 1974), p. 4030.
Congressional Research Service
21
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
which replaced the OEO as part of the same bill) to use funds primarily for weatherization and
conservation purposes, but also gave the authority to use funds for fuel voucher or stamp
programs. Community Action Agencies, Community Development Corporations, state Offices of
Economic Opportunity, and other public or private nonprofit organizations were eligible to apply
to administer the funds.93 Congress first appropriated funds for the EECP in FY1975, $16.5
million, as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 94-32).94 Congress continued to
appropriate funds for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (to be used primarily for
weatherization purposes) through FY1978.95
The EECP came to an end with the advent of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP),
created in 1976 as part of P.L. 94-385 and administered by the Federal Energy Administration
(the predecessor to the Department of Energy). WAP was meant to be a supplement to the EECP,
not to replace it.96 However, the programs were similar. Community Action Agencies
administered WAP funds and weatherized homes of low-income households. By FY1979, the
Administration proposed that weatherization funds be made available only through the DOE
program. In that year and thereafter, Congress stopped funding the CSA weatherization program
and only appropriated funds to the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program.
At the same time that weatherization assistance was phased out of the CSA, the agency began to
administer direct assistance to low-income households to help pay their energy bills. In FY1977,
as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 95-26), Congress appropriated $200 million to
be used through the CSA for a Special Crisis Intervention Program. P.L. 95-26, which was
debated and enacted in the spring of 1977, came just after an unusually cold winter in which both
fuel usage and prices had been high, resulting in large numbers of consumers facing utility
disconnection.97 Unlike previous funding for the EECP, which went primarily to fund
weatherization, the FY1977 supplemental funding was to be used by the states for direct
payments to utilities and fuel suppliers. The program allowed for up to $250 payments to utilities
on behalf of customers whose power had been shut off or threatened with shut off, and up to $50
directly to households that could prove “dire financial need” as the result of having paid large fuel
93
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of
Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency Energy Conservation Program,” 40 Federal Register 31603, July
28, 1975.
94
The conference report, H.Rept. 94-239, provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the House-passed
version of the bill ($9 million) be appropriated. Funds were added to the House-passed version (H.R. 5899) on the
floor; see “Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 1975,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 8
(April 15, 1975), pp. 10263-10266.
95
In FY1978, funds were appropriated as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-205). Funding levels were
specified in the FY1978 Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare funding bill (H.R. 7555); see the
conference report (H.Rept. 95-538).
96
See the House and Senate Committee reports to accompany H.R. 8650 (H.Rept. 94-377 and S.Rept. 94-623), one of
the bills from which provisions for the Weatherization Assistance Program were drawn. See U.S. Congress, Energy
Conservation and Production, conference report to accompany H.R. 12169, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., August 4, 1976,
H.Rept. 94-1392, pp. 88-91.
97
See, for example, statement of Senator Edmund Muskie, Senate debate of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1977, Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), p. 10114. While many states imposed moratoriums on
utility disconnections during the winter months, when spring arrived, large numbers of households faced shutoff. The
Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations surveyed state utility commissions and utility to companies to
determine the extent of disconnections. The results of the study were published in the Congressional Record, vol. 123,
part 8 (April 1, 1977), pp. 10119-10122.
Congressional Research Service
22
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
bills.98 Congress again appropriated funds to help households facing energy crises in FY1978 and
FY1979 (see Table A-1).
In FY1980, Congress expanded energy assistance by appropriating significantly more funding
than had been made available in the past, a total of $1.6 billion provided through two different
agencies. The impetus behind the rather dramatic increase in funding was, as in the early 1970s,
the increase in energy prices, particularly heating oil. In 1979, the decontrol of domestic oil
prices, together with an increase in OPEC oil prices, led to increases in the price of heating oil
and kerosene. An article in the Congressional Quarterly describing the environment surrounding
the passage of energy assistance legislation noted the “spectacular rise in the price of home
heating oil” as “the biggest factor in the problems that led Congress to take action.”99 In the
summer and fall of 1979, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources alone held 12
hearings on energy assistance legislation.100
Enactment of LIEAP, the Predecessor Program to LIHEAP
Energy needs of low-income households continued to occupy the President and Congress after
the appropriation of energy assistance funding for FY1980. One of the proposals to fund energy
assistance for FY1980, S. 1724, the Home Energy Assistance Act (as reported by the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources), proposed a new energy assistance program to be
authorized from FY1981 through FY1984.101 The program was enacted in April of 1980 as the
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax
Act (P.L. 96-223).102 LIEAP was to be funded by windfall profits taxes imposed as part of P.L.
