Order Code RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated May 17, 2005
Emilie Stoltzfus
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Summary
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which the federal government
gives states and other jurisdictions annual grants to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. Funding authorization for LIHEAP expired
with FY2004. However, for FY2005 Congress appropriated $2.182 billion for
LIHEAP, of which $1.885 billion was regular funds (allotted to all states) and $298
million was contingency funds (allotted to one or more states, at the Administration’s
discretion, based on emergency need). The President’s FY2006 budget request
includes $2 billion for LIHEAP — $1.800 billion for regular funds and $200 million
for contingency funds.
As of mid May 2005, the Administration has released $250 million of the
FY2005 contingency funds; a total of $48 million in these funds remain available
until expended. These contingency funds were released in late December 2004 ($100
million), late January 2005 ($100 million), and early March 2005 ($50 million) in
recognition of high home energy prices, particularly for heating oil and propane. Each
of the distributions was made to all states, with half of the money distributed based
on the formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds and half distributed using
that same formula but weighted to increase funding to states where more low-income
households use heating oil or propane.
On April 21, 2005 the House passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6).
The bill would authorize annual regular LIHEAP funding of $5.1 billion for FY2005
through FY2007; explicitly permit the purchase of renewable fuels, including
biomass, as part of providing home energy assistance; require the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to report to Congress on how LIHEAP “could be
used more effectively to prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures;” and permit
some of the money received by the federal treasury in return for oil drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to be appropriated for LIHEAP.
Legislation to reauthorize LIHEAP was passed by both the House and Senate in the
108th Congress but was not enacted. (See Table 4.)
In FY2002, most recent HHS data available, some 4.4 million households
received LIHEAP heating/winter crisis assistance, compared with an estimated 4.8
million households in FY2001. The average combined benefit to those households
was $291 in FY2002; in FY2001 the average combined benefit was $364. More than
570,000 households received cooling aid in FY2002, more than double the number
of households that received this aid in FY2001. However, the average value of the
cooling aid benefit declined from $219 in FY2001 to $136 in FY2002.
This report discusses the LIHEAP program and its funding and will be updated
as legislative or program activities warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
House Passes Energy Legislation with LIHEAP Reauthorization . . . . 2
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Release of Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Rules and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Households Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Benefit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funds and Their Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Program Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Release of Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
LIHEAP Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Recent and Proposed LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Level of Funds Appropriated and Resulting Distribution
Factors for LIHEAP Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Major Provisions of LIHEAP Reauthorization Language in the
109th and 108th Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2002 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 6. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

---

The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP):
Program and Funding
Introduction
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35 is a block grant program under which the federal
government gives states, territories, and tribes annual grants to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. Funding authorization for LIHEAP
expired with FY2004; however, Congress appropriated $2.182 billion for the
program in FY2005.
In FY2002, the most current year for which data could be obtained from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an estimated 4.4 million
households received help meeting heating costs (i.e. heating assistance and/or
winter/year-round crisis assistance). Also in FY2002 more than 570,000 households
received cooling assistance, and close to 108,000 received summer crisis aid. The
amount of overlap between households that received cooling aid and summer crisis
aid is not known; thus an estimated number of households that received aid related
to cooling (comparable to those receiving aid with heating costs) is not available.
Finally, more than 93,000 households received weatherization assistance through
LIHEAP in FY2002.1
Recent Developments
The final FY2005 funding level for LIHEAP was $2.182 billion ($1.885 for
regular funds and $298 million — designated as emergency funds — for contingency
purposes). The President’s FY2006 budget requests less money for LIHEAP in
FY2002 ($2 billion, of which $1.800 billion would be for regular funds and $200
million are requested as contingency funds). In March the Senate rejected an
amendment brought by Senator Pryor (S.Amdt. 213) that sought to amend the Budget
Resolution (S.Con.Res. 18) to provide for an increase of $1.2 billion in LIHEAP
funding for FY2006.
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY2002, p. 18. (Hereafter referred to as LIHEAP Report
to Congress for FY2002).

