The LIHEAP Formula

Changes from June 26, 2015 to February 23, 2016

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
.

The LIHEAP Formula
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
June 26, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33275

c11173008

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds to states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. territories and commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) primarily to help low-income households pay home energy
expenses. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of funding: regular funds (sometimes
referred to as block grant funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allocated to
grantees based on a formula, while emergency contingency funds may be released to one or more
grantees at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based
on emergency need. This report focuses on the way in which regular funds are distributed.
Regular LIHEAP funds are allocated to the states according to a formula that has a long and
complicated history. (Tribes and territories receive funds through set asides.) In 1980, Congress
created the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program

    The LIHEAP Formula
    February 23, 2016
            (RL33275)
          Jump to Main Text of ReportContentsIntroduction
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs
The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula
Enactment of LIHEAP
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula
Formula Discussions
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments Using the "New" Formula
Calculating the New Formula Rates
Using the New Formula Percentages to Allocate Funds to the States
"Old" Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion
"New" Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975 Billion and $2.25 Billion
"New" Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or Above $2.25 Billion
Implementation of the "New" LIHEAP Formula

      Figures
      Figure B-1. Estimated LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels for Three Types of States

    

      Tables
      Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): "Old" and "New" Allotment Percentages by State, FY2016
Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the "New" LIHEAP Formula
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allocations for FY2009 through FY2015 and Estimated Allocations for FY2016

    

      Appendixes
      Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
Appendix C. LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to the States, FY2009-FY2015, and Estimated FY2016 Allocations

    
SummaryThe Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations (collectively referred to as grantees) primarily to help low-income households pay home energy expenses. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of funding: regular funds (sometimes referred to as block grant funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allocated to grantees based on a formula, while emergency contingency funds may be released to one or more grantees at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based on emergency need. This report focuses on the way in which regular funds are distributed.

    Regular LIHEAP funds are allocated to the states according to a formula that has a long and complicated history. (Tribes and territories receive funds through set asides.) In 1980, Congress created the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP), as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223). Because Congress was
 particularly concerned with the high costs of heating, funds under LIEAP were distributed
 according to a multi-step formula that benefitted cold-weather states. In 1981, Congress enacted
 LIHEAP as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), replacing LIEAP.
 However, the LIHEAP statute specified that states would continue to receive the same percentage
 of regular funds that they did under the LIEAP formula (this is sometimes referred to as the “old”
"old" LIHEAP formula).

    When Congress reauthorized LIHEAP in 1984 as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act
( (P.L. 98-558), it changed the program’'s formula by requiring the use of more recent population
 and energy data and requiring that HHS consider both heating and cooling costs of low-income
 households (a change from what had largely been a focus on the need for heating assistance). The
 effect of these changes meant that, in general, some funding would be shifted from cold-weather
 states to warm-weather states. To prevent a dramatic shift of funds, Congress added two “holdharmless”"hold-harmless" provisions to the formula. The percentage of funds that states receive under the
 formula enacted in 1984 is sometimes referred to as the “new” formula.
"new" formula.
    The result of these provisions is a current law, three-tiered formula, the application of which
 depends on the amount of regular funds that Congress appropriates. When appropriations are at or
 below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, states receive the
“old” "old" formula percentage of funds. If appropriations exceed this level, then funds are allocated
 according to the “new”"new" formula percentage of funds, with certain states held harmless at the level
level of funds they would have received at an appropriation of $1.975 billion in FY1984. Finally, when
 appropriations are at or above $2.25 billion, there is a second hold-harmless provision in place, a
 hold-harmless raterate that ensures that certain states receive a set percentage of funds.
 
    For many years after the enactment of the “new”"new" LIHEAP formula, appropriations did not exceed
 the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, so funds were distributed according
 to the “old”"old" formula percentages. However, in FY2006, and in FY2009 through FY2015FY2016, regular
 fund appropriations have ranged from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion, and the “new”"new" formula has been
 incorporated into the way in which funds are distributed to the states. In FY2016, the President’s
budget proposal and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bills would
incorporate the “new” LIHEAP formula into the fund distribution. For estimatedFor allocations to
the states, see Table C-1.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP ................................................................................................... 2
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs .......................................... 2
The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula ............................................. 5
Enactment of LIHEAP ..................................................................................................................... 9
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula ...................................................................................... 9
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula ............................................................... 9
Formula Discussions ........................................................................................................... 9
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level............................................................................. 10
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate .............................................................................. 11
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language .............................................................................. 11
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments Using the “New” Formula ................................ 12
Calculating the New Formula Rates ........................................................................................ 13
Using the New Formula Percentages to Allocate Funds to the States ..................................... 15
“Old” Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion ............................................ 15
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
Billion and $2.25 Billion ................................................................................................ 16
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or Above
$2.25 Billion................................................................................................................... 17
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula .................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure B-1. Estimated LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations
Levels for Three Types of States ................................................................................................ 28

Tables
Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980 ............................ 4
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP .................................................................................. 8
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): “Old” and “New” Allotment
Percentages by State, FY2015 .................................................................................................... 18
Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula ...................... 20
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various
Hypothetical Appropriation Levels............................................................................................. 24
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allocations for FY2009 through FY2015
and Estimated Allocations for FY2016....................................................................................... 31

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Appendixes
Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical
Appropriations Levels ................................................................................................................ 23
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation
Levels.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix C. LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to the States, FY2009-FY2015, and
Estimated FY2016 Allocations ................................................................................................... 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Introduction
 the states, see Table C-1.
    
  The LIHEAP Formula
  
    Introduction
    The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a block grant program
 program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under which the federal
 government gives annual grants to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and
 commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations to operate multi-component home energy
 assistance programs for needy households.11 Established in 1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35, the
 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, LIHEAP has been reauthorized and amended a number of
 times, most recently in 2005, when P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act, authorized annual regular
 LIHEAP funds at $5.1 billion per year from FY2005 through FY2007.2
2
    The federal LIHEAP statute has very broad guidelines, with many decisions regarding the
program’ program's operation made by the states. Recipients may be helped with their heating and cooling
 costs, receive crisis assistance, have weatherizing expenses paid, or receive other aid designed to
 reduce their home energy needs. Households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
 income guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income, are federally eligible for
 LIHEAP benefits. States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below
 110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. The most recent HHS data show
 that an estimated 8.1 million households received winter heating or winter crisis assistance in
 FY2010 (the largest share of LIHEAP funds pay for heating assistance).3
3
    The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of program funding: regular funds—sometimes
 referred to as block grant funds—and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to
 states on the basis of the LIHEAP statutory formula, which was enacted as part of the Human
 Services Reauthorization Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-558).4).4 The way in which regular funds are
 allocated to states depends on the amount of funds appropriated by Congress. The second type of
 LIHEAP funds, emergency contingency funds, may be released and allotted to one or more states
 at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of HHS.55 The funds may be released at any
 point in the fiscal year to meet additional home energy assistance needs created by a natural
 disaster or other emergency.6
6
    The remainder of this report discusses only the history and methods of distributing regular
 LIHEAP funds to the state. Funds for tribes are included in each state’'s formula allocations and
 are distributed at the state level based on eligible tribal members. Territories receive funds
 separately as a percentage set aside of regular funds, so neither tribes nor territories are included
in the formula discussion.

1

For additional information on LIHEAP, see CRS Report RL31865, LIHEAP: Program and Funding, by Libby Perl.
LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
3
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2010 LIHEAP Report
to Congress, p. 35.
4
The formula section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623.
5
Depending on how Congress appropriates them, contingency funds may remain available for distribution in more than
one fiscal year or they may expire with the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
6
The statutory definition of emergency includes a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant
increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in
participation in a public benefit program, a significant increase in unemployment, or an event meeting such criteria as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §8622.
2

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

1

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 in the formula discussion.
    Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP

    The mid- to late-1970s, a time marked by rapidly rising fuel prices, also marked the beginning of
 federal energy assistance funding for low-income households. The first national program to help
 low-income households was created in early 1975 to assist families with energy conservation
 primarily through home weatherization. This assistance was provided through a new Emergency
 Energy Conservation Program (EECP), enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity,
 and Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). The funds were administered by the
 Community Services Administration (CSA), the successor agency to the Office of Economic
 Opportunity, which was responsible for many of the programs created as part of the 1964 war on
 poverty. Beginning in 1977, funds were also made available through the CSA to help families
 directly pay for fuel (as opposed to weatherization expenses) via a variety of programs. Each of
 these programs had in common a focus on the need for heating assistance (versus cooling
 assistance).

    Congress continued to appropriate funds for energy assistance programs through FY1980, at
 which point a new program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP), was enacted
 as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). LIEAP, which was
 administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was funded for one year,
 FY1981, before the creation of LIHEAP. Like the CSA programs, LIEAP emphasized heating
 over cooling needs. This preference was reflected in both the CSA program formulas and the
 LIEAP set of formulas, which used variables that benefitted cold-weather states to determine how
 funds would be distributed. The LIEAP set of formulas continues to have relevance for the way in
 which LIHEAP funds are distributed. This section of the report describes these predecessor
 programs to LIHEAP and their distribution formulas.


    Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs

    On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and
 Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644), which contained funds for a new program,
 called the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP). The program was to be
 administered by the Community Services Administration (CSA), and its purpose was

    to enable low-income individuals and families, including the elderly and the near poor, to
 participate in energy conservation programs designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of
 energy ... and to reduce ... energy consumption.


    The law governing EECP listed a number of eligible activities in which states could participate,
 including energy conservation and education programs; weatherization assistance; loans and
 grants for the purchase of energy conservation technologies; alternative fuel supplies; and fuel
 voucher and stamp programs. Despite the variety of activities that could be funded through the
 program, the first CSA funding notice regarding the program limited eligible activities to
“winterizing” "winterizing" homes and to giving emergency assistance “"to prevent hardship or danger to health

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

2

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 due to utility shutoff or lack of fuel.”7"7 During the four years the EECP was funded, the majority
 of funds were used for weatherization expenses.8
8
    EECP funds were distributed to states via a formula that benefitted those states with high heating
 costs. One formula variable in particular, a measure of “coldness”"coldness" called heating degree days,
 benefitted cold-weather states. Heating degree days measure the extent to which a day’'s average
 temperature falls below 65° Fahrenheit. For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°
 results in a measure of 15 heating degree days. Because heating degree days are higher in coldweathercold-weather states, including the heating degree day variable in a formula favors states with greater
 heating needs. Squaring the heating degree days magnifies this effect.99 The EECP formula took
 the number of population-weighted heating degree days in each state, squared them, and
 multiplied the result by the number of households in poverty that owned their homes to determine
 how funds would be allocated.1010 The CSA acknowledged the emphasis on heating needs in its
 formula, stating that the FY1975 allocation “"was heavily weighted to the coldest areas.”11"11 In the
 three fiscal years that followed the first appropriation for the EECP, from FY1976 through
 FY1978, the CSA changed somewhat the way in which it allocated funds to the states; however,
 the factors continued to favor cold-weather states through use of either heating degree days or
 heating degree days squared.12
12
    The first year that Congress specifically appropriated funds for direct assistance to help lowincomelow-income households (those at or below 125% of poverty) pay their energy costs (instead of funds
 that went primarily for weatherization and conservation activities) was FY1977. The FY1977
 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26) provided $200 million for a Special Crisis
 Intervention Program to be administered by CSA. States could use funds to make direct payments
 to fuel providers on behalf of low-income families lacking the financial resources to pay their
 energy bills. The CSA directed states to target households where utilities had been shut off (or
 were threatened with shut off) or who could prove “"dire financial need”" as the result of paying
 large energy bills.1313 Although the law did not reserve funds exclusively for heating costs, the way
 in which funds were allocated to the states emphasized heating need. Funds were distributed to
 the states based on a formula that used (1) heating degree days squared, (2) the number of
 households in poverty, (3) the number of persons above age 65 with incomes below 125% of
 poverty, and (4) the relative cost of fuel in the region.14 Congress again appropriated $200 million
7

Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency
Energy Conservation Program,” Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 145, July 28, 1975, p. 31603.
8
See, for example, House Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-68, March 11, 1977: “The funds in this program are used primarily
to purchase materials to insulate the homes of low-income families.”
9
For example, if a southern state experiences 700 heating degree days in a year and a northern state experiences 7,000,
the northern state has 10 times as many heating degree days as the southern state. However, if both numbers are
squared, the northern state has 100 times as many heating degree days as the southern state.
10
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,”
Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., pp. 47096-47097.
13
Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: General Information, Application
Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements,” Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 125, June 29, 1977, p. 33240.
14
The formula was described in the Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977. The CSA implemented this
formula, which it described in guidance to the states. See the Federal Register, Ibid.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

3

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

14 Congress again appropriated $200 million for crisis intervention in both FY1978 and FY1979.1515 In FY1978, funds were available to
 households with the need for assistance as the result of an energy-related emergency such as lack
 of fuel, a natural disaster, fuel shortages, and widespread unemployment.1616 In FY1979, funds
 were made available to assist families facing “"substantially increased energy costs and/or life- or
 health-threatening situations caused by winter-related energy emergencies.”17
"17
    In FY1980, Congress appropriated a total of $1.6 billion for energy assistance. Of this amount,
 $400 million was appropriated for the Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP, a CSA program
 similar to the Special Crisis Intervention Program) through two separate appropriations.1818 The
 remainder, $1.2 billion, was appropriated as part of the FY1980 Department of the Interior
 Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126) to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW, the
 predecessor to HHS) for cash assistance and crisis intervention due to high energy costs. This
 appropriation to HEW is sometimes referred to as Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances.
 Of this $1.2 billion, $400 million was to be distributed specifically to recipients of Supplemental
 Security Income (SSI). The rest of the funds appropriated to HEW, approximately $800 million,
 as well as the ECAP funds, were distributed to states on the basis of three factors: heating degree
 days squared, the number of households below 125% of poverty, and the difference in home
 heating energy expenditures between 1978 and 1979. The formula used to distribute the $400
 million for SSI recipients used these same factors but also included the number of SSI recipients
 in each state relative to the national total.