96-223 and deposited in a Treasury account, but the law did not provide for the account to be
established, so the program was funded by an appropriation.103 LIEAP was authorized at $3
billion for FY1981; Congress appropriated $1.85 billion for the program in that year (P.L. 96369).
Like LIHEAP, the program that was to follow, LIEAP was a block grant program to states. Funds
were primarily distributed to the states by formula, with a small amount ($100 million) reserved
for crisis assistance. States could use funds to help low-income households pay home energy
costs. While the term “home energy” included cooling assistance, states could only provide
cooling assistance in cases of medical need. Eligible households were considered those at or
below the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard, an income level that exceeded the
poverty level in most instances.104 Recipients of certain means-tested benefits—Aid to Families
98
Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: Information, Application Procedures,
and Post Grant Requirements for the Special Crisis Intervention Program,” 42 Federal Register 33240, June 29, 1977.
99
“Home Heating Assistance.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 535-536. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,
1980, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1185945.
100
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, 96th Cong., 1st
sess., October 25, 1979, S.Rept. 96-378, p. 5.
101
“Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-632. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
102
The program in S. 1724 was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, replacing an
energy assistance program that had been proposed by the Senate Finance Committee.
103
Joe Richardson, Energy Assistance for Low-Income Households: 1979 and 1980 Legislation, Congressional
Research Service Issue Brief, June 15, 1981, p. 18.
104
CRS Memo, Poverty and Lower Living Standard Estimates, April 30, 1980.
Congressional Research Service
23
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
with Dependent Children (now TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain
veterans’ benefits—were eligible for LIEAP benefits. Payments could be made to fuel suppliers
or utilities, residents, or both, at the discretion of the state. States had some discretion in setting
up their programs, with the ability to determine the state and local agencies that would administer
the program, who would receive payments, the amount of benefits, certification for eligibility,
how to provide benefits to renters, and establishment of funds to emergencies (up to 3% of total).
Most at issue in enactment of LIEAP was how funds would be distributed to the states,
specifically whether states would receive the same share of funds, or if colder weather states
would have preference. The formula that Congress established for LIEAP was complex and
incorporated data that included temperatures, energy expenditures, and the number of low-income
households. For more information about the LIEAP formula and how it pertains to LIHEAP, see
CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by Libby Perl.
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP
(dollars in millions)
Community Services
Administrationa
Fiscal
Year
Emergency
Energy
Conservation
Program
Special Crisis
Intervention/
Emergency
Energy
Assistance
Programb
Department of
Energy
Energy Crisis
Assistance/
Intervention
Program
Weatherization
Assistance
Programc
Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Low Income
Supplement
al Energy
Allowances
Low
Income
Energy
Assistance
Program
1975
16.5d
—
—
—
—
1976
27.5e
—
—
—
—
1977
110.0f
200.0g
—
27.5
—
—
1978
65.0h
200.0i
—
65.0
—
—
1979
—
200.0j
—
199.0
—
—
—
400.0k
199.0
1,200.0l
—
—
—m
175.0
—
1,850.0m
1980
1981
—
—
Source: The table notes provide additional information about the funding for each program.
a.
CSA funds were appropriated under the authority of Section 222(a)(5) and (12) of the Community Services
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). (In 1975, the relevant section was moved from (a)(12) to (a)(5).)
b.