---

CRS-2
House Passes Energy Legislation with LIHEAP Reauthorization. On
April 21, 2005 the House of Representatives passed omnibus energy legislation (H.R.
6) that includes several provisions related to LIHEAP.2 The bill would —
! set the regular funds authorization level for the program at $5.1
billion in each of FY2005 - FY2007 (LIHEAP regular funding
authorization was set at $2.0 billion for FY2004 but is currently
expired.);
! permit money received by the federal treasury as bonus payments for
the right to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for LIHEAP (in addition to amounts otherwise
available for the program);
! authorize state energy assistance offices, or those they contract with
to provide LIHEAP assistance, to purchase renewable fuels as part
of providing this aid ;
! require the Department of Energy to report to Congress on the use
of renewable fuels in providing aid under LIHEAP; and
! require HHS (within one year of the bill’s enactment) to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be more effectively used to
prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures.
Some of these provisions were include in the version of H.R. 6 that passed the House
in the 108th Congress (see Table 4). However the current legislation would authorize
a higher level of LIHEAP funding than would have been permitted in the previous
version of the bill. It also newly permits the purchase of renewable fuels by providers
of LIHEAP aid and requires a report on LIHEAP and the use of renewable fuels.
Senate Action. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee began
mark-up of omnibus energy legislation on May 17 and was expected to complete this
work by May 19. Draft legislation posted on the Committee’s website on May 13 did
not appear to include any provisions related to LIHEAP. In the 108th Congress,
omnibus energy legislation passed by the Senate (H.R. 6 as passed by the Senate,
108th Congress) did include some LIHEAP provisions. In that same Congress,
however, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has
exercised jurisdiction over this program in past years, also reported LIHEAP
reauthorization language that was passed by the Senate (S. 1786, 108th Congress).
(See Table 4.)
Release of Contingency Funds. On three occasions, late December 2004,
late January 2005, and early March 2005, the Administration released FY2005
contingency funds. A total of $250 million was distributed to all states in response
2 For broader information on this omnibus energy legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10143
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress, by Robert
Bamberger and Carl Behrens.

---

CRS-3
higher home energy costs, especially for heating oil and propane. The first two
distributions totaled $100 million each, and the third totaled $50 million. In each
case, half of the contingency amount was distributed to the states based on the same
formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds, and the remaining half was
distributed based primarily on that formula but with certain adjustments made to
ensure that extra funds would be received by states with the greatest share of low-
income households using heating oil or propane.
As of mid May 2005 there is approximately $48 million remaining from the
FY2005 contingency appropriation. P.L. 108-447 provides that these funds are
“available until expended.” Table 1 shows recent federal funding levels for LIHEAP,
including the amount of contingency funds released and the number of states
receiving those contingency funds, and the President’s FY2006 funding request.
Table 1. Recent and Proposed LIHEAP Funding
(Dollars in millions; sums may not equal totals due to rounding)
Fiscal
Funds appropriated
Contingency funds
Total funds
year
distributeda
distributedb
Regular
Contingencya
To
To
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
all
some
(to all
states
states
states)
2002
1,700
300
0
100
100
1,700
1,800
2003
1,788
0
200
0
200
1,988
1,988
2004
1,789
99
40
59
99
1,829
1,889
2005
1,885
298
250
0
250
2,135c
2,135c
President’s Request
2006
1,800
200
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The amount of contingency funds appropriated in a fiscal year may differ from the amount of
contingency funds that are released in that fiscal year for two reasons. First, the LIHEAP statute
gives the Administration discretion to release (or not release) any of available contingency
funding. Further these funds, as directed by the Congress in its appropriations language, may
be available for release in one or more years.
b. Regular funds, all of which are shown in both of the Total Funds Distributed columns, include all
regular funding distributed by formula to the states, the tribes, and the District of Columbia, as
well as set-asides for the territories, leveraging incentive grants, REACH grants, and technical
assistance (total set-asides approximately $30 million). The “Subtotal to all states” column
includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed to all states; the
“Total” column includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed to
one or more states.
c. This amount includes total contingency funds released as of mid May 2005 and total regular funds
appropriated for FY2005. Not all of the FY2005 regular funds appropriated have been made
available as of this report’s date. Regular LIHEAP funds are made available to states on a
quarterly basis (October, January, April, and July). However, states may specify what percent
of their total allotment they wish to receive at each allotment and many states receive all, or the
great majority of their LIHEAP funds in the first two quarterly disbursements.