    
      
        Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980

      
      
        
          
            Emergency Energy
 Conservation Program:a
FY1975
(P.L. 93-644)

Special Crisis
Intervention Program:b
FY1977
(P.L. 95-26)

Low Income Supplemental
Energy Allowances:c
FY1980
(P.L. 96-126)

(Heating degree days)2

(Heating degree days)2

(Heating degree days)2

Number of homeowners in
poverty

Number of households in poverty

Number of households below 125% of
poverty

Number of persons over age 65 with
income less than 125% of poverty

Difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and 1979

Relative cost of fuel
Sources:aFY1975 (P.L. 93-644)
          
          
            Special Crisis Intervention Program:bFY1977 (P.L. 95-26)
          
          
            Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances:cFY1980 (P.L. 96-126)
          
        
        
          
            (Heating degree days)2 
(Heating degree days)2
(Heating degree days)2  
Number of homeowners in poverty
Number of households in poverty
Number of households below 125% of poverty
Number of persons over age 65 with income less than 125% of poverty
Difference in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1979
Relative cost of fuel
Sources: For the formula under P.L. 93-644, see Community Services Administration, “"Emergency Energy
 Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,” " Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976,
p.  p. 47096. For the formula under P.L. 95-26, see Senate Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R.
 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Congress, 1st95th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977.
 The formula for P.L. 96-126 is contained within the law.
        a.

    Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree days. The formula involved multiplying heating degree days squared by the number of homeowners in poverty to arrive at the percentage share for each state. 
        b.

    The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to determine allocations.
        c.

    The Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances arrived at states' shares of funds through the formula ½ (heating degree days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ½ (difference in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1980). Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980, $400 million was set aside for SSI recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ (heating degree days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ⅓ (difference in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1979) + ⅓ (SSI recipients in each state relative to the national total).
      
    
    The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula
    In April 1980, Congress replaced the patchwork energy assistance programs of the late 1970s with one program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). LIEAP, the direct predecessor program to LIHEAP, was established as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The program was introduced in the Senate as the Home Energy  is contained within the law.

15

Funds were appropriated through the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240) and in FY1979
through a continuing resolution (P.L. 95-482). In FY1978, Congress called the program Emergency Energy Assistance
Program and in FY1979 called it the Crisis Intervention Program (excluding the word “Special” from the title).
16
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Funding Requirements for
Emergency Energy Assistance Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 46, March 8, 1978, p. 9476.
17
Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Fiscal Year 1979 Crisis
Intervention Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 250, December 28, 1978, pp. 60466-60467.
18
Congress appropriated $250 million for ECAP as part of an FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-123, referencing
the FY1980 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 4389), and
appropriated an additional $150 million as part of the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126).

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

4

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

a.

Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the
formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree
days. The formula involved multiplying heating degree days squared by the number of homeowners in
poverty to arrive at the percentage share for each state.

b.

The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to
determine allocations.

c.

The Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances arrived at states’ shares of funds through the formula ½
(heating degree days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ½ (difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and 1980). Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980,
$400 million was set aside for SSI recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ (heating degree
days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ⅓ (difference in home heating expenditures
between 1978 and 1979) + ⅓ (SSI recipients in each state relative to the national total).

The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula
In April 1980, Congress replaced the patchwork energy assistance programs of the late 1970s
with one program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). LIEAP, the direct
predecessor program to LIHEAP, was established as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The program was introduced in the Senate as the Home Energy
Assistance Act (S. 1724) and was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the bill that would become the
 Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, on the Senate floor.1919 Like the energy assistance programs of
 the late 1970s such as the Special Crisis Intervention Program and the Low Income Supplemental
 Energy Allowances, LIEAP allocated funds to states in order to help low-income households pay
 their home energy costs. Also like these predecessor programs, LIEAP allocated funds to states
 using a method that put more emphasis on the heating needs of cold-weather states than it did on
 cooling needs.
 
    The formula developed under LIEAP continues to be relevant in several ways: (1) it has been
 used to distribute LIHEAP funds as recently as FY2007, (2) the percentage shares of funds that
 states received continue to be the benchmark for the way in which states are held harmless under
 the current LIHEAP formula, and (3) from FY2009 through FY2012, Congress has distributed the
 bulk of LIHEAP funds using the LIEAP formula percentages (for more information, see
 Appendix C). As a result, the variables used are important in understanding the current formula
 and the way in which it is used to distribute funds.

    Ultimately, Congress developed the LIEAP formula through two different laws: P.L. 96-223, the
 law that authorized LIEAP, and P.L. 96-369, a continuing resolution enacted six months later. The
 following two subsections describe the elements of the formula developed through each.


    Formula Under P.L. 96-223

    The formula developed as part of S. 1724, and subsequently incorporated into P.L. 96-223,
, reflected, in part, the concern that the problem of rising energy costs were “"most critical in areas
 with high home heating costs.”20"20 The formula for LIEAP arose from a Senate compromise over
 three different proposals. The debate centered around the degree to which heating should be
19

“Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-32 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980)
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
20
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 12.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

5

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 emphasized over energy expenditures generally. Some Members wanted a formula that accounted
 for all energy uses and was not based solely on geographic location,2121 while others saw the
program’ program's purpose as solely to provide heating assistance.2222 The debate on the Senate floor was,
 at times, contentious, with Senator Edmund Muskie (ME) resolved to filibuster in order to
 support the heating needs of northern states.2323 Primarily at issue was the measure of heating
 degree days, particularly the extent to which they would be weighted and whether they would be
 squared.

    Under the final compromise LIEAP formula in P.L. 96-223, states received funds under one of
 four different alternatives used to measure home energy need, depending on which one benefitted
 a state the most. Three of the four options contained different combinations of several formula
 factors: residential energy expenditures; heating degree days or heating degree days squared; and
 the number of low-income households in the state.
•

Under the first formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
 residential energy expenditures and 50% on heating degree days squared
 multiplied by the number of households at or below the Bureau of Labor
 Statistics (BLS) lower living standard.24

•

24
    Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on
 residential energy expenditures and 75% based on heating degree days squared
 multiplied by the number of households at or below the BLS lower living
 standard.

•


    Under the third formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
 residential energy expenditures and 50% based on heating degree days (not
 squared) multiplied by the number of households with incomes at or below the
 BLS lower living standard.

•


    The fourth option guaranteed states a minimum benefit of $120 for each
 household that received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), SSI,
 or Food Stamp benefits. The option was added to S. 1724 at the Finance Committee level in recognition of the fact that (in general) funds were not being provided for cooling costs.25 (See Table 2 for a breakdown of these formulas.) 
    While the focus of the formula was on heating assistance, the LIEAP law did allow states to provide for cooling when households could demonstrate medical necessity.26 Congress authorized  at the Finance

21

See, for example, Senator Russell Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol.
125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32278. “But the formula [as passed by the Senate Finance Committee] went a
long way toward considering the total household expense for energy, not just heating.”
22
Senator Rudy Boschwitz, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32290. “I refer back to the committee report, which talks about the intent of the act being to
‘offset high heating costs (and cooling where medically necessary) and that assistance not be a supplement of all
utilities and their use to run appliances, etc.’... It is very clear that it is the intent of the Senate to help keep people
warm.”
23
Senator Edmund Muskie, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32288. “I do not often do this. As a matter of fact, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I can
recall only one other time in which I have sought to use delay and extended debate to make a point and to achieve
justice. I am not a filibusterer. If I did not believe deeply about this, I would not be standing here.”
24
The BLS determined the lower living standard income level through its annual family budgets, which it maintained
from 1947 to 1981. At the time the LIEAP program was enacted, the BLS developed annual family budgets assuming
three different standards of living: lower, intermediate, and higher. The budget was calculated using costs of consumer
goods including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and health care (unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which
are based on the amount of money needed to buy food). The budget was then adjusted for family size and the prices of
goods in various cities throughout the country. See David S. Johnson, John M. Rogers, and Lucilla Tan, “A Century of
Family Budgets in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, 124, no. 5 (May 2001): 28-45.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

6

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Committee level in recognition of the fact that (in general) funds were not being
provided for cooling costs.25
(See Table 2 for a breakdown of these formulas.)
While the focus of the formula was on heating assistance, the LIEAP law did allow states to
provide for cooling when households could demonstrate medical necessity.26 Congress authorized
LIEAP for one year, FY1981, at $3 billion, but funds were not appropriated as part of P.L. 96-223.
    P.L. 96223.

Formula Under P.L. 96-369

    Before the formula in P.L. 96-223 could be used to allocate funds, Congress introduced an
 alternative method for computing the state distribution rates. It did so when it appropriated $1.85
 billion in LIEAP funds for FY1981 in a continuing resolution (P.L. 96-369), in October of 1980,
 six months after enactment of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The new allocation method
 was not described in P.L. 96-369, however. Instead, the continuing resolution referred to a House
 Appropriations Committee report (H. Rept. 96-1244) accompanying another bill—the FY1981
 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. It was in
 this committee report that the additional formula components for LIEAP were laid out.2727 The
 additional formula components appeared to be intended to act as a counter to the formula
 developed in P.L. 96-223, which some argued benefitted warmer weather states more than was
 necessary.28
28 
    The first step in the new set of formulas was to determine each state’'s share of funds using two
 calculations set out in H. Rept. 96-1244 and assign states the greater of the two amounts.
•

Under the first formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on the
 increase in home heating expenditures, and 50% was based on the number of
 heating degree days squared times the population with income less than or equal
 to 125% of poverty. This was the same formula used for the Low-Income
Supplemental Energy Allowances Program.

25

Senator Russell B. Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 15, 1979), p. 32561. “This language was evolved in the Finance Committee. When the majority of the
committee voted to exclude such items as air-conditioning and anything related to cooling a house and limited that
formula to heating, this Senator contended that, if that were to be the case, there should be at least a minimum on which
people could depend.”
26
According to the law, “The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of
cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards
established by the Secretary.”
27
House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp.
75-76.
28
See, for example, Representative David Obey, “Low Income Energy Assistance,” House debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), p. 23505. “Last year the Congress adopted a formula which, very frankly,
was unfair to the South. It provided a much larger amount of the money available than it should have to Northern
States. In response to that, Senator Long, on the windfall profit tax legislation, adopted an amendment which, for the
block grant portion of the program, provided phenomenal increases for the Southern States at the expense of the
Northern States.”

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

7

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

•

 Supplemental Energy Allowances Program.
    Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on total
 residential energy expenditures, and 75% was based on heating degree days
 squared multiplied by the number of low-income households in the state.

The greater of the two percentages calculated using the formula in H. Rept. 96-1244 was then
 assigned to each state. After adjusting state allotments proportionately so that the total allocation
 reached 100% of funds available, the second step in the amended formula was to compare these
 state allotments to 75% of the amount each state would receive under the formula in P.L. 96-223.
. States would then receive the greater of these two amounts. To see the percentage of funds that
 each state received under the LIEAP formula, see Table 3, column (a).

    Although the alternative formulas under H.Rept. 96-1244 used factors similar to those in P.L. 9622396-223, the original set of formulas was somewhat more favorable to warm-weather states. For
 example, the BLS lower living standard, used in all of the P.L. 96-223 formulas but only one of
 those in H.Rept. 96-1244, was higher than 125% of poverty for most household sizes, which
 benefitted the South, where the low-income population was higher.2929 The original set of formulas
 in P.L. 96-223 also provided for a minimum benefit to states on the basis of the number of AFDC,
 SSI, and Food Stamp recipient households, unconditioned on their household heating
 expenditures. In addition, the inclusion of the increase in home heating expenditures in H. Rept.
 96-1244 benefitted Northeastern states, where heating oil prices had increased substantially.30
30
    
      
        Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP
P.L. 96-223

P.L. 96-369

P.L. 96-223
P.L. 96-369
Assign each state the option under which they receive
 the greatest proportion of funds. If Options 2 and 3
 both result in a greater proportion than Option 1,
 assign the state the lesser of Option 2 or 3.

 3.
          
          
            Each state receives the greater of 75% of the
 amount under P.L. 96-223 or Option 1 or Option
 2 under P.L. 96-369.
          
        
        
          
            Option 1:
½
Residential energy expenditures
Option 1:
½ 

          
          
            Increase in home heating expenditures from 1978-1980a½
P.L. 96-369.

Option 1:

Option 1:

½ Residential energy expenditures
½ (Heating degree days)22 * Households with
 income ≤ BLS lower living standard

Option 2:

¼ Residential energy expenditures
¾ ½
(Heating degree days)2 * Population with income ≤ 125% of poverty
          
        
        
          
            Option 2:
¼
Residential energy expenditures
Option 2:
¼
Total residential energy expenditures 1980
¾
(Heating degree days)2 * Households with income ≤ BLS lower living standard
¾
2 * Households with
income ≤ BLS lower living standard

Option 3:

½ Increase in home heating expenditures
from 1978-1980a
½ (Heating degree days)2 * Population with
income ≤ 125% of poverty

Option 2:

¼ Total residential energy expenditures
1980
¾ (Heating degree days)2 2 * Households
 with income ≤ BLS lower living standard

½ Residential energy expenditures
½ Heating degree days * Households with
income ≤ BLS lower living standard

Option 4:

Funds sufficient for a minimum benefit of
$120 per AFDC, SSI, and Food Stamprecipient household

29

“The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
30
H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be
measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

8

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Source: Option 3:
½
Residential energy expenditures
½
Heating degree days * Households with income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 4:
Funds sufficient for a minimum benefit of $120 per AFDC, SSI, and Food Stamp- recipient household
Source: The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) and the House Appropriations Committee
 Report to Accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
 Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980.

        Notes: * Multiplied by.

        ≤ Less than or equal to.
a.


        a.

    H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify which years would be used to determine residential energy expenditures;
 1978 and 1980 were the years used by HHS.


      
    
    Enactment of LIHEAP

    In August 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 97-35, created LIHEAP, replacing
 its predecessor, LIEAP. The new program was not substantially different from the previous
 program. Some of the changes to the program included less restrictive federal rules and more
 state flexibility in determining how to operate their LIHEAP programs. The program was
 authorized at $1.85 billion for FY1982-FY1984. In FY1982, Congress appropriated $1.875
 billion for LIHEAP; in FY1983, it appropriated $1.975 billion; and in FY1984, $2.075 billion.


    Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula

    When the formula for LIEAP was initially created in 1980 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits
 Tax Act (P.L. 96-223), it brought about a good deal of debate on the floor of the Senate, where the
 formula provisions were added to the legislation.3131 Discussion over the formula also occurred
 leading up to the enactment of P.L. 96-369, the FY1981 continuing resolution that funded LIEAP
 and amended the formula.3232 Despite these earlier disagreements over formula allocations, the
 process to enact LIHEAP in 1981 did not engender the same level of debate or result in a different
 formula. Instead, the law creating LIHEAP provided that the allotment percentages for each state
 would remain the same as they had been in FY1981 under the LIEAP formula as amended by P.L.
 96-369. From FY1982 through FY1984, then, states continued to receive the same percentage of
 funds that they received under the LIEAP formula.