In FY1977, Congress called the program the Special Crisis Intervention Program, but in FY1978 and FY1979
referred to it as the Emergency Energy Assistance Program.
c.
Appropriations figures for the Weatherization Assistance Program were taken from Evelyn Tager, Federal
Weatherization for Low-Income Households, CRS Report, May 12, 1983.
d.
Funds were appropriated in FY1975 as part of the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-32). The
conference report (H.Rept. 94-239) provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the House-passed
version of the bill ($9 million) be appropriated. Funds were added to the House-passed version (H.R. 5899) on
the floor. See “Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 1975,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 121,
part 8 (April 15, 1975), pp. 10263-10266.
e.
Funds were appropriated in FY1976 as part of the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-206). The conference report (H.Rept. 94-689) specified that the level for EECP be
$11 million more than the $16.5 million that was provided for in the House-passed version of the
appropriations bill (H.R. 8069).
Congressional Research Service
24
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
f.
Congress appropriated $27.5 million for EECP as part of the FY1977 Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-439). The CSA breakdown in funding is found in
“Conference Report on H.R. 14232, Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, 1977,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 21 (August 10, 1976), p.
26772. Later in the year, another $82.5 million was appropriated as part of the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26).
g.
P.L. 95-26 provided $200 million for the Special Crisis Intervention Program.
h.
Funds were appropriated in FY1978 for the EECP as part of the FY1978 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
95-205).
i.
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240). While the
funds were to be used in a similar manner to the FY1977 appropriation to the Special Crisis Intervention
Program (to assist households facing emergency circumstances), distribution to the states was contingent on a
showing of an energy-related emergency. In addition, the program was referred to as the Emergency Energy
Assistance Program.
j.
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1979 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-482).
k.
The Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP) represented an “expanded version” of the Special Crisis
Intervention Program (see Joe Richardson, Low-Income Energy Cost Assistance: FY1980, CRS Report, December
20, 1979). Of the amount appropriated, $250 million was part of the FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96123), which referred to the amount in the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriations bill (H.R. 4389, H.Rept. 96-400) and the remaining $150 million was appropriated as part of P.L.
96-126, the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act.
l.
Of the $1.2 billion appropriated to HEW for the Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances, $400 million
was set aside specifically for households receiving Supplemental Security Income. Funds were appropriated as
part of P.L. 96-126.
m.
Of the amount appropriated for LIEAP, Congress specified that $87.5 million be allocated to the CSA Crisis
Intervention Program. See the conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 610 (H.Rept. 96-1443).
Enactment of LIHEAP
In 1981, Congress enacted a new program, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), which replaced LIEAP. LIHEAP was similar to its predecessor program in that is was
set up as a block grant to states, tribes, and territories to help low-income households meet their
energy needs. LIHEAP maintained the same formula distribution as was set up under LIEAP.
Unlike LIEAP, grantees were able to use funds for cooling expenses without a showing of
medical necessity, as well as for weatherization. Grantees were given the option of setting
eligibility at the higher of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income (rather than the BLS
lower living standard), and the program maintained eligibility for recipients of AFDC (now
TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain veterans’ benefits. The program was
authorized at $1.875 billion from FY1982 through FY1984 and was funded at that level in its first
year of operation. For historic LIHEAP funding levels, see Table B-3.
LIHEAP differed from LIEAP in that states were given more flexibility and had fewer
administrative requirements in implementation.105 For example, under the new LIHEAP program,
105
The Senate Committee report, in describing the new program, stated that “the Committee does not want to burden
States with unnecessary paperwork” and that “the general effect will be to return basic control and responsibility to the
State level.” See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, report to
accompany S. 1377, 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 1981, S.Rept. 97-139, pp. 908-911. S. 1377 was substituted for the
House version (H.R. 3982) prior to enactment of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act. The framework for LIHEAP came
from S. 1377. See Ken Cahill, Low-Income Energy Assistance Reauthorization: Proposals and Issues, Congressional
Research Service Issue Brief, October 28, 1981, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
25
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
states were only required to report about households assisted annually, compared to quarterly
under LIEAP, and HHS did not require uniform data collection or record keeping standards.