---

CRS-4
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program
decisions to the states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and
tribal organizations (collectively referred to as grantees) who receive federal funds.
The federal government (HHS) may not dictate how grantees implement
“assurances” that they will comply with general federal guidelines.
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility. Federal law
limits eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median income). States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty
guidelines may be considered ineligible. States may separately choose to make
eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which at least one member is a
recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested veteran’s programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to
include, what income limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The
statute gives priority for aid to households with the greatest energy needs or cost
burdens, especially those that include disabled individuals, frail older individuals, or
young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat owners and renters
“equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs, and to
have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need.
LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other aid programs.
Federal rules also require outreach activities, coordination with the Department of
Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal
controls, and fair hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar
range of benefits, choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will
administer the program.3
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available. Funds are available for four types
of energy assistance to eligible households:
! help paying heating or cooling bills;
! low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other
home-energy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless
grantee has waiver for up to 25%);
! services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment,
counseling on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of
allotment); and
! help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds. The majority of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home
heating costs. In FY2002 approximately 68% of all LIHEAP funds were used to
provide heating assistance or crisis aid related primarily to heating needs; all states
3 Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.ncat.org/liheap/sp.htm].

---

CRS-5
(including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance, and nearly all
also offered crisis aid related to heating needs. In that same year, more than 4% of
funds were used for cooling/summer crisis aid; just 19 states offered cooling
assistance and only six offered summer crisis aid. Also in FY2002 11% of total
LIHEAP funds were used for weatherization services (provided by 44 states); 8% of
available funds were used for administration and planning purposes (51 states), and
1% of the FY2002 funds were used to offer services to reduce the need for energy
assistance (provided by 23 states).4
Households Served. Since the LIHEAP program began in the early 1980s,
both the percentage of eligible households served and absolute number of households
receiving heating/winter crisis assistance have generally declined. However, in
FY2001 both figures increased somewhat before dropping again in FY2002. (See
Table 2 below.) In FY2002, the number of households receiving cooling aid appears
to have risen well above the half-million mark for the first time in program history.
States reported that in FY2002 (the most recent year for which preliminary
HHS-compiled data are available) approximately 4.1 million households received
assistance with heating payments; 570,000 received cooling aid; 999,000 received
winter/year-round crisis aid; 108,000 received summer crisis aid; and 93,000
received weatherization assistance. As many households may receive more than one
kind of LIHEAP assistance, a total, unduplicated number of households assisted is
not available. However, these data are used to estimate that some 4.4 million
households received heating assistance or heat-related crisis aid in FY2002.5 These
households represent about 14% of all federally (income) eligible households. States
have some discretion to set income eligibility levels below the maximum federal
income eligibility standard, however, and many states do this. Thus the national
share of state-income-eligible households receiving heating/winter crisis aid in
FY2002 was approximately 21%.6
The Census Bureau’s 2002 Annual Social and Economic Supplement indicates
that among all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance about 37% had at
least one member 60 years of age or older; about 50% had at least one disabled
member; and some 21% included at least one child 5 years of age or younger. These
same census data showed that a minority of households receiving LIHEAP heating
assistance also received other kinds of federal aid: an estimated 11% received TANF;
28% received SSI; and 27% lived in rent-subsidized or public housing.7
Benefit Levels. The constant dollar value of LIHEAP heating/winter crisis
benefits declined from the program’s beginning through FY2000. In FY2001 it
peaked sharply, before declining again in FY2002. In FY2002 the average household
4 Based on state-reported total LIHEAP expenditures for FY2002 (including federal and any
supplemental non-federal funding) of $1.923 billion. LIHEAP Report to Congress for
FY2002, p. 14.
5 Ibid., p. 18.
6 Ibid., p. 19.
7 Ibid., pp. 19-21.

---

CRS-6
LIHEAP heating/winter crisis benefit was $291 (compared to $364 in FY2001 and
$270 in FY2000). (See Table 2.) The average cooling benefit, which is available
to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, has largely risen, except
in FY2002, when it fell sharply. In FY2002 the average cooling aid benefit was $136
compared to $219 in FY2001 and $228 in FY2000.8
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years