    The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula
Formula Discussions

    Formula Discussions
    When Congress began to consider reauthorizing LIHEAP in 1983, two aspects of the formula
 were debated. First, some legislators recognized that the multi-step LIEAP formula benefitted
 cold-weather states relative to warm-weather states.3333 The second debated aspect of the formula
 centered on the appropriateness and timeliness of the data used in formula calculations. In 1983,
 the energy information used to calculate state allotments was not the most current data
31

See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 3208232086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565, and 32576-32589.
32
House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
33
See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, U.S. Congress, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees of the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, Energy Costs and Low Income
Energy Assistance, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

9

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

available.34 available.34 For example, the most recent data the formula used were the change in the cost of
 energy between 1978 and 1980, or the cost of energy in 1980, depending on the sub-formula one
 chose to apply. No aspect of the formula took account of increased costs after 1980.35
35
    Legislative sentiment in favor of changing the formula was evident, when, in September 1983,
 the House adopted an amendment to the Emergency Immigration Education Act (H.R. 3520) that
 would have adjusted the LIHEAP formula and resulted in a change in allocations to the states.
 The amendment’'s formula took into account the energy expenditures of poor families, which,
 according to the amendment’'s sponsor, Representative Carlos Moorhead (California), would
 result in lower percentage allocations for 23 states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, gains
 for 27, primarily in the South, and the same allocation for one state.3636 The amendment was
 eventually dropped from H.R. 3520 in conference with the Senate.


    Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level

    Efforts to reauthorize LIHEAP began in April 1983 with the introduction of the Low-Income
 Home Energy Assistance Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 2439). The bill was referred to two
 committees: Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce. Within the Energy and Commerce
 committee, two subcommittees held mark-ups: Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy
 Conservation and Power.

    As introduced, H.R. 2439 did not contain changes to the LIHEAP formula. The Subcommittees
 on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy Conservation and Power worked together to arrive at a
 formula change, which had the effect of shifting funds from states in the Northeast to the South
 and West. Unlike the previous set of formulas developed under LIEAP, the new formula directed
 the Department of Health and Human Services to determine states’' allotments “"using data relating
 to the most recent year for which data is available.”" Because the cost of heating oil remained
 steady between 1981 and 1983, and the price of natural gas rose 33%, this meant that states in the
 Northeast—where heating oil was the primary source of energy—would lose LIHEAP dollars,
 while states in the South and the Midwest would gain under this provision.3737 In addition,
 population growth in the South (as well as its higher poverty rates) meant that southern states
 would benefit from the use of more recent population data.

    To offset the losses to certain states resulting from the use of current data, H.R. 2439 also
 included a hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless level; this provision ensured that if
 appropriations were less than or equal to $1.875 billion, states would receive no less than their
 allotment would have been under the old formula at this appropriations level. The bill
 additionally increased the LIHEAP authorization level to $2.075 billion for FY1984, $2.26 billion
 for FY1985, $2.5 billion in FY1986, $2.625 billion for FY1987, and $2.8 billion for FY1988.

34
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
35
Ibid., p. 4.
36
Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 17 (September 13, 1983), p. 23877. The greatest increases in percentage
allocations were for Florida at 51%, Texas at 44%, and Alabama at 37%. The states whose percentage allocations
decreased the most were Vermont at 32%, North Dakota at 24%, and New Hampshire at 23%.
37
“The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 9.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

10

 The LIHEAP Formula

.


    Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate

    After the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported H.R. 2439 to the House floor—but
 before the full House could act on the bill—the Senate passed its version of LIHEAP
 reauthorization as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (S. 2565) on October 4,
 1984.3838 The Senate bill contained language very similar to H.R. 2439, but made several changes
 and additions to the formula.
•

S. 2565 specified that states’' shares of LIHEAP funds would be based on the
 home energy expenditures of low-income households, not on expenditures of all
 households.

•


    The hold-harmless level was altered. S. 2565 directed that no state in FY1985
 would receive less funding than it received in FY1984, and for FY1986 and
 thereafter, no state would receive less than the amount they would have received
 in FY1984 if the appropriations level had been $1.975 billion.

•


    A second hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless rate, was created. The
 provision maintained the percentagepercentage allocated rather than a total funding level
 allocated to each affected state.

The hold-harmless rate provision guaranteed that certain states would receive increased
 allotments when appropriations reached $2.25 billion. States would qualify for this increase if
 their total allotment percentage at an appropriation of $2.25 billion were less than 1%. These
 states would instead receive the allotment rate they would have received at an appropriation of
 $2.14 billion if that allotment rate were higher than the rate at $2.25 billion. In their debate about
 S. 2565, Senators referred to the hold-harmless rate as the “"small States hold harmless,”" as the
 intent was to protect the small (population) states’' shares of LIHEAP funds.3939 Otherwise, the
 concern was that appropriations might have to increase significantly before small state allotments
 would increase above their hold-harmless levels, with the states’' percentage shares of funds
 declining even as total appropriations increased.
 
    The Senate bill also included different authorization amounts for LIHEAP, $2.14 billion for
 FY1985 and $2.275 billion for FY1986. After S. 2565 passed the Senate, the House debated and
 passed the bill on October 9, 1984, retaining all the provisions included in the Senate version. The
 bill became P.L. 98-558, the Human Services Reauthorization Act, on October 30, 1984.


    LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language

    Unlike the allocation formulas under LIEAP and the other energy assistance programs that
 preceded LIHEAP, which dictated the use of specific variables to determine allotments to the
 states, the LIHEAP formula as drafted by Congress gives more general guidance to HHS. The
 LIHEAP statute, as enacted in P.L. 98-558 and codified at 42 U.S.C. Section 8623(a)(2) provides
as follows.

38

The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p.
S13393.
39
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

11

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 as follows.
    (A) a State’'s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by
 low-income households in that State bears to such expenditures in all States, except that
 States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments by reason of the
 application of this paragraph from the amount they received pursuant to P.L. 98-139 [the
 FY1984 appropriation] shall have their allotments reduced to the extent necessary to ensure
 that—

    (i) no State for fiscal year 1985 shall receive less than the amount of funds the State
 received in fiscal year 1984; and

    (ii) no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
 funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this
 subchapter for fiscal year 1984 had been $1,975,000,000, and

    (B) any State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total
 appropriation of $2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when
 total appropriations equal or exceed $2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced
 from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation of $2,140,000,000.


    The next section of this report describes how funds are allocated to the states according to this
 statutory language.


    Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments
 Using the “New” Formula
"New" Formula
    Current law as enacted in P.L. 98-558, sometimes referred to as the “new”"new" LIHEAP formula,
 provides for three different methods to calculate each state’'s allotment of regular LIHEAP funds.
 The calculation method used to determine state allotments depends upon the size of the
 appropriation for that fiscal year.
•

 If the annual appropriation level is at or below the equivalent of a hypothetical
 FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, then the allocation percentages under the
“old” "old" LIHEAP formula apply.

•

 
    If appropriations exceed a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion,
 then new formula percentages apply and are used to calculate state allotments. To
 calculate the new formula percentages, HHS uses the most recent data available
 to determine the heating and cooling costs of low-income households. When
 appropriations exceed the $1.975 billion level, but are less than $2.25 billion, the
 new formula percentages are used together with the hold-harmless level.

•

 
    Finally, if appropriations equal or exceed $2.25 billion, the new percentages
 apply and both the hold-harmless level together with the hold-harmless rate are in
 effect.

 This section describes the steps involved in allocating LIHEAP funds to the states under each of
 the appropriations triggers.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

12

 The LIHEAP Formula

.


    Calculating the New Formula Rates

    As mentioned previously, when Congress considered a new formula for distributing LIHEAP
 funds in 1983 and 1984, one of its concerns was the appropriateness and timeliness of the data
 used in formula calculations. At the time, the energy information used to calculate state
 allotments under the LIEAP formula did not use the most current data available.4040 In fact, the
 formula allocations were fixed percentages, and the LIHEAP statute at that time had no provision
 for allowing newer information to be incorporated into the determination of state allotments. For
 example, the formula used the change in cost of energy between 1978 and 1980, but did not take
 account of increased costs after 1980. The LIHEAP formula as created by P.L. 98-558 requires
 HHS to use the most recent data available. HHS updates these data periodically. The most recent
 data were provided to CRS in FebruaryNovember 2015.

    As directed by the statute as enacted in 1984, the LIHEAP formula uses the home energy
 expenditures of low-income households in each state as a first step in determining the proportion
 of total regular funds that each state will receive.4141 Specifically, this means estimating the amount
 of money that all low-income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute)4242 in each state
 spend on heating and cooling from all energy sources. This method accounts for variations in
 heating and cooling needs of the states, the types of energy used, energy prices, and the lowincomelow-income population and their heating and cooling methods. The process for capturing the
 expenditures of low-income households for the most current year possible involves the following
 steps.
•

Total Residential Energy Consumption. The first step in calculating new
 formula rates is determining total residential energy consumption for each
 heating and cooling source in every state. Residential energy consumption is
 usually measured in terms of the total amount of British Thermal Units (Btus)
 used in private households and generally captures energy used for space and
 water heating, cooling, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and the energy needed to
 operate appliances. The most recent data used in calculating LIHEAP formula
 rates come from the 20122013 Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy
 Data System consumption estimates.

•


    Temperature Variation. The next step in determining the formula rates involves
 adjusting the amount of energy consumed for each fuel source by temperature
 variation in each state. This is done by using a ratio consisting of the 30-year
 average heating and cooling degree day data to each state’'s share of the most
 recent year’'s average heating and cooling degree days. A heating degree day
 measures the extent to which a day’'s average temperature falls below 65°F and a
 cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’'s average temperature
 rises above 65°F.4343 For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°F
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days; a day with an average temperature

40

Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
41
“[A] State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households
in that State bears to such expenditures in all States.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
42
The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income
(whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
43
A state’s heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

13

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 results in a measure of 15 heating degree days; a day with an average temperature of 80°F results in a measure of 15 cooling degree days. The purpose of the
 adjustment to fuel consumption is to account for abnormally warm or cool years,
 where energy usage might attain extreme values. This information is collected by
 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The most recent year’s
's average heating and cooling degree day data are from 20122013, and the 30-year
 average was computed from 1971 to 2000.

44
45

c11173008

•


    Heating and Cooling Consumption. As mentioned above, total residential
 energy consumption encompasses other uses in addition to heating and cooling
 (e.g., operation of appliances). So the next step in calculating LIHEAP formula
 rates is to derive the portion of fuel consumed specifically to heat and cool homes
 as opposed to other uses. The EIA, as part of the Residential Energy
 Consumption Survey (RECS), uses an “"end use estimation methodology”" to
 estimate the amount of fuel used for heating and cooling (among other uses). The
 most recent information on heating and cooling consumption comes from the
 2009 RECS.4444 HHS adjusts the EIA heating and cooling consumption estimates
 using heating degree day and cooling degree day data.

•


    Low-Income Household Heating and Cooling Consumption. After estimating
 heating and cooling consumption for allall households, the next step is to calculate
 heating and cooling consumption in Btus for low-income households. HHS uses
 Census data to determine fuel sources used by low-income households. The most
 recent information on low-income households and the fuel sources they use
 comes from the American Community Survey three-year estimates for 201020122011-2013. In addition, low-income consumption data are adjusted to account for the
 fact that low-income households might use more or less of a fuel source than is
 used by households on average. This is done using consumption data from the
 2009 RECS.

•


    Total Spending on Heating and Cooling. To arrive at the amount of money that
 low-income households spend on heating and cooling, the number of Btus used
 by low-income households that were estimated in the previous step are multiplied
 by the average fuel price for each fuel source. The total amount spent on heating
 and cooling by low-income households for each fuel source is then added
 together to arrive at total spending for each state. Regional energy price variation
 can be significant, and the formula takes expected expenditure differences into
 account. This information is collected by the EIA and published in the State
 Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates.4545 The most
 recent price data used to calculate formula rates are from 2012.

•

2013.
    New Formula Percentage. Finally, these expenditure data are used to estimate
 the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in each state
 relative to the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in
 all states. The calculated proportion becomes the new formula percentage for
 each state. Table 3  at the end of this section shows both the percentages under
the “old” the "old" formula (column (a)) and the most recent “new”"new" formula percentages
 (column (b)), received by CRS from HHS in FebruaryNovember 2015. To see how the
 formula rates for each state have changed in recent years, see Table 4.Table 4.

For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
The EIA’s state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.

Congressional Research Service

14

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

These new formula percentages are used to allocate LIHEAP funds to the states if the annual
 appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
 However, they do not represent the exact percentage of funds that states will receive under the
 new formula. The ultimate allotments are determined after application of both the hold-harmless
 level and hold-harmless rate, described in the next section. The new percentages are the starting
 point for determining how funds will be allocated to the states.


    Using the New Formula Percentages to Allocate Funds to the States

    The LIHEAP new formula percentages that HHS calculates using the most current data available
 do not necessarily represent the percentage of funds that states will receive. State allotments
 depend upon the application of the two hold-harmless provisions in the LIHEAP statute. Some
 states must have their share of funds ratably reduced in order to hold harmless those states that
 would, but for the hold-harmless provisions, lose funds. Other states see a gain in their share of
 funds because they benefit from the hold-harmless provisions. The application of the holdharmlesshold-harmless provisions depends upon the size of the appropriation for a given fiscal year. These
 appropriation level triggers are described below.