Under LIEAP, states had to submit detailed changes in plans each time they wanted to modify
benefit levels or the way in which funds were used.106 In applying for LIHEAP funds, the statute
only required grantees to make assurances about the services they would provide, and HHS did
not have the authority to dictate how states would accomplish program goals or to approve or
disapprove state plans.107
106
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Aging, Family, and Human
Services, Examination on the Ability of Existing Energy Assistance Programs to Provide Help for the Needs of LowIncome Individuals, Testimony of David Swoap, Under Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 97th
Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1981, pp. 16-27.
107
Some of the differences between LIEAP and LIHEAP regulations are discussed in U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1982, November
1, 1983, pp. 1-5.
Congressional Research Service
26
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP
Funding Levels
In this appendix are two tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states,
tribes, and territories during recent fiscal years, and an additional table showing historical funding
levels from the time the program was created to the present.
Table B-1 shows the amount of LIHEAP regular funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories
as part of the FY2015 Continuing Resolution (CR, P.L. 113-164), announced by HHS on October
15, 2014, and the remainder, distributed after passage of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). As of the date of this report, approximately 1% of
the $3.39 billion appropriation had not been distributed. Net allocations to the states distributed
pursuant to the CR are in column (a) (i.e., the column does not include funding for tribes) and
tribal allocations are in column (b). Columns (c) and (d) show state and tribal funding distributed
after passage of P.L. 113-235. Allocations for the territories are in the last rows of the table, after
the states. Column (e) shows total FY2015 funding for all grantees as of the date of this report.
Table B-2 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and emergency contingency funds
distributed to each state from FY2007 through FY2014; the totals include funds distributed to
tribes within the states.
Table B-3 provides historic funding levels for LIHEAP from the time the program was initially
funded, in FY1982, through FY2015. The table shows authorization levels for LIHEAP regular
funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and emergency contingency funds, the
total amount of regular and emergency contingency funds appropriated in each fiscal year, and
the total amount of emergency contingency funds distributed.
Table B-1. FY2015 Regular Fund Allotments to States,Tribes, and Territories
Dollars in Millions
Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
October 15, 2015
Available Funds Announced
January 21, 2015
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$33 million
(b)
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$296 million
(c)
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$3.6 million
(d)
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and
Territories:
$3.356 billion
(e)
39.709
0.238
4.047
0.024
44.018
Alaska
9.389
6.514
0.754
0.801
17.458
Arizona
18.440
0.879
1.879
0.090
21.288
Arkansas
24.131
California
156.282
Colorado
44.078
4.280
48.358
Connecticut
77.288
7.737
85.025
Delaware
11.306
1.141
12.447
States and
Territories
Alabama
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$3.02 billion
(a)
Congressional Research Service
2.415
0.617
15.531
26.546
0.061
172.492
27