Fiscal year
1983
1990
1993
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Households
Number receiving
6.8
5.8
5.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.8
4.4
aid (in millions)
Number federally
22.2
25.4
28.4
29.0
29.1
29.0
29.4
30.4
32.7
eligible (in millions)
Federally eligible
31%
23%
20%
15%
13%
12%
13%
16%
14%
and receiving aid
Benefit Levels
Average benefit
$225
$209
$201
$213
$213
$237
$270
$364
$291
(nominal dollars)
Average benefit
$209
$147
$129
$118
$117
$128
$140
$187
$147
(constant 1981
dollars)a
Costs Offset
Portion of winter
18%
15%
11%
9%
9%
9%
11%
14%
NAc
heating bill covered
by LIHEAP (for all
federally eligible
households)b
Portion of
Before receiving LIHEAP benefit
household income
8.3%
4.5%
4.7%
4.0%
3.4%
3.3%
3.3%
4.7%
NAc
required for home
heating (for
After receiving LIHEAP benefit
LIHEAP-recipient
households)
2.6%
2.0%
2.4%
1.9%
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
1.7%
NAc
Source: Table compiled by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information provided
by or included in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Community Services, Division of Energy Assistance, LIHEAP Home Energy
Assistance Notebooks for FY1998, FY2000, FY2001, and FY2002.
a. The constant dollars are based on the 1981 value of the benefit (using the CPI-U index).
b. These percentages represent the estimated portion of combined home heating costs for all
households federally eligible for LIHEAP that was offset by LIHEAP heating/winter crisis
assistance.
c. FY2002 data on these trends are not available from the LIHEAP Home Energy Assistance
Notebook for FY2002.
8 Ibid., pp. 20-21. A combined average cooling/summer crisis benefit level is not yet
available for FY2002. However, for FY2001 this average benefit amount was $211, and for
FY2000 it was $206. In constant (1981 dollars) the average cooling/summer crisis benefit
was worth $57 in FY1983 and $107 in both FY2000 and FY2001.

---

CRS-7
Although LIHEAP benefits now cover a smaller portion of home heating bills
than in earlier years, the portion of household income required for home heating by
LIHEAP-recipient households is less than when the program began, and LIHEAP
recipient households now spend less of their income on heating needs than they did
when the program began. After taking into account their LIHEAP benefit, LIHEAP-
recipient households spent an average of 1.7% of their total income for heating in
FY2001 compared to 1.0% in FY2000 and 2.6% in FY1983. (See Table 2.)
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what
extent LIHEAP is able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in
meeting their home energy needs.9 These include —
! the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price
fluctuations and variation in kinds of fuels used);
! the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the
weather, energy efficiency of housing, and expected standards of
comfort); and
! the number of eligible households (influenced by population size
and health of the economy).
Funds and Their Distribution
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular funds appropriations, which are
allocated to all states based on a statutory formula, and contingency fund
appropriations, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration. It also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for incentive grants to
states who leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs and
it allows states to draw on certain other resources.
Regular Funds. Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-
tier formula included in the LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds
appropriated in a given fiscal year.10 Although provision of cooling assistance has
been authorized from the beginning of LIHEAP (initially only when medically
necessary), the original method for distributing regular funds was largely based on
home heating needs of low-income households. The statute also did not provide for
the use of updated population, home heating need, or other data.
In 1984 (P.L. 98-558) Congress enacted a new distribution formula that requires
taking into account the home energy needs of low-income households — whether
heating or cooling related — and also provides that the data used for calculating the
distribution should be the most recent available. However, in order for these new
9 See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.
10 States are defined to include the District of Columbia. Indian tribes receive funds out of
state allotments that are proportionate to their share of LIHEAP-eligible households in the
state. Before state allotments are made, the statute provides that at least one-tenth (but not
more than one-half) of 1% of the total appropriation must be set-aside for energy assistance
in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.

---

CRS-8
measures to be used, Congress also stipulated that — for FY1986 and succeeding
years — no state could receive less money than it would have received in FY1984
(had the LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion). Funding levels for
LIHEAP have only twice exceeded this level, and thus the original distribution
formula has been used in every year beginning with FY1987.
Should a higher funding level bring the new distribution formula into effect, the
use of current data, particularly updated population numbers, as well as the much
increased weight given to cooling needs, would significantly alter the share of
LIHEAP funds that states receive. At the same time, should funding increase to
certain specified amounts, the three-tier formula now written in law includes
provisions designed to maintain an absolute dollar as well as percentage share (or
rate) amount of funding that a state could expect to receive. These stipulations are
referred to as “hold-harmless” provisions.11 The three-tier current law formula is
described in more detail below.
Tier I. For funding levels at or below $1.975 billion states receive a fixed share
of the total funds (or a rate) that was first used in FY1981.12 This Tier I rate has
been used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds in every program year except FY1985
and FY1986. It was created using formula factors that resulted in greater
proportionate funding for cold-weather states with the highest number of low-income
households.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion a Tier
II rate applies.13 This distribution rate is based on the most current available data
regarding home energy expenditures (heating and cooling) of low-income
households. However, under this new distribution rate no state may receive less
funding than it would have under the Tier I distribution rate as it was in effect for
FY1984 (and assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation). To ensure this “hold-
harmless” provision can be met, those states with the greatest increase in their
funding rate must have that percentage share of funds ratably reduced. The Tier II
distribution effectively ensures that, given the required increase in LIHEAP funding,
a state cannot receive less than a state-specific absolute dollar amount.
11 For more information on the formula and the percentage share of funds a state would
receive at various levels of funding, see CRS Report RS21605, Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Estimated Allocation Rates, by Julie Whittaker.
12 Current law provides that when the newer formula is used, a state cannot receive less
money than it would have received in FY1984 at a $1.975 billion funding level. Since this
language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular LIHEAP funds
appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425), and it also authorized
Leveraging Incentive Grants (P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-252) — both
of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds. These debits on the regular funds
account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular funds
available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million it is possible that HHS
would not implement the newer formula before a regular funds appropriation level reaches
just above $2 billion.
13 See immediately previous footnote.