“Old”
    "Old" Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion

    The LIHEAP statute does not contain an explicit trigger for the “new”"new" formula rates to be used.
 However, the statute specifies that states must receive no less than “"the amount of funds the State
 would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this subchapter for fiscal year
 1984 had been $1,975,000,000.”" As a result, up to this appropriation level, states receive the same
 percentage of funds that they would have received at a given appropriation level under the “old”
LIHEAP formula.46
"old" LIHEAP formula.46 
    The FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion referred to in the LIHEAP statute is hypothetical
 because this was not the amount actually appropriated in FY1984. The actual FY1984
 appropriation was $2.075 billion. In addition, the current year appropriation that is “equivalent
to”"equivalent to" a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is not exactly $1.975 billion. In
 FY1984, with the exception of funds provided to the territories, all LIHEAP regular funds were
 distributed to the states. Since then, two other funds have become part of the regular fund
 distribution. These are funds for training and technical assistance and for the leveraging incentive
 grants (which includes REACH grants) to the states. This means that an appropriation that is
 equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion must account for these new
 funds. Assuming that funds for leveraging incentive/REACH grants would be $27 million and
 training and technical assistance would be $3 million (amounts that have typically been set aside
 in the appropriation), then the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is
approximately $2.005 billion.47

46
When appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law’s
hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress
for FY1987, p. 133.
47
This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $3 million to $1.975 billion.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

15

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 approximately $2.005 billion.47
    The LIHEAP formula in FY1984 distributed funds by giving states the same percentage of funds
 that they received in FY1981 under the predecessor program, the Low Income Energy Assistance
 Program (LIEAP). Table 3 (later, following the “"Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP
Formula”"New" LIHEAP Formula" section), shows rates under the old formula in column (a). For example, at an
 appropriation at or below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975
 billion, Alabama would receive 0.86% of total funds, Alaska would receive 0.55% of total funds,
 and so on. Table A-1, column (a) reports the dollar amount of funds that each state would have
 received in FY1984 had the regular fund appropriation been $1.975 billion. For comparison
 purposes, the dollar amounts also assume that funds for the territories would be 0.5% of the total,
 a change made by HHS beginning with the FY2014 appropriation.48

“New”48
    "New" Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
 Billion and $2.25 Billion

    If the regular LIHEAP appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984
 appropriation of $1.975 billion for the fiscal year, allall funds are to be distributed under a different
 methodology, using the new set of percentages described earlier. In addition, a hold-harmless
level level applies to ensure that certain states do not fall below the amount of funds they would have
 received at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
 
    Table 3 shows whether a state benefits from the hold-harmless level. This is indicated by a “Y” in
"Y" in column (c), while the dollar amount of funds those states receive by being held harmless appears
 in column (d). For example, Alabama is not held harmless, while Colorado is held harmless. The
 dollar amount of funds that Colorado receives pursuant to the hold-harmless level is $31.613
 million. But for the hold-harmless level, Colorado would receive less than this dollar amount at
 its new formula percentage at certain appropriation levels. Eventually, when appropriations
 increase sufficiently, the percentage of funds under the “new”"new" formula for hold-harmless states
 will exceed their hold harmless amounts and they will begin to receive their “new”"new" percentage of
 funds. This appropriation level varies for each state. For example, at lower appropriation levels,
 the $31.613 million hold-harmless level for Colorado exceeds the state’s “new”'s "new" percentage share
 of 1.391413% of total funds. However, at an appropriation of about $2.3 billion, Colorado’'s new
 percentage share exceeds $31.613 million and the state begins to receive funds at the “new”
"new" percentage. Eventually, many states will receive the percentage of funds at their “new”
percentage.49
"new" percentage.49
    The hold-harmless level is achieved by reducing the allocation of funds to states with the greatest
 proportional gains under the new formula percentages.5050 For example, under the most recent
 LIHEAP formula percentages, states with the greatest proportional gains were Nevada, Arizona,
and Florida and Texas. Depending on the appropriation level, these states (and others with the greatest
 gains) may then have their allotments reduced to hold harmless the states that would otherwise
48

HHS Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Dear Colleague Notice
Allocation for Territories FY2014, November 22, 2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheapallocation-for-territories-fy-2014.
49
The exceptions to this are states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate, described in the next section, and the states
that are ratably reduced in order to compensate states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate.
50
“States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced
to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

16

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 see reduced benefits. So although these states with the greatest proportional gains will see their
 LIHEAP allotments increase under the new formula, their allotments may not increase to reach
 their new formula rates (column (b) of Table 3).
    ).
Columns (b) and (c) of Table A-1 show estimated allotments to the states at hypothetical
 appropriations levels between $1.975 billion and $2.25 billion. Column (b) shows the estimated
 allotment of funds that each state would receive when the regular fund appropriation is at $2.14
 billion and column (c) shows the estimated allotment of funds when the regular fund
 appropriation is just under $2.25 billion ($2,249,999,999).

“New”
    "New" Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or
 Above $2.25 Billion

    The LIHEAP statute stipulates additional requirements in the method for distributing funds when
 the appropriation is at or above $2.25 billion. At this level, the hold-harmless level still applies,
 but, in addition, a new hold-harmless raterate is applied. Specifically, for all appropriation levels at or
 above $2.25 billion, states that would have received less than 1% of a total $2.25 billion
 appropriation must be allocated the percentage they would have received at a $2.14 billion
 appropriation level.5151 (This assumes the percentage at $2.14 billion is greater than the percentage
 originally calculated at the hypothetical $2.25 billion appropriation; this is not true for all states
 that receive less than 1% of the $2.25 billion appropriation.) Then that state will receive the
 percentage share of funds it would have received at $2.14 billion for all appropriation levels at or
 above $2.25 billion. This hold-harmless raterate ensures a state specific shareshare of the total available
 funds.

    As with the hold-harmless level, the allocations to the states with the greatest proportional gains
 are then ratably reduced again until there is no funding shortfall. Column (e) of Table 3 shows
 which states benefit from the hold-harmless rate, indicated by a “Y,”"Y," while column (f) shows the
 proportion of funds that those states receive. For example, Idaho benefits from the hold-harmless
 rate and receives 0.587% of the total appropriation when appropriations are at or above $2.25
 billion.

    The application of the hold-harmless rate creates another layer of discontinuity in the allocation
 rates. States that are ratably reduced see their allocations at $2.25 billion fall below the amount
 they would receive at $2.249 billion, while states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate see
 their funding jump up slightly. Columns (d) through (i) of Table A-1 in Appendix A show
 estimated allotments to states at various hypothetical appropriations levels at or above $2.25
 billion. Column (d) shows the estimated allotment of funds that each state receives when the
 regular appropriation is at $2.25 billion after the hold-harmless rate is applied. Columns (e)
 through (i) show the estimated allotment each state would receive at $2.5 billion, $3.0 billion,
 $3.39 billion (the amount appropriated in FY2014 and FY2015), $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion
(the amount at which LIHEAP was last authorized).

51

“[A]ny State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total appropriation of
$2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when total appropriations equal or exceed
$2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation
of $2,140,000,000.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(B).

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

17

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

 (the amount at which LIHEAP was last authorized).
    Implementation of the “New”"New" LIHEAP Formula

    Until FY2006, appropriations for regular LIHEAP funds had only exceeded the equivalent of a
 hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion in 1985 and 1986; thereafter, from FY1987
 through FY2005, and again in FY2007, states continued to receive the same percentage of
 LIHEAP funds that they received under the program’'s predecessor, LIEAP (see column (a) of
 Table 3 for these percentages). In FY2006, funds were distributed under the “new”"new" LIHEAP
 formula when Congress appropriated $2.48 billion in regular funds for the program. In FY2008,
 perhaps due to an oversight, the new formula was again used to distribute funds. The FY2008
 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) failed to authorize a set-aside called leveraging
 incentive grants. As a result, the funds for those grants were added to the LIHEAP regular funds,
 triggering the new formula.5252 In FY2009, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329) appropriated $4.51 billion in regular funds.
 However, the law further specified that $840 million be distributed according to the “new”
"new" LIHEAP formula, with the remaining $3.67 billion distributed according to the percentages of the
“old” "old" formula established by LIEAP. From FY2010 to FY2015FY2016, Congress has continued to
 appropriate funds using a version of a split between the “old” and “new”"old" and "new" formulas. See Table C-1
 in Appendix C of this report for the distribution of funds to the states from FY2009 through
FY2015.
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP):
“Old” and “New” Allotment Percentages by State, FY2015
Hold-Harmless Levela

State

“New”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(b)

State Held
Harmless?
(c)

HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)

State Held
Harmless?
(e)

HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)

Alabama

0.860

1.488

N

—

N

—

Alaska

0.549

0.491

Y

10.788

Y

0.514

Arizona

0.416

1.424

N

—

N

—

Arkansas

0.656

0.846

N

—

N

—

California

4.614

5.371

N

—

N

—

Colorado

1.609

1.391

Y

31.613

N

—

Connecticut

2.099

2.711

N

—

N

—

Delaware

0.279

0.407

N

—

N

—

District of
Columbia

0.326

0.173

Y

6.405

Y

0.305

Florida

1.361

4.057

N

—

N

—

Georgia

1.076

3.068

N

—

N

—

Hawaii

0.108

0.219

N

—

N

—

Idaho

0.628

0.364

Y

12.331

Y

0.587

52

c11173008

“Old”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(a)

Hold-Harmless Rate

For more information about this issue, see Appendix C of this report.

Congressional Research Service

18

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Hold-Harmless Levela

State

“New”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(b)

State Held
Harmless?
(c)

HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)

State Held
Harmless?
(e)

HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)

Illinois

5.809

4.075

Y

114.147

N

—

Indiana

2.630

1.712

Y

51.683

N

—

Iowa

1.864

1.005

Y

36.628

N

—

Kansas

0.856

0.932

N

—

N

—

Kentucky

1.369

1.318

Y

26.895

N

—

Louisiana

0.879

1.236

N

—

N

—

Maine

1.360

1.052

Y

26.717

N

—

Maryland

1.607

2.206

N

—

N

—

Massachusetts

4.198

4.395

N

—

N

—

Michigan

5.515

4.535

Y

108.373

N

—

Minnesota

3.973

1.827

Y

78.076

N

—

Mississippi

0.737

0.825

N

—

N

—

Missouri

2.320

2.140

Y

45.595

N

—

Montana

0.736

0.347

Y

14.464

Y

0.689

Nebraska

0.922

0.483

Y

18.114

Y

0.863

Nevada

0.195

0.722

N

—

N

—

New
Hampshire

0.795

0.753

Y

15.615

N

—

New Jersey

3.897

3.703

Y

76.584

N

—

New Mexico

0.521

0.533

N

—

N

—

12.725

10.792

Y

250.058

N

—

North
Carolina

1.896

2.817

N

—

N

—

North Dakota

0.800

0.251

Y

15.712

Y

0.748

Ohio

5.139

3.836

Y

100.980

N

—

Oklahoma

0.791

1.186

N

—

N

—

Oregon

1.247

0.885

Y

24.502

N

—

Pennsylvania

6.835

5.856

Y

134.318

N

—

Rhode Island

0.691

0.857

N

—

N

—

South
Carolina

0.683

1.288

N

—

N

—

South Dakota

0.649

0.242

Y

12.761

Y

0.608

Tennessee

1.386

1.730

N

—

N

—

Texas

2.264

6.529

N

—

N

—

New York

c11173008

“Old”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(a)

Hold-Harmless Rate

Congressional Research Service

19

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Hold-Harmless Levela

State

“Old”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(a)

“New”
Allotment
Percentage
(%)
(b)

Hold-Harmless Rate

State Held
Harmless?
(c)

HoldHarmless
Level
($Millions)
(d)

State Held
Harmless?
(e)

HoldHarmless
Rate (%)
(f)

Utah

0.748

0.568

Y

14.691

Y

0.700

Vermont

0.596

0.490

Y

11.704

Y

0.557

Virginia

1.957

2.588

N

—

N

—

Washington

2.051

1.443

Y

40.302

N

—

West Virginia

0.906

0.661

Y

17.799

Y

0.848

Wisconsin

3.576

2.000

Y

70.280

N

—

Wyoming

0.299

0.173

Y

5.882

Y

0.280

Source: New allotment percentages were provided to CRS by HHS in February 2015. Information in columns
(c) through (f) are based on CRS calculations using the new allotment percentages. The calculations assume that
funding would be provided for leveraging incentive/REACH grants, training and technical assistance, and 0.5% for
the territories.
Notes: The actual percentage of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion
may differ from the new formula percentages due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable reductions of
some states to cover shortfall from these hold-harmless provisions.
a.

The states that benefit from the hold-harmless level vary depending on the amount appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds. The states listed here benefit from the hold-harmless level when appropriations just
exceed the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.

Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula
(Fiscal years indicate when new formula rates would have been used to distribute funds to states)