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
October 15, 2015
States and
Territories
District of
Columbia
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$3.02 billion
(a)
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$33 million
(b)
9.441
Available Funds Announced
January 21, 2015
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$296 million
(c)
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$3.6 million
(d)
0.923
0.010
10.364
Florida
63.198
Georgia
49.976
5.093
55.068
Hawaii
5.033
0.513
5.546
Idaho
17.296
Illinois
150.935
Indiana
68.333
Iowa
48.433
Kansas
27.650
Kentucky
40.473
3.965
44.437
Louisiana
34.593
3.482
38.075
Maine
34.037
Maryland
62.046
0.882
6.440
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and
Territories:
$3.356 billion
(e)
1.691
0.001
0.086
14.559
0.006
6.591
1.291
2.699
3.283
19.955
165.495
0.001
4.672
0.036
69.649
74.931
53.105
0.039
0.125
6.236
30.424
38.736
68.282
Massachusetts
131.792
0.106
12.995
0.010
144.902
Michigan
145.147
0.762
14.028
0.079
160.016
Minnesota
103.239
Mississippi
24.283
Missouri
66.506
Montana
17.594
3.727
1.720
0.364
23.405
Nebraska
26.686
0.016
2.608
0.002
29.312
Nevada
9.959
0.050
2.406
113.198
0.005
6.492
26.743
72.998
9.073
0.925
9.998
23.213
2.271
25.484
New Jersey
114.115
11.167
125.281
New Mexico
15.252
0.833
1.501
0.082
17.668
343.721
0.187
33.320
0.018
377.245
North Carolina
76.559
1.386
7.733
0.140
85.818
North Dakota
17.603
5.559
1.721
0.543
25.425
New Hampshire
New York
Ohio
133.525
12.880
146.405
Oklahoma
28.899
3.843
2.812
0.497
36.052
Oregon
31.814
0.584
3.064
0.061
35.523
Congressional Research Service
28
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
October 15, 2015
States and
Territories
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$3.02 billion
(a)
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$33 million
(b)
Available Funds Announced
January 21, 2015
Net Funding
Distributed to
States and
Territories:
$296 million
(c)
Amounts
Distributed to
Tribes:
$3.6 million
(d)
Pennsylvania
186.048
Rhode Island
24.616
South Carolina
31.726
South Dakota
15.803
Tennessee
49.711
4.964
54.676
Texas
105.157
10.716
115.873
Utah
21.354
Vermont
17.253
1.686
18.939
Virginia
73.383
7.357
80.740
Washington
51.369
West Virginia
26.238
2.564
28.802
Wisconsin
92.930
8.964
101.894
Wyoming
8.385
0.285
0.820
0.028
9.518
3,005.059
33.086
294.930
3.570
3,336.646
Subtotal to
States and
Tribes
18.051
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and
Territories:
$3.356 billion
(e)
0.042
2.457
204.099
0.004
3.233
3.008
0.302
1.922
1.545
2.087
4.955
27.120
34.959
0.294
0.030
0.185
20.650
23.773
58.431
American Samoa
0.253
0.025
0.277
Guam
0.554
0.054
0.608
Northern
Mariana Islands
0.192
0.019
0.211
Puerto Rico
13.745
1.350
15.095
Virgin Islands
0.524
0.051
0.575
15.267
1.500
16.767
Subtotal to
Territories
Total
3,020.326
33.086
296.430
3.570
3,353.413
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families.
Congressional Research Service
29
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Table B-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2007 to FY2014
(dollars in millions)
State
(includes
tribal
allotments
)
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and emergency contingency)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Alabama
22.205
19.221
64.274
69.016
61.570
47.408
48.269
48.885
Alaska
12.454
16.856
30.928
28.182
24.727
18.002
17.171
18.841
Arizona
8.551
9.296
31.084
37.422
33.844
23.852
23.343
23.641
Arkansas
15.749
14.667
39.711
40.000
36.401
28.537
26.746
27.505
California
94.855
103.117
248.487
234.215
211.554
154.574
145.410
153.592
Colorado
33.073
41.326
71.352
70.675
65.035
47.308
44.270
46.378
Connecticut
48.102
65.618
125.887
107.845
102.919