---

CRS-9
Tier III. For funding levels at or above $2.25 billion, a Tier III rate is applied.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement. States that would receive less than 1% of a $2.25 billion
appropriation must be allocated funds using the rate they would have experienced at
a hypothetical $2.14 billion appropriation (if this rate is greater than the calculated
rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II and Tier III rates, a state will not be
allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I distribution as it was in
effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975 billion). The Tier III
distribution, however, effectively ensures that (given the required increase in
LIHEAP funding) state LIHEAP programs must receive a state-specific minimum
share (or rate) of the total funding. (See Table 3 below.)
Table 3. Level of Funds Appropriated and Resulting
Distribution Factors for LIHEAP Regular Funds
Funds
Statutory directive
Data used
Hold harmless
appropriated
Tier I
P.L. 97-35 created
Heating degree days
Not applicable.
$1.975 billion LIHEAP and effectively
(squared), residential
or less
directed that funds be
energy expenditures, home
distributed as they had
heating expenditures, and
been in FY1981 for a
number of low-income
predecessor energy
households. (These data
assistance program.
are not updated and remain
fixed at the values that
were current circa 1980.)
Tier II
At this funding level,
Heating degree days,
States with greatest
more than
P.L. 98-558 amended the cooling degree days,
proportionate increase
$1.975 billion
LIHEAP statute to
heating expenditures,
in their rate of funding
but less than
provide that state
cooling expenditures, type
must have their share of
$2.25 billion
allotments be determined of energy used, cost of
funding (or rate)
according to
energy, number of low-
reduced to ensure that
“expenditures for home
income households and the
no state receives less
energy by low-income
method of heating or
money than it would
households” and based
cooling used by low-
have received for
on the “most recent
income households. (Data
FY1984 (if the
satisfactory data”
used are to be current.)
appropriation that year
available to HHS.
had been $1.975
billion).
Tier III
Same as for Tier II.
Same as for Tier II.
Same as for Tier II; in
$2.25 billion
addition, any state that
or more
would receive less than
1% of a total $2.25
billion appropriation
must be allocated funds
at the rate it would have
received at a $2.14
billion appropriation (if
this rate is greater than
it would be at $2.25
billion).
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

---

CRS-10
Contingency Funds. The statute currently provides an annual authorization
of $600 million for LIHEAP contingency funds. Appropriated contingency funds
may only be released at the discretion of HHS and may be allocated to one or more
states based on their needs. The statute authorizes appropriation of contingency
funds “to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.” The term “emergency” is
defined in the LIHEAP statute to include a natural disaster; a significant home energy
supply shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home energy, home
energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment;
or an “event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be
appropriate.”
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds. In 1990, P.L. 101-501,
amended the program statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50
million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for
incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP
programs. Such resources might include negotiated lower energy rates for low-
income households or separate state funds. States are awarded incentive funds in a
given fiscal year based on a formula that takes into account their previous fiscal year
success in securing non-federal resources for their energy assistance program. In
1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that of any incentive
funds appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance
Challenge Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded
competitive grants for their efforts to increase efficiency of energy usage among low-
income families and to reduce those families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other
health and safety risks due to high energy costs. Although the funding authorization
for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate, in practice, Congress has
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of
annual regular fund appropriations.
Other Funds. States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous
fiscal year (limited to 10% of funds awarded a state). A diminishing amount of
money may also be available from previously settled claims of price control violation
by oil companies.14 Finally states have the authority to transfer funds to LIHEAP
from certain other federal block grants (including TANF).
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981
(Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended
six times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraph.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP
funds are to be distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular
14 LIHEAP Report to Congress, FY2002, pp. 11-12. For FY2002 $4.9 million in oil
overcharge funds was obligated by one state.