States

“Old”
Formula
Percentages

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

Alabama

0.860%

1.932%

1.650%

1.582%

1.599%

1.583%

1.716%

1.686%

1.488%

Alaska

0.549

0.376

0.317

0.575

0.511

0.398

0.522

0.563

0.491

Arizona

0.416

0.992

0.813

1.018

1.098

1.132

1.326

1.379

1.424

Arkansas

0.656

1.082

0.910

0.884

0.852

0.899

0.876

0.876

0.846

California

4.614

5.690

5.303

4.479

4.453

4.452

4.433

4.536

5.371

Colorado

1.609

1.280

1.305

1.333

1.247

1.267

1.264

1.270

1.391

Connecticut

2.099

1.732

2.164

2.205

2.239

2.398

2.416

2.371

2.711

Delaware

0.279

0.435

0.453

0.375

0.373

0.375

0.421

0.427

0.407

District of
Columbia

0.326

0.309

0.328

0.181

0.192

0.194

0.184

0.149

0.173

Florida

1.361

4.187

3.781

4.728

4.583

4.593

5.475

5.201

4.057

Georgia

1.076

2.829

2.734

2.620

2.641

2.742

3.137

3.166

3.068

Hawaii

0.108

0.101

0.099

0.150

0.150

0.205

0.185

0.230

0.219

Idaho

0.628

0.386

0.331

0.396

0.349

0.335

0.339

0.371

0.364

c11173008

“New” Formula Percentages

Congressional Research Service

20

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

States

“Old”
Formula
Percentages

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

Illinois

5.809

4.796

4.998

4.843

5.014

5.243

4.655

4.510

4.075

Indiana

2.630

2.209

2.128

2.147

2.080

2.209

1.814

1.934

1.712

Iowa

1.864

1.085

1.064

1.028

1.099

1.080

1.001

1.065

1.005

Kansas

0.856

1.105

1.106

0.978

0.993

0.967

1.002

0.945

0.932

Kentucky

1.369

1.688

1.621

1.243

1.256

1.344

1.329

1.457

1.318

Louisiana

0.879

1.704

1.514

1.324

1.365

1.414

1.378

1.387

1.236

Maine

1.360

0.722

0.908

1.127

1.090

1.010

0.927

1.041

1.052

Maryland

1.607

2.421

2.652

1.965

2.080

2.197

2.344

2.193

2.206

Massachusetts

4.198

3.043

3.311

3.757

3.718

3.730

4.032

4.138

4.395

Michigan

5.515

4.651

4.645

5.040

4.819

4.863

4.966

4.681

4.535

Minnesota

3.973

1.789

1.917

2.023

2.025

2.047

1.849

1.921

1.827

Mississippi

0.737

1.105

0.951

0.974

0.940

0.990

0.955

0.953

0.825

Missouri

2.320

2.497

2.309

2.014

2.011

1.829

1.963

2.021

2.140

Montana

0.736

0.414

0.441

0.295

0.287

0.328

0.280

0.314

0.347

Nebraska

0.922

0.598

0.558

0.547

0.553

0.591

0.555

0.561

0.483

Nevada

0.195

0.686

0.576

0.500

0.526

0.498

0.563

0.537

0.722

New
Hampshire

0.795

0.453

0.503

0.612

0.605

0.742

0.623

0.731

0.753

New Jersey

3.897

2.838

3.621

3.995

4.105

4.010

3.812

3.620

3.703

New Mexico

0.521

0.628

0.577

0.458

0.441

0.430

0.407

0.394

0.533

New York

12.725

8.491

9.393

9.520

10.018

10.227

9.445

9.318

10.792

North
Carolina

1.896

3.186

3.261

2.766

2.823

2.619

2.954

2.891

2.817

North Dakota

0.800

0.235

0.273

0.246

0.256

0.302

0.215

0.254

0.251

Ohio

5.139

4.512

4.803

4.893

4.941

4.687

4.243

4.368

3.836

Oklahoma

0.791

1.452

1.275

1.236

1.224

1.152

1.207

1.219

1.186

Oregon

1.247

1.008

0.750

0.715

0.702

0.664

0.712

0.781

0.885

Pennsylvania

6.835

5.174

5.731

5.993

5.885

5.807

5.571

5.720

5.856

Rhode Island

0.691

0.596

0.665

0.635

0.615

0.670

0.753

0.712

0.857

South
Carolina

0.683

1.425

1.349

1.278

1.260

1.201

1.394

1.403

1.288

South Dakota

0.649

0.268

0.235

0.249

0.253

0.272

0.233

0.240

0.242

Tennessee

1.386

2.055

1.801

1.743

1.717

1.700

1.865

1.848

1.730

Texas

2.264

7.095

6.524

7.668

7.349

7.135

7.183

6.942

6.529

Utah

0.748

0.648

0.599

0.559

0.508

0.413

0.452

0.494

0.568

Vermont

0.596

0.356

0.319

0.418

0.419

0.396

0.417

0.425

0.490

Virginia

1.957

2.817

3.041

2.428

2.486

2.490

2.581

2.607

2.588

c11173008

“New” Formula Percentages

Congressional Research Service

21

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

“Old”
Formula
Percentages

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

Washington

2.051

1.621

1.204

1.225

1.245

1.145

1.244

1.305

1.443

West Virginia

0.906

0.960

0.907

0.663

0.639

0.638

0.625

0.631

0.661

Wisconsin

3.576

2.108

2.080

2.229

2.236

2.230

2.010

2.054

2.000

Wyoming

0.299

0.233

0.202

0.137

0.129

0.154

0.146

0.160

0.173

States

“New” Formula Percentages

Source: State data were received by CRS from HHS in May 2007, September 2008, April 2009, June 2010,
August 2011, August 2012, September 2013, and February 2015.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

22

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States
Under Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels
Table A-1, below, shows estimated allocations to the states at various hypothetical appropriations
levels. In column (a) are allotments at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of
$1.975 billion—under current LIHEAP practice where funds are set aside for leveraging incentive
grants and training and technical assistance, the equivalent appropriation level is approximately
$2.005 billion. The remaining columns show estimated allotments at appropriations of $2.14
billion, just under $2.25 billion, $2.25 billion, $3.0 billion, $3.39 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1
 FY2015, and estimated allocations for FY2016.
    
      
        Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): "Old" and "New" Allotment Percentages by State, FY2016
      
      
        
           
          
           
          
           
          
          
            Hold-Harmless LevelaHold-Harmless Rate
State
"Old" Allotment Percentage (%) (a)
          
          
            "New" Allotment Percentage (%) (b)
          
          
            State Held Harmless? (c)
          
          
            Hold-Harmless Level ($Millions) (d)
          
          
            State Held Harmless? (e)
          
          
            Hold-Harmless Rate (%) (f)
          
        
        
          
            Alabama
0.860
1.521
N
—
N
—
Alaska
0.549
0.432
Y
10.788
Y
0.514
Arizona
0.416
1.440
N
—
N
—
Arkansas
0.656
0.891
N
—
N
—
California
4.614
5.504
N
—
N
—
Colorado
1.609
1.413
Y
31.613
N
—
Connecticut
2.099
2.508
N
—
N
—
Delaware
0.279
0.409
N
—
N
—
District of Columbia
0.326
0.189
Y
6.405
Y
0.305
Florida
1.361
3.936
N
—
N
—
Georgia
1.076
2.924
N
—
N
—
Hawaii
0.108
0.196
N
—
N
—
Idaho
0.628
0.387
Y
12.331
Y
0.587
Illinois
5.809
4.245
Y
114.147
N
—
Indiana
2.630
1.792
Y
51.683
N
—
Iowa
1.864
1.054
Y
36.628
N
—
Kansas
0.856
0.982
N
—
N
—
Kentucky
1.369
1.395
N
—
N
—
Louisiana
0.879
1.394
N
—
N
—
Maine
1.360
1.066
Y
26.717
N
—
Maryland
1.607
2.347
N
—
N
—
Massachusetts
4.198
4.501
N
—
N
—
Michigan
5.515
4.357
Y
108.373
N
—
Minnesota
3.973
1.869
Y
78.076
N
—
Mississippi
0.737
0.910
N
—
N
—
Missouri
2.320
2.145
Y
45.595
N
—
Montana
0.736
0.358
Y
14.464
Y
0.689
Nebraska
0.922
0.531
Y
18.114
Y
0.863
Nevada
0.195
0.718
N
—
N
—
New Hampshire
0.795
0.788
Y
15.615
N
—
New Jersey
3.897
3.766
Y
76.584
N
—
New Mexico
0.521
0.571
N
—
N
—
New York
12.725
9.477
Y
250.058
N
—
North Carolina
1.896
2.828
N
—
N
—
North Dakota
0.800
0.275
Y
15.712
Y
0.748
Ohio
5.139
3.850
Y
100.980
N
—
Oklahoma
0.791
1.207
N
—
N
—
Oregon
1.247
0.860
Y
24.502
N
—
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.810
Y
134.318
N
—
Rhode Island
0.691
0.803
N
—
N
—
South Carolina
0.683
1.323
N
—
N
—
South Dakota
0.649
0.257
Y
12.761
Y
0.608
Tennessee
1.386
1.771
N
—
N
—
Texas
2.264
6.870
N
—
N
—
Utah
0.748
0.526
Y
14.691
Y
0.700
Vermont
0.596
0.503
Y
11.704
Y
0.557
Virginia
1.957
2.692
N
—
N
—
Washington
2.051
1.434
Y
40.302
N
—
West Virginia
0.906
0.707
Y
17.799
Y
0.848
Wisconsin
3.576
2.100
Y
70.280
N
—
Wyoming
0.299
0.169
Y
5.882
Y
0.280
Source: New allotment percentages were provided to CRS by HHS in November 2015. Information in columns (c) through (f) are based on CRS calculations using the new allotment percentages. The calculations assume that funding would be provided for leveraging incentive/REACH grants, training and technical assistance, and 0.5% for the territories.
Notes: The actual percentage of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion may differ from the new formula percentages due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable reductions of some states to cover shortfall from these hold-harmless provisions.

        a.

    The states that benefit from the hold-harmless level vary depending on the amount appropriated for LIHEAP regular funds. The states listed here benefit from the hold-harmless level when appropriations just exceed the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion. 
      
    
    
      
        Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the "New" LIHEAP Formula
        (Fiscal years indicate when new formula rates would have been used to distribute funds to states)
"New" Formula Percentages
States
"Old" Formula Percentages
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Alabama
0.860%
1.650%
1.582%
1.599%
1.583%
1.716%
1.686%
1.488%
1.521%
Alaska
0.549
0.317
0.575
0.511
0.398
0.522
0.563
0.491
0.432
Arizona
0.416
0.813
1.018
1.098
1.132
1.326
1.379
1.424
1.440
Arkansas
0.656
0.910
0.884
0.852
0.899
0.876
0.876
0.846
0.891
California
4.614
5.303
4.479
4.453
4.452
4.433
4.536
5.371
5.504
Colorado
1.609
1.305
1.333
1.247
1.267
1.264
1.270
1.391
1.413
Connecticut
2.099
2.164
2.205
2.239
2.398
2.416
2.371
2.711
2.508
Delaware
0.279
0.453
0.375
0.373
0.375
0.421
0.427
0.407
0.409
District of Columbia
0.326
0.328
0.181
0.192
0.194
0.184
0.149
0.173
0.189
Florida
1.361
3.781
4.728
4.583
4.593
5.475
5.201
4.057
3.936
Georgia
1.076
2.734
2.620
2.641
2.742
3.137
3.166
3.068
2.924
Hawaii
0.108
0.099
0.150
0.150
0.205
0.185
0.230
0.219
0.196
Idaho
0.628
0.331
0.396
0.349
0.335
0.339
0.371
0.364
0.387
Illinois
5.809
4.998
4.843
5.014
5.243
4.655
4.510
4.075
4.245
Indiana
2.630
2.128
2.147
2.080
2.209
1.814
1.934
1.712
1.792
Iowa
1.864
1.064
1.028
1.099
1.080
1.001
1.065
1.005
1.054
Kansas
0.856
1.106
0.978
0.993
0.967
1.002
0.945
0.932
0.982
Kentucky
1.369
1.621
1.243
1.256
1.344
1.329
1.457
1.318
1.395
Louisiana
0.879
1.514
1.324
1.365
1.414
1.378
1.387
1.236
1.394
Maine
1.360
0.908
1.127
1.090
1.010
0.927
1.041
1.052
1.066
Maryland
1.607
2.652
1.965
2.080
2.197
2.344
2.193
2.206
2.347
Massachusetts
4.198
3.311
3.757
3.718
3.730
4.032
4.138
4.395
4.501
Michigan
5.515
4.645
5.040
4.819
4.863
4.966
4.681
4.535
4.357
Minnesota
3.973
1.917
2.023
2.025
2.047
1.849
1.921
1.827
1.869
Mississippi
0.737
0.951
0.974
0.940
0.990
0.955
0.953
0.825
0.910
Missouri
2.320
2.309
2.014
2.011
1.829
1.963
2.021
2.140
2.145
Montana
0.736
0.441
0.295
0.287
0.328
0.280
0.314
0.347
0.358
Nebraska
0.922
0.558
0.547
0.553
0.591
0.555
0.561
0.483
0.531
Nevada
0.195
0.576
0.500
0.526
0.498
0.563
0.537
0.722
0.718
New Hampshire
0.795
0.503
0.612
0.605
0.742
0.623
0.731
0.753
0.788
New Jersey
3.897
3.621
3.995
4.105
4.010
3.812
3.620
3.703
3.766
New Mexico
0.521
0.577
0.458
0.441
0.430
0.407
0.394
0.533
0.571
New York
12.725
9.393
9.520
10.018
10.227
9.445
9.318
10.792
9.477
North Carolina
1.896
3.261
2.766
2.823
2.619
2.954
2.891
2.817
2.828
North Dakota
0.800
0.273
0.246
0.256
0.302
0.215
0.254
0.251
0.275
Ohio
5.139
4.803
4.893
4.941
4.687
4.243
4.368
3.836
3.850
Oklahoma
0.791
1.275
1.236
1.224
1.152
1.207
1.219
1.186
1.207
Oregon
1.247
0.750
0.715
0.702
0.664
0.712
0.781
0.885
0.860
Pennsylvania
6.835
5.731
5.993
5.885
5.807
5.571
5.720
5.856
5.810
Rhode Island
0.691
0.665
0.635
0.615
0.670
0.753
0.712
0.857
0.803
South Carolina
0.683
1.349
1.278
1.260
1.201
1.394
1.403
1.288
1.323
South Dakota
0.649
0.235
0.249
0.253
0.272
0.233
0.240
0.242
0.257
Tennessee
1.386
1.801
1.743
1.717
1.700
1.865
1.848
1.730
1.771
Texas
2.264
6.524
7.668
7.349
7.135
7.183
6.942
6.529
6.870
Utah
0.748
0.599
0.559
0.508
0.413
0.452
0.494
0.568
0.526
Vermont
0.596
0.319
0.418
0.419
0.396
0.417
0.425
0.490
0.503
Virginia
1.957
3.041
2.428
2.486
2.490
2.581
2.607
2.588
2.692
Washington
2.051
1.204
1.225
1.245
1.145
1.244
1.305
1.443
1.434
West Virginia
0.906
0.907
0.663
0.639
0.638
0.625
0.631
0.661
0.707
Wisconsin
3.576
2.080
2.229
2.236
2.230
2.010
2.054
2.000
2.100
Wyoming
0.299
0.202
0.137
0.129
0.154
0.146
0.160
0.173
0.169
Source: State data were received by CRS from HHS in May 2007, September 2008, April 2009, June 2010, August 2011, August 2012, September 2013, February 2015, and November 2015.

    
    
    Appendix A.

  Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels
    Table A-1, below, shows estimated allocations to the states at various hypothetical appropriations levels. In column (a) are allotments at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion—under current LIHEAP practice where funds are set aside for leveraging incentive grants and training and technical assistance, the equivalent appropriation level is approximately $2.005 billion. The remaining columns show estimated allotments at appropriations of $2.14 billion, just under $2.25 billion, $2.25 billion, $3.0 billion, $3.39 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion, the amount at which the LIHEAP program was last authorized in P.L. 109-58.. In each
 case, the estimates assume that 0.5% would be set aside for the territories, the amount set aside by
 HHS starting in FY2014.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

23

 .