79.532
76.014
77.413
Delaware
5.727
6.929
18.748
16.847
15.854
11.957
12.573
13.016
District of
Columbia
6.700
7.284
16.249
16.067
14.641
10.687
9.976
10.474
Florida
27.977
30.414
101.701
129.014
110.783
78.040
76.376
77.351
Georgia
28.564
24.047
80.410
102.091
87.862
61.702
60.387
61.158
Hawaii
2.228
2.403
5.182
6.589
6.235
6.107
5.416
6.159
Idaho
12.901
13.916
30.012
30.158
28.199
20.576
19.207
20.166
Illinois
119.418
149.216
265.679
265.542
248.941
185.684
160.191
167.458
Indiana
54.069
67.561
116.487
117.575
107.584
80.006
72.374
75.820
Iowa
38.319
47.881
76.929
74.524
71.589
54.813
51.292
53.735
Kansas
19.746
22.137
49.541
46.262
43.924
32.160
31.397
31.019
Kentucky
32.010
30.588
75.055
67.832
61.111
46.423
43.483
48.288
Louisiana
22.499
19.651
61.502
59.054
54.895
43.422
40.864
42.062
Maine
33.719
46.536
79.187
60.428
56.541
39.982
37.414
39.195
Maryland
33.036
35.913
109.164
90.005
88.926
69.790
70.390
68.513
Massachuset
ts
93.795
126.492
213.500
196.602
183.854
132.731
132.256
113.377
141.667
249.416
276.447
238.425
173.450
165.582
165.444
Minnesota
81.681
102.063
163.982
160.089
152.559
116.839
109.335
114.541
Mississippi
17.871
16.479
42.622
46.650
40.635
31.591
29.313
30.120
Missouri
52.645
59.603
114.902
107.145
100.193
68.231
66.553
70.882
Montana
15.132
18.907
35.202
34.530
33.072
24.135
22.529
23.654
Nebraska
18.950
23.679
44.086
42.893
41.447
30.226
28.214
29.623
4.016
4.366
14.599
18.218
15.868
11.203
10.964
11.104
New
Hampshire
18.769
25.635
47.737
37.423
36.050
26.055
24.321
New Jersey
80.120
108.707
185.773
199.455
188.792
136.746
124.480
Michigan
Nevada
Congressional Research Service
140.014
25.536
124.570
30
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
State
(includes
tribal
allotments
)
New
Mexico
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and emergency contingency)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
10.705
11.638
27.451
24.739
23.543
17.074
15.938
261.604
359.628
538.243
537.348
521.925
375.710
350.169
North
Carolina
45.974
42.383
132.528
127.139
116.205
83.011
87.702
North
Dakota
16.438
20.539
38.240
36.668
35.936
26.218
24.473
105.643
132.004
245.750
253.035
234.875
165.463
144.794
154.314
Oklahoma
19.282
17.668
52.878
53.190
49.378
36.094
35.955
37.147
Oregon
25.633
27.650
51.460
52.029
47.861
36.666
34.311
35.945
140.520
191.759
308.394
315.357
294.486
209.548
190.810
203.071
Rhode
Island
15.471
20.875
38.653
34.444
31.274
23.241
23.976
South
Carolina
17.636
15.266
51.047
56.232
48.649
36.270
38.335
South
Dakota
13.350
16.681
31.058
29.989
29.259
21.293
19.877
Tennessee
33.568
30.985
80.512
84.899
74.390
55.405
56.856
58.040
Texas
46.545
50.599
169.196
212.807
184.201
129.832
127.064
128.686
Utah
15.369
19.204
35.755
35.003
33.537
24.513
22.882
24.025
Vermont
14.162
19.370
36.156
27.941
26.959
19.529
18.230
19.140
Virginia
40.241
43.746
127.668
109.927
107.215
80.436
78.971
81.877
Washington
42.163
45.481
84.645
83.989
78.688
60.310
56.437
59.124
West
Virginia
18.621
20.157
45.019
43.363
40.786
29.700
27.723
Wisconsin
73.525
91.872
147.608
145.214
137.390
105.172
98.417
103.103
Wyoming
6.153
7.689
14.315
14.124
13.444
9.815
9.162
9.619
Subtotal to
States and
Tribes
2,131
2,587
5,066
5,066
4,694
3,437
3,248
3,370
Territoriesb
2.788
3.014
6.734
6.816
6.322
4.661
4.405
16.937
Leveraging/
REACHc
27.225
—d
27.000
27.000
0
26.949
0
0
Training/
tech. asst.e
0.297
0.292
0.300
0.300
0.300
2.994
2.838
2.958
Total
2,161
2,591
5,100
5,100
4,701
3,472
3,255
3,390
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
16.734
366.843
88.271
25.695
23.813
38.825
20.869
29.108
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) data.
Congressional Research Service
31
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
a.