---

CRS-11
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. (This level of funding was exceeded in
FY1986 but has not been reached in any year since then.)
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L.
101-501 created the Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and
authorized a July to June program year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow
state program directors to plan for the fall/winter heating season with knowledge of
available money. (This program year language was subsequently removed although
the statute now states that money appropriated in a given fiscal year is to be made
available for obligation in the following fiscal year. Congress last provided advance
appropriations for LIHEAP in the FY2000 appropriations cycle.)
In 1993, P.L. 103-43 extended the authorization of LIHEAP for one year but
made no other changes. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) Congress stipulated that LIHEAP
benefits and outreach activities target households with the greatest home energy
needs (and costs), and it enacted a separate and permanent contingency funding
authorization of $600 million for each fiscal year. The 1994 law also established the
competitive REACH grant option. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 authorized annual regular
funding for each of FY2002-FY2004 at $2 billion and made explicit a wide variety
of situations under which HHS is authorized to release LIHEAP contingency funds.
Program Authorization. LIHEAP funding authorization expired with
FY2004. As noted in Recent Developments section above, the House recently
passed omnibus energy legislation that would raise the LIHEAP regular funds
authorization level to $5.1 billion, explicitly permit the purchase of renewable fuels
as part of providing LIHEAP assistance, require the Department of Energy to report
on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid, require HHS to report (within
one year of the legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program could more
effectively prevent loss of life due to extreme temperatures, and would permit the use
of certain revenue received by the federal treasury as a consequence of drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be appropriated for LIHEAP.
Legislation to reauthorize LIHEAP was passed in both chambers of Congress
during the 108th Congress, however no final reauthorization language became part of
law. (See Table 4 at the end of this report for a summary of major provisions in those
bills.)
In February 2004 the Senate passed S. 1786 (108th Congress), which would have
provided an annual LIHEAP funding authorization of $3.4 billion in each of FY2004-
FY2006 and such sums as necessary through FY2010. That bill would have also
made specific increases in energy costs, or extremes in weather, an automatic trigger
for release of contingency funds; extended authorization of leveraging incentive
grants and the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) option under
LIHEAP and required the GAO to evaluate the REACH option; and, finally, it would
have required HHS to evaluate LIHEAP performance, develop a protocol for states
to collect certain consumer statistics from energy distributors, study other specific
factors relevant to the programs’s operation and report these findings to Congress
within two years.

---

CRS-12
The House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing on LIHEAP in
July 2003 but did not report LIHEAP reauthorization language during the 108th
Congress.15 At the same time, on November 18, 2003 the full House voted to support
the conference agreement reached on the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6, H.Rept.
108-375). That agreement would have raised regular LIHEAP funding authorization
to $3.4 billion in each of FY2004-FY2006 and would have required HHS to prepare
a report for Congress on how LIHEAP could more effectively prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures. However, the Senate did not agree to vote on this
conference agreement and it expired with the end of the 108th Congress.
Issues
Congress has shown interest in adjusting the method by which contingency
funds are released, in revisiting the formula used to distribute regular LIHEAP funds,
and in performance measurement. The following discussion focuses primarily on
activities in the 108th Congress. As no final reauthorization language was enacted,
these issues are presumed to be of continued interest.
Release of Contingency Funds. Contingency funds are appropriated by
Congress “to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States
arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.” Current law provides a broad
definition of such emergencies, but gives HHS (acting on behalf of the President)
sole discretion to determine when events warrant the release of contingency funds,
what states (or state) are to receive contingency funds, and under what formula this
money will be distributed.16 Depending on the language used in the appropriations
act, contingency funds that are not released by HHS in the fiscal year for which they
are appropriated may revert to the federal treasury at the end of the fiscal year
(expire), or they may remain available for a specified number of years or until
expended.
As passed by the Senate in February 2004, S. 1786 (108th Congress) would have
amended current law to establish two conditions that would require HHS to release
available contingency funds to affected states. Those conditions would be: (1) if
there is an increase of at least 20% in the cost of home energy over the previous five-
year average for a duration of a month or more in one or more states or regions; or
(2) if one or more states experience hot or cold weather that is significantly more
severe than average (i.e., the number of heating degree days or cooling days for a
15 To view a printed record of this hearing, select “Hearing on LIHEAP & CSBG, July 8,
2003,” at [http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/edr/edrhearings.htm]. In Oct. 2003
the Committee reported, and the House subsequently passed, H.R. 3030 — legislation that
would have reauthorized the CSBG (Community Services Block Grant). This legislation,
however, was not enacted during the 108th Congress.
16 P.L. 105-285, which last reauthorized LIHEAP, defined the term “emergency” broadly
and added a “natural disaster” as a possible cause for the release of LIHEAP contingency
funds. In explaining these changes, S.Rept. 105-256 noted that the changes were intended
to clarify when contingency funds may be released and particularly to assert that
emergencies need not be temperature driven.