    
    
    
      
        Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
($ in millions)
“Old” Formula
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)

State

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only

$2.14 Billion
(b)

Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate

$2.25 Billion
(d)

$2.5 Billion
(e)

$3.0 Billion
(f)

$3.39 Billion
(g)

$4.0 Billion
(h)

$5.1 Billion
(i)

Alabama

16.901

21.101

25.391

24.917

36.562

43.963

49.740

58.765

75.048

Alaska

10.788

10.788

10.841

11.351

12.629

15.185

17.181

20.298

25.923

Arizona

8.174

10.205

12.279

12.050

17.716

27.484

33.095

40.805

52.703

Arkansas

12.896

16.101

18.690

18.690

20.795

25.004

28.290

33.424

42.684

California

90.669

112.764

118.643

118.643

132.004

158.725

179.584

212.168

270.955

Colorado

31.613

31.613

31.613

31.613

34.198

41.120

46.524

54.965

70.195

Connecticut

41.241

51.490

59.889

59.889

66.634

80.122

90.651

107.099

136.774

Delaware

5.474

6.834

8.224

8.070

10.010

12.036

13.618

16.089

20.547

District of
Columbia

6.405

6.405

6.405

6.739

7.498

9.015

10.200

12.051

15.390

Florida

26.742

33.389

40.176

39.426

57.963

89.923

108.281

133.508

172.436

Georgia

21.144

26.399

31.765

31.173

45.828

71.098

85.613

105.558

136.337

Hawaii

2.129

2.659

3.199

3.139

4.615

6.484

7.336

8.667

11.068

Idaho

12.331

12.331

12.331

12.974

14.435

17.357

19.638

23.202

29.630

Illinois

114.147

114.147

114.147

114.147

114.147

120.431

136.258

160.980

205.584

Indiana

51.683

51.683

51.683

51.683

51.683

51.683

57.253

67.641

86.382

Iowa

36.628

36.628

36.628

36.628

36.628

36.628

36.628

39.682

50.677

Kansas

16.821

19.568

20.588

20.588

22.907

27.544

31.164

36.818

47.019

Kentucky

26.895

27.680

29.123

29.123

32.402

38.962

44.082

52.080

66.510

c11173008

CRS-24

 .

“Old” Formula
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)

State

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only

$2.14 Billion
(b)

Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate

$2.25 Billion
(d)

$2.5 Billion
(e)

$3.0 Billion
(f)

$3.39 Billion
(g)

$4.0 Billion
(h)

$5.1 Billion
(i)

Louisiana

17.279

21.573

25.958

25.474

30.379

36.528

41.328

48.827

62.356

Maine

26.717

26.717

26.717

26.717

26.717

31.088

35.173

41.555

53.069

Maryland

31.578

39.425

47.439

46.555

54.211

65.185

73.751

87.133

111.276

Massachusetts

82.495

92.276

97.087

97.087

108.020

129.886

146.956

173.619

221.725

108.373

108.373

108.373

108.373

111.453

134.014

151.625

179.136

228.771

Minnesota

78.076

78.076

78.076

78.076

78.076

78.076

78.076

78.076

92.151

Mississippi

14.490

17.315

18.218

18.218

20.270

24.373

27.576

32.579

41.606

Missouri

45.595

45.595

47.265

47.265

52.587

63.233

71.542

84.523

107.943

Montana

14.464

14.464

14.464

15.218

16.932

20.359

23.035

27.214

34.754

Nebraska

18.114

18.114

18.114

19.058

21.205

25.497

28.848

34.082

43.525

3.839

4.793

5.767

5.660

8.320

12.908

15.544

19.165

24.753

New
Hampshire

15.615

15.800

16.624

16.624

18.496

22.240

25.162

29.728

37.965

New Jersey

76.584

77.743

81.796

81.796

91.008

109.430

123.811

146.276

186.805

New Mexico

10.233

11.184

11.767

11.767

13.092

15.742

17.811

21.043

26.873

250.058

250.058

250.058

250.058

265.220

318.909

360.818

426.285

544.400

North
Carolina

37.266

46.528

55.986

54.942

69.232

83.246

94.186

111.276

142.108

North
Dakota

15.712

15.712

15.712

16.531

18.393

22.116

25.023

29.563

37.754

100.980

100.980

100.980

100.980

100.980

113.363

128.261

151.532

193.519

15.535

19.396

23.339

22.904

29.139

35.037

39.641

46.834

59.811

Michigan

Nevada

New York

Ohio
Oklahoma

c11173008

CRS-25

 .

“Old” Formula
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
in FY1984
(a)

State
Oregon

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless
Level Only

$2.14 Billion
(b)

Just Under
$2.25 Billion
(c)

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate

$2.25 Billion
(d)

$2.5 Billion
(e)

$3.0 Billion
(f)

$3.39 Billion
(g)

$4.0 Billion
(h)

$5.1 Billion
(i)

24.502

24.502

24.502

24.502

24.502

26.162

29.600

34.970

44.660

Pennsylvania

134.318

134.318

134.318

134.318

143.931

173.067

195.810

231.338

295.437

Rhode Island

13.579

16.954

18.929

18.929

21.061

25.324

28.652

33.851

43.230

South
Carolina

13.423

16.759

20.165

19.789

29.093

38.049

43.050

50.861

64.953

South Dakota

12.761

12.761

12.761

13.426

14.938

17.962

20.323

24.010

30.663

Tennessee

27.245

34.016

38.217

38.217

42.521

51.128

57.847

68.343

87.279

Texas

44.490

55.548

66.839

65.593

96.430

149.602

180.144

222.112

286.876

Utah

14.691

14.691

14.691

15.457

17.197

20.679

23.396

27.641

35.300

Vermont

11.704

11.704

11.704

12.314

13.701

16.474

18.639

22.021

28.122

Virginia

38.465

48.025

57.155

56.709

63.592

76.465

86.513

102.210

130.531

Washington

40.302

40.302

40.302

40.302

40.302

42.629

48.231

56.982

72.771

West Virginia

17.799

17.799

17.799

18.727

20.836

25.053

28.346

33.489

42.768

Wisconsin

70.280

70.280

70.280

70.280

70.280

70.280

70.280

79.009

100.900

Wyoming

5.882

5.882

5.882

6.189

6.885

8.279

9.367

11.067

14.133

1,965.125

2,099.450

2,208.900

2,208.900

2,457.650

2,955.150

3,343.502

3,950.150

5,044.650

Total

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February 2015.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, 0.5% is allocated to the territories, $27 million to
leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $3 million to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations for these purposes could change state allotments.

c11173008

CRS-26

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State
Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
Figure B-1 graphically illustrates state allotments for three “typical” types of states over a range
of appropriations from $0 to $5.1 billion. Represented are (1) a hold-harmless level state, (2) a
hold-harmless level and rate state, and (3) a state whose increased allocations are ratably reduced
in order to maintain allocations for the hold-harmless level and rate states.
In the figure, there are three vertical areas. These areas separate the three levels of appropriations
that are triggers under current law and were explained previously in this report. The figure also
($ in millions)
"Old" Formula
"New" Formula, Hold-Harmless Level Only
"New" Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
State
Hypothetical $1.975 Billion in FY1984 (a)
          
          
            $2.14 Billion (b)
          
          
            Just Under  $2.25 Billion(c)
          
          
            $2.25 Billion (d)
          
          
            $2.5 Billion (e)
          
          
            $3.0 Billion (f)
          
          
            $3.39 Billion(g)
          
          
            $4.0 Billion (h)
          
          
            $5.1 Billion (i)
          
        
        
          
            Alabama
16.901
20.788
24.845
24.426
36.348
44.954
50.862
60.090
76.740
Alaska
10.788
10.788
10.788
11.351
12.629
15.185
17.181
20.298
25.923
Arizona
8.174
10.053
12.016
11.813
17.578
28.425
34.064
41.490
53.411
Arkansas
12.896
15.862
18.958
18.638
21.902
26.335
29.796
35.202
44.956
California
90.669
111.521
121.572
121.572
135.263
162.644
184.018
217.406
277.644
Colorado
31.613
31.613
31.613
31.613
34.739
41.771
47.260
55.835
71.306
Connecticut
41.241
50.725
55.392
55.392
61.629
74.105
83.843
99.056
126.502
Delaware
5.474
6.733
8.047
7.911
10.047
12.081
13.668
16.148
20.623
District of Columbia
6.405
6.405
6.405
6.739
7.498
9.015
10.200
12.051
15.390
Florida
26.742
32.893
39.313
38.649
57.513
93.003
111.453
135.747
174.751
Georgia
21.144
26.007
31.083
30.558
45.473
73.533
88.120
107.329
138.168
Hawaii
2.129
2.619
3.130
3.077
4.579
5.807
6.570
7.762
9.912
Idaho
12.331
12.331
12.331
12.974
14.435
17.357
19.638
23.202
29.630
Illinois
114.147
114.147
114.147
114.147
114.147
125.432
141.915
167.665
214.121
Indiana
51.683
51.683
51.683
51.683
51.683
52.952
59.911
70.781
90.393
Iowa
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
36.628
41.631
53.166
Kansas
16.821
20.625
21.701
21.701
24.145
29.032
32.847
38.807
49.560
Kentucky
26.895
29.277
30.804
30.804
34.273
41.210
46.626
55.086
70.349
Louisiana
17.279
21.252
25.401
24.972
34.262
41.197
46.611
55.068
70.326
Maine
26.717
26.717
26.717
26.717
26.717
31.496
35.635
42.101
53.766
Maryland
31.578
38.840
46.421
45.637
57.677
69.353
78.467
92.704
118.390
Massachusetts
82.495
94.497
99.424
99.424
110.620
133.013
150.492
177.798
227.062
Michigan
108.373
108.373
108.373
108.373
108.373
128.763
145.685
172.118
219.808
Minnesota
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
78.076
94.277
Mississippi
14.490
17.822
20.093
20.093
22.355
26.881
30.413
35.931
45.887
Missouri
45.595
45.595
47.390
47.390
52.727
63.401
71.733
84.748
108.230
Montana
14.464
14.464
14.464
15.218
16.932
20.359
23.035
27.214
34.754
Nebraska
18.114
18.114
18.114
19.058
21.205
25.497
28.848
34.082
43.525
Nevada
3.839
4.722
5.643
5.548
8.256
13.351
15.999
19.486
25.085
New Hampshire
15.615
16.536
17.398
17.398
19.357
23.276
26.335
31.113
39.734
New Jersey
76.584
79.065
83.186
83.186
92.554
111.290
125.915
148.761
189.980
New Mexico
10.233
11.989
12.614
12.614
14.035
16.876
19.094
22.558
28.809
New York
250.058
250.058
250.058
250.058
250.058
280.061
316.866
374.358
478.085
North Carolina
37.266
45.837
54.784
53.858
69.501
83.570
94.553
111.708
142.660
North Dakota
15.712
15.712
15.712
16.531
18.393
22.116
25.023
29.563
37.754
Ohio
100.980
100.980
100.980
100.980
100.980
113.773
128.725
152.081
194.219
Oklahoma
15.535
19.108
22.838
22.452
29.674
35.681
40.371
47.695
60.911
Oregon
24.502
24.502
24.502
24.502
24.502
25.412
28.752
33.968
43.380
Pennsylvania
134.318
134.318
134.318
134.318
142.795
171.701
194.265
229.513
293.106
Rhode Island
13.579
16.702
17.728
17.728
19.725
23.718
26.834
31.703
40.488
South Carolina
13.423
16.510
19.732
19.399
28.868
39.110
44.249
52.278
66.763
South Dakota
12.761
12.761
12.761
13.426
14.938
17.962
20.323
24.010
30.663
Tennessee
27.245
33.510
39.109
39.109
43.513
52.322
59.197
69.938
89.317
Texas
44.490
54.722
65.403
64.299
95.683
154.726
185.420
225.838
290.728
Utah
14.691
14.691
14.691
15.457
17.197
20.679
23.396
27.641
35.300
Vermont
11.704
11.704
11.704
12.314
13.701
16.474
18.639
22.021
28.122
Virginia
38.465
47.311
56.546
55.591
66.163
79.556
90.011
106.342
135.808
Washington
40.302
40.302
40.302
40.302
40.302
42.379
47.948
56.648
72.343
West Virginia
17.799
17.799
17.799
18.727
20.836
25.053
28.346
33.489
42.768
Wisconsin
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
70.280
82.945
105.927
Wyoming
5.882
5.882
5.882
6.189
6.885
8.279
9.367
11.067
14.133
Total
1,965.125
2,099.450
2,208.900
2,208.900
2,457.650
2,955.150
3,343.502
3,950.150
5,044.650
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in November 2015.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, 0.5% is allocated to the territories, $27 million to leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $3 million to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations for these purposes could change state allotments. 

    
    
    Appendix B.

  Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
    Figure B-1 graphically illustrates state allotments for three "typical" types of states over a range of appropriations from $0 to $5.1 billion. Represented are (1) a hold-harmless level state, (2) a hold-harmless level and rate state, and (3) a state whose increased allocations are ratably reduced in order to maintain allocations for the hold-harmless level and rate states.
    In the figure, there are three vertical areas. These areas separate the three levels of appropriations that are triggers under current law and were explained previously in this report. The figure also graphs the three basic types of states. Reading from top to bottom of Figure B-1, these three
 types of states are as follows.

c11173008

•

Hold-Harmless Level Only States. These states are subject to only the holdharmlesshold-harmless level provision. They do not qualify for the hold-harmless rate because
 each state’'s share of the regular funds at $2.25 billion is greater than 1%. An
 example of a hold-harmless level only state is represented by the line that runs
 from $0 to point G. The hold-harmless level is evident from point A to point F.
 Here, despite increases in the appropriations level, the state allotment remains
 fixed. In In Table 3, these are the states that have a “Y”"Y" in column (c) and an “N”
"N" in column (e).

•


    Ratable Reduction States. These states are subject to a ratable reduction. Their
 new formula percentage is greater than their old (FY1984) percentage. An
 example of these states is depicted by the line that runs from $0 to point H. There
 is a small decrease in state allotments at point D that is attributable to the
 increased shortfall on the distribution of funds that the hold-harmless rate
imposes. In rate imposes. In Table 3, these are the states that have an “N”"N" in both column (c) and
 column (e).