The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states and tribes, and any contingency
funds awarded to states and tribes in that year.
b.
The statute provides that HHS must set aside not less than one-tenth of 1% and not more than one-half of 1%
for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands).
c.
The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging incentive
program (designed to encourage states to increase non-federal support for energy assistance). It also provides
that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be reserved for competitive REACH grants (for
state efforts to increase efficient use of energy among low-income households and to reduce their vulnerability
to homelessness and other problems due to high energy costs). Congress has in recent years stipulated that a
certain portion of the LIHEAP regular funds be set aside for leveraging grants and, of this amount, HHS has
reserved 25% for REACH grants.
d.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not specify funds for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants.
e.
The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into contracts with
states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical assistance related to achieving
the purposes of the LIHEAP program.
Congressional Research Service
32
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2015
(dollars in thousands)
Emergency Contingency Fundsa
Regular Funds
Fiscal
Year
Authorized
President’s
Request
Appropriated
President’s
Request
Appropriated
Distributed
Total
Distributed
1982
1,875,000
1,400,000
1,875,000
—
—
—
1,875,000
1983
1,875,000
1,300,000
1,975,000
—
—
—
1,975,000
1984
1,875,000
1,300,000
2,075,000
—
—
—
2,075,000
1985
2,140,000
1,875,000
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1986
2,275,000
2,097,765
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1987
2,050,000
2,097,642
1,825,000
—
—
—
1,825,000
1988
2,132,000
1,237,000
1,531,840
—
—
—
1,531,840
1989
2,218,000
1,187,000
1,383,200
—
—
—
1,383,200
1990
2,307,000
1,100,000
1,443,000
—
—
—
1,443,000
1991
2,150,000
1,050,000
1,415,055
NAb
195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992
2,230,000
925,000
1,500,000
100,000
300,000
0
1,500,000
1993
ssanc
1,065,000
1,346,030
0
595,200
0
1,346,030
1994
ssanc
1,507,408
1,437,402
0
600,000
300,000
1,737,402
1995
2,000,000
1,475,000
1,319,202
d
600,000
100,000
1,419,202
1996
2,000,000
1,319,204
900,000
e
180,000
180,000
1,080,000
1997
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
420,000
215,000
1,215,000
1998
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
300,000
160,000
1,160,000
1999
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
300,000
300,000
175,299
1,275,299
2000
ssanc
1,100,000
1,100,000
300,000
900,000
744,350f
1,844350f
2001
ssanc
1,100,000
1,400,000
300,000
600,000g
455,650h
1,855,650
300,000
100,000i
1,800,000
1,988,300
2002
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,700,000
300,000
300,000
0
200,000k
2003
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,788,300j
2004
2,000,000
1,700,000
1,789,380
300,000
99,410
99,410
1,888,790
2005
5,100,000
1,900,500l,m
1,884,799
200,000
297,600
277,250
2,162,050
2006
5,100,000
1,800,000l
2,480,000
200,000
681,000
679,960
3,160,000
2007
5,100,000
1,782,000
1,980,000
0
181,000
181,000
2,161,000
2008
—n
1,500,000
1,980,000
282,000
590,328
610,678o
2,590,678
2009
—n
1,700,000
4,509,672
300,000
590,328
590,328
5,100,000
2010
—n
2,410,000p
4,509,672
790,000
590,328
590,678
5,100,350
2011q
—n
2,510,000r
4,500,653
790,000
200,000
200,000
4,700,653
2012
—n
1,980,000
3,471,672s
590,000
0
0
3,471,672
2013
—n
2,820,000
3,290,083t
200,000
0
0
3,255,436u
Congressional Research Service
33
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Emergency Contingency Fundsa
Regular Funds
Fiscal
Year
Authorized
President’s
Request
Appropriated
President’s
Request
Appropriated
Distributed
Total
Distributed
2014
—n
2,820,000v
3,424,549
150,000
0
0
3,390,304u
2015
—n
2,550,000v
3,390,304
200,000
0
0
3,356,401w
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of HHS data.
a.