---

CRS-13
month is more than 100 above the 30-year average).17 This proposal is in keeping
with the Senate HELP committee’s reported concern that “emergency funds
appropriated in FY2001 and FY2002 were not distributed to States despite requests
from Congress and Governors for the release of funds.” The committee report
accompanying S. 1786 in the 108th Congress also encouraged HHS “to consider all
factors defined in the statute” when making decisions about release of contingency
funds.18
Current law provides that “a significant increase in home energy
disconnections” may be considered an emergency that warrants release of
contingency funds. In keeping with its desire for HHS to “monitor arrearage trends
nationwide” and to consider a significant increase in energy utility arrearages as part
of this “disconnection criteria” for releasing contingency funds, S. 1786 (108th
Congress) would have also required HHS to develop a protocol for states to collect
information from energy vendors on a range of residential customer statistics,
including overall statistics on the number of disconnections for nonpayment and the
number of reconnections. The protocol would also need to establish a method for
gathering information about the accounts of households eligible for energy
assistance, including the total number of such accounts and how many are past due,
the number that have been issued disconnection notices, the total past due amount
owed, the number determined uncollectible and the energy burden of these accounts.
A description of the protocol would need to be included in a larger report on LIHEAP
that S. 1786 would have required HHS to complete and submit to Congress within
two years of the legislation’s enactment.
Echoing the HELP Committee report language, the conference report
accompanying the FY2004 omnibus spending measure (H.Rept. 108-401) notes that
arrearages are a precursor to energy utility disconnections and that an increase in such
disconnections is one criteria for the release of emergency funds. Like the HELP
committee, the conferees “urge” HHS to consider a significant increase in arrearage
rates as part of the disconnection criteria for releasing emergency funds. Responding
to the conferees in its FY2005 budget justifications, the Administration states that it
“has examined the possibility of collecting national arrearage and disconnection
information in the past and determined that this kind of data was not readily
available.”19 At the same time, it notes that many states work with utility companies
17 A heating degree day equals the number of degrees below 65°F in a given day. For
example, if the average temperature on a given day is 55°F, then the number of heating
degree days for that day is 10. A cooling degree day equals the number of degrees above
65°F in a given day. For example, if the average temperature for the day is 75°F, then the
number of cooling degree days for that day is 10.
18 U.S. Congress, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Poverty
Reduction Act of 2003: Report to Accompany S. 1786, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., S.Rept. 108-
210, p. 15.
19 The Administration also states that a 1986 GAO report concurred with this finding. At the
same time, HHS has recently funded research into the issue of collecting these data. The
study authors cite obstacles but propose ways to begin to ensure their availability. See John
Howat, Jerry McKim, Charlie Harak, and Olivia Wein, “Tracking the Home Energy Needs
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
on behalf of low-income households to obtain reduction in arrearages or forgiveness
where possible, and further, that states may also use the LIHEAP program to provide
budget counseling services that might help these households “effectively manage
their resources to avoid future disconnections.”20
The conferees to the FY2004 omnibus appropriations act also “urge” HHS to
make available “regular information on significant, unanticipated changes in home
heating and cooling costs” and “quarterly reports on significant variances in regional
weather data and fuel prices” to the LIHEAP-authorizing and the appropriations
committees and state that “such reports should be provided within 30 days of the end
of any fiscal quarter in which LIHEAP contingency funds remain available for
obligation.” And, finally, should funds be released, the conferees seek a “detailed
explanation of the factors used to determine the distribution of funds.” And they also
remind HHS that it is “expect[ed]” to “consider the factors identified in the statute
when making decisions about the release of funds,” and request that the House and
Senate Appropriation Committees receive formal notification in advance of any
release of contingency funds.21 In its response to these statements, HHS agrees to
provide quarterly data, as requested “ to the extent there are significant variances in
regional and fuel data” and during any period when contingency funds remain
available for distribution.22
LIHEAP Formula. As passed by the House on April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 (109th
Congress) would require HHS to report to Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used
more effectively to prevent loss of life from extreme temperatures.” This same language
was included in the conference agreement to the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6 in
the 108th Congress), which was not enacted. The requirement that such a report be made
was first included in House legislation (H.R. 1644) in the 108th Congress and, according
to the accompanying committee report, was intended to “assist the [HHS] Secretary in
developing a more accurate formula allocation methodology” to better meet the home
energy assistance needs of “vulnerable populations.” At the time, the House Energy
Committee report asserted that any formula developed, should use the best statistical data
and models now available; be a simple, easy-to-understand science-based mechanism
that considers state-level expenditures for low-income home heating and cooling needs;
19 (...continued)
of Low Income Households Through Trend Data on Arrearages and Disconnections,” May
2004. Available online at [http://www.neada.org/pubs/Tracking_the_Need.pdf].
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-6.
21 Current law requires HHS to notify “Congress,” and this notification is sent to the House
Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee.
22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “FY2005: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” p. F-7.