•


    Hold-Harmless Level andand Rate States. These states are subject to both the holdharmlesshold-harmless level and the hold harmless rate provisions. An example of a typical
 level and rate state is shown by the line that runs from $0 to point I. The holdharmlesshold-harmless level is evident by the fixed state allotment from point C to point E.
 However, the (subtle) jump at exactly $2.25 billion signals that this state is
 subject to the hold-harmless raterate provision. After the allotment jump at $2.25
 billion, the state’'s allotment continues to increase (at a rate lower than the old
 rate, but higher than the new rate). In Table 3, , these are the states that have a
“Y” "Y" in column (c) and a “Y”"Y" in the column (e).

Congressional Research Service

27

 .


      
Figure B-1. Estimated LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels for Three Types of States
$120
Hold-Harmless Level

"Old"Formula

G
Hold-Harmless Rate

$100
Hold-Harmless
Level Only State

State Allotment
($ in millions)

$80

H
A

F
Ratably Reduced
State

$60

Hold-Harmless
Level and Rate
State

$40

I

D
$20

B
C

E

$0
$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000
Appropriation
($ in millions)


            
          
        
        
          
        
        
          
            Source: Figure created by CRS using formula rates provided by HHS in February 2015.

c11173008

CRS-28

$4,000

$5,000

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Appendix C. November 2015.
          
        
      
    
    
    
    Appendix C.

  LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to
 the States, FY2009-FY2015, and Estimated FY2016
Allocations
Table C-1,  Allocations
    Table C-1, below, shows actual LIHEAP regular fund allocations to the states from FY2009
 through FY2015 and estimated allocations for FY2016 based on the President’'s budget request,
 the FY2016 House Appropriations Committee-passed bill for the Departments of Labor, Health
 and Human Services, and Education (LHE), and the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed
LHE bill.
For FY2016, the President’s budget proposed a total of $3.19 billion for LIHEAP regular funds.
Of that amount, $462 million would be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula, with
the remainder, about $2.7 billion, distributed according to the “old” formula percentages. The
budget request would set aside $3 million for training and technical assistance and $27 million for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Column (h) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to
the states based on the President’s budget.
The House Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide $3.365 billion for LIHEAP
regular funds, with $491 million distributed according to the “new” formula and nearly $2.9
billion using the “old” formula. The bill would also set aside not-quite $3 million for training and
technical assistance, and, while it does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants, the bill authorizes funds to be used for this purpose in its reference to the
authorizing statute. Column (i) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to the states at the level
proposed in the House Committee-passed bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide the same level of regular funds
appropriated in FY2015, $3.39 billion. Of the total, $491 million would be distributed using the
“new” LIHEAP formula and the remainder using the “old” formula. Like the House Committeepassed bill, the Senate Committee-passed bill authorizes funds to be used for leveraging incentive
and REACH grants, but does not specify an amount, and would provide nearly $3 million for
training and technical assistance. Column (j) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to the
states at the level proposed in the Senate Committee-passed bill.
 LHE bill.
    The FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) provided $3.39 billion in LIHEAP regular funds. The law provided that $2.988 million be set aside for training and technical assistance. As of the date of this report, HHS had not released total FY2016 funding allocations to the states, and it was unclear whether, as in recent years, funds would be set aside for leveraging incentive and REACH grants. As a result, column (h) of Table C-1 contains CRS estimates of allocations to the states for FY2016.
    The FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235) provided
 $3.39 billion in LIHEAP regular funds. Of the total, $491 million was distributed according to the
“new” "new" formula. Approximately $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance, but
 no funding was provided for leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Column (g) of Table C-1
 contains allocations to the states in FY2015.

    In FY2014, Congress appropriated approximately $3.425 billion for LIHEAP as part of the
 Consolidated Appropriation Act (P.L. 113-76). Prior to distribution of funds, HHS reduced the
 amount available by 1%, transferring $34.245 billionmillion within the agency. Of the $3.390 billion
 available, HHS increased the amount available for the territories to 0.5% of the total; this was the
 first time since the program’'s inception that the territorial allocation changed from 0.134%. Of the
 amount available to the states and tribes, $491 million was distributed according to the “new”
"new" formula and the remainder according to the “old”"old" formula. See column (f) of Table C-1. 
    Table C-1.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

29

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Column (e) of Table C-1  contains actual regular fund allocations to the states in FY2013. The
 amount appropriated for LIHEAP as part of the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
 Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) was the same as the FY2012 level—$3.472 billion for regular
 funds, with $497 million distributed according to the “new”"new" LIHEAP formula. However,
 application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%, sequestration, and a transfer of funds
 within HHS reduced the total amount available to $3.255 billion.
 
    Column (d) contains actual allocations for FY2012 at an appropriations level of $3.472 billion
( (P.L. 112-74). The law provided a total of $3.478 billion for LIHEAP regular funds, but the
 amount was reduced by an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for discretionary accounts,
 resulting in the $3.472 billion funding level. P.L. 112-74 also provided that, of the amount
 appropriated, all but $497 million be distributed according to the proportions of the “old”
"old" LIHEAP formula. In addition, $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance.

    In FY2009 (P.L. 110-329), FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), and FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) Congress
 appropriated $4.51 billion for LIHEAP formula funds. Of this amount, $840 million was
 distributed according to the “new”"new" LIHEAP formula and the remaining funds, approximately
 $3.67 billion, according to the “old”"old" formula. Column (c) of Table C-1  shows the allocations to
 the states in FY2011, column (b) shows allocations to the states in FY2010, and column (a)
 shows FY2009 allocations. Note that funds were not distributed in exactly the same way in each
 year for several reasons. LIHEAP formula rates are updated each year, which affects the
 percentage of funds that states receive. In addition, two factors changed the FY2011
 appropriation. The appropriations bill subjected all discretionary accounts to an across-the-board
 rescission of 0.2%, and HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, making
 the total available to the states slightly more than in FY2009 and FY2010.

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

30

 .


    
    
    
      
        Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allocations for
FY2009 through FY2015 and Estimated Allocations for FY2016
($ in millions)
Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015

FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
(h)
(i)
(j)

FY2009:
$4.51
Billiona
(a)

FY2010:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)

FY2011:
$4.50
Billionc
(c)

FY2012:
$3.47
Billiond
(d)

FY2013:
$3.26
Billione
(e)

FY2014:
$3.39
Billionf
(f)

FY2015:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)

Alabama

60.063

58.799

59.419

47.408

48.269

48.885

44.387

41.427

43.894

44.108

Alaska

23.568

25.308

23.667

18.002

17.171

18.841

17.482

16.411

17.357

17.494

Arizona

29.047

33.729

32.922

23.852

23.343

23.641

21.581

20.035

21.228

21.331

Arkansas

36.497

35.773

34.985

28.537

26.746

27.505

26.777

25.240

26.438

26.601

California

225.894

202.749

202.843

154.574

145.410

153.592

174.086

163.446

171.699

172.847

Colorado

63.474

64.257

62.139

47.308

44.270

46.378

48.889

45.318

48.057

48.457

Connecticut

95.783

96.942

98.254

79.532

76.014

77.413

85.764

80.847

84.678

85.200

Delaware

17.384

15.189

15.172

11.957

12.573

13.016

12.547

11.881

12.403

12.472

District of
Columbia

14.653

13.992

14.051

10.687

9.976

10.474

10.379

9.743

10.304

10.386

Florida

95.037

110.354

107.714

78.040

76.376

77.351

70.611

65.550

69.454

69.793

Georgia

75.141

87.252

85.164

61.702

60.387

61.158

55.829

51.827

54.914

55.182

Hawaii

4.652

6.023

6.027

6.107

5.416

6.159

5.622

5.219

5.530

5.557

Idaho

26.939

26.939

27.052

20.576

19.207

20.166

19.982

18.758

19.840

19.996

Illinois

237.236

232.865

238.712

185.684

160.191

167.458

167.396

155.951

164.390

165.835

Indiana

103.609

104.151

102.749

80.006

72.374

75.820

75.792

70.610

74.431

75.086

Iowa

67.803

67.803

68.137

54.813

51.292

53.735

53.715

50.043

52.750

53.214

Kansas

45.349

41.757

42.327

32.160

31.397

31.019

30.717

28.761

30.274

30.487

State

c11173008

FY2016 Estimated Allocations

CRS-31

 .

FY2016 Estimated Allocations

Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015

FY2009:
$4.51
Billiona
(a)

FY2010:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)

FY2011:
$4.50
Billionc
(c)

FY2012:
$3.47
Billiond
(d)

FY2013:
$3.26
Billione
(e)

FY2014:
$3.39
Billionf
(f)

FY2015:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)

Kentucky

68.353

57.742

58.335

46.423

43.483

48.288

44.896

41.819

44.188

44.529

Louisiana

57.196

51.870

53.164

43.422

40.864

42.062

38.390

36.301

37.935

38.153

Maine

49.457

54.309

53.539

39.982

37.414

39.195

39.181

36.502

38.477

38.816

Maryland

101.296

82.002

85.523

69.790

70.390

68.513

68.854

65.052

68.023

68.422

Massachusetts

162.981

175.524

175.178

132.731

132.256

140.014

146.328

136.789

144.156

145.200

Michigan

222.412

233.524

228.294

173.450

165.582

165.444

161.827

149.653

158.974

160.345

Minnesota

144.528

144.528

145.241

116.839

109.335

114.541

114.498

106.670

112.443

113.431

Mississippi

39.011

39.661

38.834

31.591

29.313

30.120

26.996

25.306

26.615

26.798

Missouri

103.541

95.257

95.596

68.231

66.553

70.882

73.772

68.583

72.571

73.148

Montana

31.598

31.598

31.730

24.135

22.529

23.654

23.438

22.002

23.271

23.454

Nebraska

39.573

39.573

39.738

30.226

28.214

29.623

29.353

27.555

29.143

29.373

Nevada

13.643

15.841

15.462

11.203

10.964

11.104

10.136

9.410

9.970

10.019

New
Hampshire

34.112

34.112

34.255

26.055

24.321

25.536

25.750

23.967

25.339

25.536

New Jersey

166.690

177.196

180.991

136.746

124.480

124.570

126.586

117.839

124.570

125.539

New Mexico

24.901

22.355

22.448

17.074

15.938

16.734

17.844

16.665

17.575

17.704

New York

475.935

479.526

495.801

375.710

350.169

366.843

381.440

353.256

374.856

378.022

North
Carolina

123.243

109.339

111.263

83.011

87.702

88.271

86.504

81.955

85.523

85.995

34.325

34.325

34.469

26.218

24.473

25.695

25.460

23.901

25.279

25.478

220.588

223.108

225.398

165.463

144.794

154.314

148.087

137.962

145.428

146.706

State

North Dakota
Ohio

c11173008

FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
(h)
(i)
(j)

CRS-32

 .

FY2016 Estimated Allocations

Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015

FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
(h)
(i)
(j)

FY2009:
$4.51
Billiona
(a)

FY2010:
$4.51
Billionb
(b)

FY2011:
$4.50
Billionc
(c)

FY2012:
$3.47
Billiond
(d)

FY2013:
$3.26
Billione
(e)

FY2014:
$3.39
Billionf
(f)

FY2015:
$3.39
Billiong
(g)

Oklahoma

49.007

47.902

47.717

36.094

35.955

37.147

36.338

34.439

35.929

36.126

Oregon

45.355

45.355

45.579

36.666

34.311

35.945

35.931

33.475

35.286

35.597

Pennsylvania

274.925

282.279

280.478

209.548

190.810

203.071

206.356

191.199

202.819

204.519

Rhode Island

30.209

29.666

29.790

23.241

23.976

23.813

27.361

25.753

27.004

27.176

South
Carolina

47.702

47.311

46.909

36.270

38.335

38.825

35.442

32.901

34.861

35.031

South Dakota

27.878

27.878

27.995

21.293

19.877

20.869

20.678

19.412

20.531

20.692

Tennessee

73.723

72.092

71.595

55.405

56.856

58.040

55.161

51.930

54.444

54.788

Texas

158.110

183.593

179.200

129.832

127.064

128.686

117.473

109.053

115.548

116.112

Utah

32.094

32.094

32.228

24.513

22.882

24.025

23.806

22.348

23.636

23.822

Vermont

25.568

25.568

25.675

19.529

18.230

19.140

18.965

17.804

18.830

18.978

118.084

100.856

102.839

80.436

78.971

81.877

81.432

76.829

80.420

80.906

Washington

74.603

74.603

74.971

60.310

56.437

59.124

59.102

55.062

58.041

58.551

West Virginia

40.584

38.884

39.047

29.700

27.723

29.108

28.842

27.076

28.636

28.861

Wisconsin

130.096

130.096

130.738

105.172

98.417

103.103

103.065

96.019

101.215

102.104

Wyoming

12.850

12.850

12.904

9.815

9.162

9.619

9.531

8.948

9.463

9.538

4,476.302

4,476.302

4,494.258

3,437.068

3,248.193

3,370.409

3,370.379

3,144.502

3,318.639

3,343.514

State

Virginia

Total

Source: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided data on final regular fund allocations for FY2008 through FY2015 (columns (a) through (g)).
Allocations to the states include tribal allotments, and FY2016 estimates assume that approximately 0.5% of the total would be set aside for the territories.
a.

c11173008

CRS-33

($ in millions)
Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015
FY2016 Estimated Allocations
State

          
          
            FY2009: $4.51 Billiona (a)
          
          
            FY2010:$4.51 Billionb(b)
          
          
            FY2011:$4.50 Billionc(c)
          
          
            FY2012: $3.47 Billiond(d)
          
          
            FY2013:$3.26Billione(e)
          
          
            FY2014:$3.39Billionf(f)
          
          
            FY2015:$3.39Billiong(g)
          
          
            FY2016 Appropriation: $3.39Billionh(h)
          
        
        