In 1994, Congress enacted a permanent $600 million annual authorization for contingency funding. As shown,
however, before this authorization contingency funds were sometimes made available.
b.
Congress first allocated emergency contingency funds in January of 1991 due to the price of home heating oil
(P.L. 101-517). Funds were not requested in the President’s budget until FY1992.
c.
Such sums as necessary.
d.
The President’s FY1995 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were appropriated
in FY1994 (P.L. 103-112) available until expended.
e.
The President’s FY1996 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were appropriated
in FY1995 (P.L. 103-333) available until expended.
f.
The Administration released $400 million of the FY2000 contingency funds in late September 2000, making
them effectively available to states in FY2001.
g.
The initial contingency fund appropriation for FY2001 was $300 million (P.L. 106-554). The Administration
released the entire amount by December 30, 2000. On July 24, 2001, the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations
Act (P.L. 107-20) provided an additional $300 million in contingency funds.
h.
The distributed contingency funds in FY2001 included the $300 million appropriated in P.L. 106-554 and the
amount remaining from FY2000 (approximately $156 million). The $300 million that was appropriated as part
of P.L. 107-20 was made available until expended; a portion was distributed in FY2003 and the remainder was
converted to regular funds that same year.
i.
The FY2002 contingency funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L. 107116). With the end of FY2002, the remainder of the contingency funds expired ($200 million).
j.
The FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and converted into
regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
k.
FY2003 contingency funds were distributed out of contingency dollars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20).
l.
Of the amounts requested by the President in FY2005 and FY2006, $500,000 was to be set aside for a national
evaluation.
m.
In FY2005, the President’s initial budget request for LIHEAP regular funds was $1,800,000,500. However, on
November 14, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment to Congress, requesting $1,900,000,500
for LIHEAP regular funds.
n.
LIHEAP was not authorized from FY2008 through FY2013, and has not been reauthorized for the current
fiscal year (FY2014) or the upcoming fiscal year (FY2015).
o.
Of the emergency contingency funds distributed in FY2008, $20 million came from funds appropriated in the
FY2005 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447).
Contingency funds in P.L. 108-447 were made available until expended.
p.
In FY2010, the President proposed that a mechanism be created whereby additional LIHEAP funds would be
released when energy price increases reached certain levels; the proposal was not adopted by Congress. The
Administration estimated that this “trigger” would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $450
million. This estimate is not included in the table.
q.
P.L. 112-10 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% on discretionary accounts. As a result, the regular
fund allocation was reduced from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion.
Congressional Research Service
34
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
r.
In FY2011, the President again proposed a trigger to release additional LIHEAP funds. In addition to proposing
that funds be released when energy prices increase, the FY2011 proposal would have released funds when
participation in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) increased above a certain level. The Administration
estimated that this trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $2 billion. This estimate is
not included in the table.
s.
P.L. 112-74 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% on discretionary accounts, bringing the total
available for LIHEAP down from $3.478 billion to $3.472 billion. See Division F, Title V, Section 527.
t.
The FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded LIHEAP and most
other federal programs at FY2012 levels. However, imposition of reductions through sequestration, including
an across-the-board reduction of 0.2% applied due to failure to stay within the caps set by the Budget Control
Act, reduced funding for LIHEAP from $3.472 billion to $3.290 billion.
u.
The appropriations acts give HHS the authority to transfer funds within the agency. In FY2013 and FY2014,
HHS transferred approximately $35 million from LIHEAP, reducing the total available for distribution.
v.
The President’s FY2014 and FY2015 budgets also proposed $50 million for a new competitive grant that
would be used to help low-income households reduce their energy burdens. The $50 million is not included in
the request in this table.
w.
As of the date of this report, 1% of funds had not been distributed.
Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Acknowledgments
This report benefitted from the research assistance of Jean-Luc Tilly, an intern with the Congressional
Research Service, who delved into the legislative history of energy assistance programs in the 1970s and
1980s.
Congressional Research Service
35