          
            Alabama
60.063 
58.799
59.419
47.408
48.269
48.885
44.387
44.250
Alaska
23.568 
25.308
23.667
18.002
17.171
18.841
17.482
17.482
Arizona
29.047 
33.729
32.922
23.852
23.343
23.641
21.581
21.400
Arkansas
36.497 
35.773
34.985
28.537
26.746
27.505
26.777
27.882
California
225.894 
202.749
202.843
154.574
145.410
153.592
174.086
177.340
Colorado
63.474 
64.257
62.139
47.308
44.270
46.378
48.889
49.430
Connecticut
95.783 
96.942
98.254
79.532
76.014
77.413
85.764
80.768
Delaware
17.384 
15.189
15.172
11.957
12.573
13.016
12.547
12.584
District of Columbia
14.653
13.992
14.051
10.687
9.976
10.474
10.379
10.379
Florida
95.037 
110.354
107.714
78.040
76.376
77.351
70.611
70.016
Georgia
75.141 
87.252
85.164
61.702
60.387
61.158
55.829
55.358
Hawaii
4.652 
6.023
6.027
6.107
5.416
6.159
5.622
5.575
Idaho
26.939 
26.939
27.052
20.576
19.207
20.166
19.982
19.982
Illinois
237.236 
232.865
238.712
185.684
160.191
167.458
167.396
167.396
Indiana
103.609 
104.151
102.749
80.006
72.374
75.820
75.792
75.792
Iowa
67.803 
67.803
68.137
54.813
51.292
53.735
53.715
53.715
Kansas
45.349 
41.757
42.327
32.160
31.397
31.019
30.717
31.952
Kentucky
68.353 
57.742
58.335
46.423
43.483
48.288
44.896
46.764
Louisiana
57.196 
51.870
53.164
43.422
40.864
42.062
38.390
42.266
Maine
49.457 
54.309
53.539
39.982
37.414
39.195
39.181
39.181
Maryland
101.296 
82.002
85.523
69.790
70.390
68.513
68.854
72.314
Massachusetts
162.981 
175.524
175.178
132.731
132.256
140.014
146.328
148.924
Michigan
222.412 
233.524
228.294
173.450
165.582
165.444
161.827
158.928
Minnesota
144.528 
144.528
145.241
116.839
109.335
114.541
114.498
114.498
Mississippi
39.011 
39.661
38.834
31.591
29.313
30.120
26.996
29.079
Missouri
103.541 
95.257
95.596
68.231
66.553
70.882
73.772
73.911
Montana
31.598 
31.598
31.730
24.135
22.529
23.654
23.438
23.438
Nebraska
39.573 
39.573
39.738
30.226
28.214
29.623
29.353
29.353
Nevada
13.643 
15.841
15.462
11.203
10.964
11.104
10.136
10.051
New Hampshire
34.112 
34.112
34.255
26.055
24.321
25.536
25.750
26.610
New Jersey
166.690 
177.196
180.991
136.746
124.480
124.570
126.586
128.130
New Mexico
24.901 
22.355
22.448
17.074
15.938
16.734
17.844
18.786
New York
475.935 
479.526
495.801
375.710
350.169
366.843
381.440
366.707
North Carolina
123.243 
109.339
111.263
83.011
87.702
88.271
86.504
86.773
North Dakota
34.325 
34.325
34.469
26.218
24.473
25.695
25.460
25.460
Ohio
220.588 
223.108
225.398
165.463
144.794
154.314
148.087
148.087
Oklahoma
49.007 
47.902
47.717
36.094
35.955
37.147
36.338
36.874
Oregon
45.355 
45.355
45.579
36.666
34.311
35.945
35.931
35.931
Pennsylvania
274.925 
282.279
280.478
209.548
190.810
203.071
206.356
205.222
Rhode Island
30.209 
29.666
29.790
23.241
23.976
23.813
27.361
26.027
South Carolina
47.702 
47.311
46.909
36.270
38.335
38.825
35.442
35.143
South Dakota
27.878 
27.878
27.995
21.293
19.877
20.869
20.678
20.678
Tennessee
73.723 
72.092
71.595
55.405
56.856
58.040
55.161
56.152
Texas
158.110 
183.593
179.200
129.832
127.064
128.686
117.473
116.483
Utah
32.094 
32.094
32.228
24.513
22.882
24.025
23.806
23.806
Vermont
25.568 
25.568
25.675
19.529
18.230
19.140
18.965
18.965
Virginia
118.084 
100.856
102.839
80.436
78.971
81.877
81.432
83.999
Washington
74.603 
74.603
74.971
60.310
56.437
59.124
59.102
59.102
West Virginia
40.584 
38.884
39.047
29.700
27.723
29.108
28.842
28.842
Wisconsin
130.096 
130.096
130.738
105.172
98.417
103.103
103.065
103.065
Wyoming
12.850 
12.850
12.904
9.815
9.162
9.619
9.531
9.531
Total
4,476.302 
4,476.302
4,494.258
3,437.068
3,248.193
3,370.409
3,370.379
3,370.379
Source: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided data on final regular fund allocations for FY2008 through FY2015 (columns (a) through (g)). Allocations to the states include tribal allotments, and FY2016 estimates assume that approximately 0.5% of the total would be set aside for the territories.

        a.

    Congress appropriated approximately $4.5 billion for LIHEAP as part of a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329). Of this amount, $840 million was allocated under the
“new” "new" LIHEAP formula, with the remainder allocated according to the proportions of the “old”"old" LIHEAP formula.

 .

c11173008

b.


        b.

    In FY2010, Congress appropriated the same amount for LIHEAP regular funds as it had in FY2009—approximately $4.5 billion—with the same division of funds
 between “old” and “new”"old" and "new" formulas (P.L. 111-117). Although FY2010 LIHEAP funds were divided between the “old” and “new”"old" and "new" formula in the same way as FY2009,
 the awards to the states are different because the formula factors were updated in April 2009.

c.

 
        c.

    The FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for discretionary
 accounts. This reduced the LIHEAP regular fund appropriation from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion. In addition, unlike appropriations in most years,
 HHS did not set aside funds for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and instead included these funds in the formula grants to the states, bringing the total
 distributed to $4.49 billion.

d.


        d.

    The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% that reduced the total available to $3,47 billion. Of
 the amount appropriated, $497 million was distributed according to the “new”"new" LIHEAP formula and the remainder according to the proportions of the “old”
"old" LIHEAP formula. In addition, the law provided $3 million for training and technical assistance.

e.


        e.

    In FY2013, Congress enacted a full-year continuing resolution funding LIHEAP (and most other federal programs) at FY2012 levels (P.L. 113-6). While LIHEAP was
 funded at $3.472 billion in FY2012, a series of deductions meant that the total available for LIHEAP in FY2013 was $3.255 billion.

f.

 
        f.

    The FY2014 regular fund appropriation for LIHEAP (P.L. 113-76) was reduced by 1% ($34.245 million) due to a transfer of funds within HHS, bringing the amount
 available to $3.390 billion. HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and it increased the territorial allocation from 0.134% of total funds to
 0.500%. Of the amount distributed to states and tribes by formula ($3.370 billion), $491 million was distributed according to the “new”"new" formula and the remainder
 according to the proportions of the “old” formula.

g.

"old" formula.
        g.

    In FY2015, Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP regular funds as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). Of
 the total, 0.5% was distributed to the territories, approximately $3 million went to training and technical assistance, and no funds were distributed for leveraging
 incentive and REACH grants. Of the funds distributed to the states and tribes by formula, $491 million was distributed according to the “new”"new" formula, and the
 remainder, approximately $2.9 billion, according to the proportions of the “old” formula.

h.

The President’s FY2016 budget proposed that $3.19 billion be appropriated for regular funds, with $467 million distributed via the “new” formula. The budget also
proposed that $3 million be set aside for training and technical assistance and $27 million for leveraging incentive and REACH grants.

i.

The House Appropriations Committee-passed bill would appropriate $3.365 billion for LIHEAP regular funds, with $491 million distributed using the “new” formula.
The appropriations bill does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, but does give the authority for them to be distributed, so the
estimates assume that HHS would set aside $27 million for this purpose. The bill would provide $2.988 million for training and technical assistance.

j.

The Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide $3.39 billion for LIHEAP regular funds. Of that amount, $491 million would be distributed using
the “new” formula and the remainder using the “old” formula. The appropriations bill does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, but
does give the authority for them to be distributed, so the estimates assume that HHS would set aside $27 million for this purpose. The bill would provide $2.988
million for training and technical assistance.

CRS-34

 The LIHEAP Formula

.

Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806

c11173008

Congressional Research Service

35

 "old" formula. 
        h.

    As of the date of this report, HHS had not released final allocations based on the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113). Figures in column (h) are CRS estimates. The estimates assume that, as in recent years, no funding will be allocated to leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and that $2.988 million will be set aside for training and technical assistance. 
      
    
    
    
    
  
  
    Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Housing Policy
        ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
      
Footnotes1.
            
        
           For additional information on LIHEAP, see, LIHEAP: Program and Funding, by [author name scrubbed].
2.
            
        
           LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
3.
            
        
           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2010 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 35.
4.
            
        
           The formula section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623.
5.
            
        
           Depending on how Congress appropriates them, contingency funds may remain available for distribution in more than one fiscal year or they may expire with the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
6.
            
        
           The statutory definition of emergency includes a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in participation in a public benefit program, a significant increase in unemployment, or an event meeting such criteria as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §8622.
7.
            
        
           Community Services Administration, "Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency Energy Conservation Program," Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 145, July 28, 1975, p. 31603.
8.
            
        
           See, for example, House Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-68, March 11, 1977: "The funds in this program are used primarily to purchase materials to insulate the homes of low-income families."
9.
            
        
           For example, if a southern state experiences 700 heating degree days in a year and a northern state experiences 7,000, the northern state has 10 times as many heating degree days as the southern state. However, if both numbers are squared, the northern state has 100 times as many heating degree days as the southern state.
10.
            
        
           Community Services Administration, "Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans," Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
11.
            
        
           Ibid.
12.
            
        
           Ibid., pp. 47096-47097.
13.
            
        
           Community Services Administration, "Special Crisis Intervention Program: General Information, Application Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements," Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 125, June 29, 1977, p. 33240.
14.
            
        
           The formula was described in the Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977. The CSA implemented this formula, which it described in guidance to the states. See the Federal Register, Ibid.
15.
            
        
           Funds were appropriated through the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240) and in FY1979 through a continuing resolution (P.L. 95-482). In FY1978, Congress called the program Emergency Energy Assistance Program and in FY1979 called it the Crisis Intervention Program (excluding the word "Special" from the title).
16.
            
        
           Community Services Administration, "Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Funding Requirements for Emergency Energy Assistance Program," Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 46, March 8, 1978, p. 9476.
17.
            
        
           Community Services Administration, "Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Fiscal Year 1979 Crisis Intervention Program," Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 250, December 28, 1978, pp. 60466-60467.
18.
            
        
           Congress appropriated $250 million for ECAP as part of an FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-123, referencing the FY1980 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 4389), and appropriated an additional $150 million as part of the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126).
19.
            
        
           "Windfall Profits Tax." In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-32 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980) http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
20.
            
        
           Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 12.
21.
            
        
           See, for example, Senator Russell Long, "Home Energy Assistance Act," Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32278. "But the formula [as passed by the Senate Finance Committee] went a long way toward considering the total household expense for energy, not just heating."
22.
            
        
           Senator Rudy Boschwitz, "Home Energy Assistance Act," Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32290. "I refer back to the committee report, which talks about the intent of the act being to 'offset high heating costs (and cooling where medically necessary) and that assistance not be a supplement of all utilities and their use to run appliances, etc.'... It is very clear that it is the intent of the Senate to help keep people warm."
23.
            
        
           Senator Edmund Muskie, "Home Energy Assistance Act," Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32288. "I do not often do this. As a matter of fact, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I can recall only one other time in which I have sought to use delay and extended debate to make a point and to achieve justice. I am not a filibusterer. If I did not believe deeply about this, I would not be standing here."
24.
            
        
           The BLS determined the lower living standard income level through its annual family budgets, which it maintained from 1947 to 1981. At the time the LIEAP program was enacted, the BLS developed annual family budgets assuming three different standards of living: lower, intermediate, and higher. The budget was calculated using costs of consumer goods including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and health care (unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which are based on the amount of money needed to buy food). The budget was then adjusted for family size and the prices of goods in various cities throughout the country. See David S. Johnson, John M. Rogers, and Lucilla Tan, "A Century of Family Budgets in the United States," Monthly Labor Review, 124, no. 5 (May 2001): 28-45.
25.
            
        
           Senator Russell B. Long, "Home Energy Assistance Act," Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25 (November 15, 1979), p. 32561. "This language was evolved in the Finance Committee. When the majority of the committee voted to exclude such items as air-conditioning and anything related to cooling a house and limited that formula to heating, this Senator contended that, if that were to be the case, there should be at least a minimum on which people could depend."
26.
            
        
           According to the law, "The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards established by the Secretary."
27.
            
        
           House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp. 75-76.
28.
            
        
           See, for example, Representative David Obey, "Low Income Energy Assistance," House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), p. 23505. "Last year the Congress adopted a formula which, very frankly, was unfair to the South. It provided a much larger amount of the money available than it should have to Northern States. In response to that, Senator Long, on the windfall profit tax legislation, adopted an amendment which, for the block grant portion of the program, provided phenomenal increases for the Southern States at the expense of the Northern States."
29.
            
        
           "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues," Coalition of Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
30.
            
        
           H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.
31.
            
        
           See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 32082-32086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565, and 32576-32589.
32.
            
        
           House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
33.
            
        
           See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, U.S. Congress, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, Energy Costs and Low Income Energy Assistance, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.
34.
            
        
           Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
35.
            
        
           Ibid., p. 4.
36.
            
        
           Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 17 (September 13, 1983), p. 23877. The greatest increases in percentage allocations were for Florida at 51%, Texas at 44%, and Alabama at 37%. The states whose percentage allocations decreased the most were Vermont at 32%, North Dakota at 24%, and New Hampshire at 23%.
37.
            
        
           "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues," Coalition of Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 9.
38.
            
        
           The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p. S13393.
39.
            
        
           Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.
40.
            
        
           Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
41.
            
        
           "[A] State's allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households in that State bears to such expenditures in all States." 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
42.
            
        
           The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income (whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
43.
            
        
           A state's heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.
44.
            
        
           For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
        
      
      
        45.
            
        
           The EIA's state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
46.
            
        
           When appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law's hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for FY1987, p. 133.
47.
            
        
           This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $3 million to $1.975 billion.
48.
            
        
           HHS Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Dear Colleague Notice Allocation for Territories FY2014, November 22, 2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-allocation-for-territories-fy-2014.
49.
            
        
           The exceptions to this are states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate, described in the next section, and the states that are ratably reduced in order to compensate states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate.
50.
            
        
           "States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984." 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).
51.
            
        
           "[A]ny State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total appropriation of $2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when total appropriations equal or exceed $2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation of $2,140,000,000." 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(B).
52.
            
        
           For more information about this issue, see Appendix C of this report.
        
      
    
  