---

CRS-15
and include annually updated, state-level heating and cooling degree day and fuel price
information.23

Although the Senate-passed version of H.R. 6 in the 108th Congress did not
include this language, Senate conferees agreed to this report. Ultimately however,
due to provisions unrelated to LIHEAP, the Senate choose not to act on the 2003
conference agreement. However, S. 1786 (108th Congress), which the Senate passed
in February 2004, would also have required HHS to report to Congress on several
issues that might be relevant to formula determinations. These include an analysis
of the public health and safety threats of hypothermia and hyperthermia due to lack
of home heating or cooling, including morbidity, mortality and decrease in caloric
intake; an analysis of the effect of standard of housing and housing age on energy
costs to low-income households; and an evaluation of regional differences in cost-of-
living and the ability of low-income families to meet home energy requirements.
Performance Measurement. S. 1786 (108th Congress) would have
required HHS to evaluate the performance of LIHEAP with regard to who the
program serves, the benefits of the program to recipients, and the ability of the
program to reduce utility arrearage and shut-offs among low-income households.
Findings of the evaluation would have been part of a required report due to Congress
within two years of the legislation’s enactment. The bill also would have required
the GAO to conduct a new evaluation of the REACH option under LIHEAP.24
The President’s FY2005 and FY2006 budgets include a request for $500,000 to
conduct a feasibility study regarding a nationally representative evaluation of LIHEAP
program operations. Both of those budgets also include a program performance rating
for LIHEAP. It is rated as a program for which “results [are] not demonstrated.”
According to these reviews, the program purpose is clear, it addresses a specific existing
need, and has a number of additional strengths including effective targeting of intended
beneficiaries. However, the review notes that the program’s “effectiveness or efficiency”
is hampered by the current law formula, it has limited and only recently developed
outcome measures, and there have been no independent evaluations (of “sufficient scope
and quality”) that demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. The Administration efforts
to develop new performance measures, generally related to meeting the statutory goal of
serving low income households with high energy burdens and including certain
vulnerable populations (disabled, age 5 or younger, and age 60 or older) have been
hampered by data concerns.25
23 U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy Policy Act of 2003:
Report to Accompany H.R. 1644, 108th Congress, 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-65, Part 1, p. 145.
24 In 2001 the GAO released an earlier requested report on the REACH option. U.S. General
Accounting Office, Residential Energy Assistance: Effectiveness of Demonstration Program
as Yet Undetermined, GAO-01-723, Aug. 2001.
25 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families FY 2005 Budget Justifications, pp. M-137-140 and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2006 Budget Justifications,
pp. M-74-M-78.

---

CRS-16
Table 4. Major Provisions of LIHEAP Reauthorization Language in the 109th and 108th Congresses
109th Congress
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
S. 1786
Provision
Current law
2005, H.R. 6
(as it passed the Senate)
House-passed
House-passeda
Senate-passed
Regular funds
(Expired) Set at $2 billion for FY02-FY04.
Set at $5.1 billion for
Set at $3.4 billion for
Set at $3.4 billion for Set at $3.4 billion for FY04-
authorization
FY05-FY07
FY04-FY06
FY03-FY05
FY06 and make such sums as
necessary for FY07-FY10
Contingency funds
Indefinite authorization of $600,000 (under
No provision
No provision
Set at $1 billion
No provision
authorized
certain conditions).
Technical
HHS may set aside up to $300,000 from the
No provision
No provision
HHS could set-aside No provision (but see funding
Assistance, and
regular funds appropriated for training and
up to $750,000 from authorized for HHS report on
training set-aside
technical assistance.
the regular funds
various program aspects,
authorized
appropriated
below).
Funds for leveraging (Expired) $50 million for FY99-FY04 provided
No provision
No provision
No provision
Extends same level of funding
(non-federal
the regular funds appropriation totals at least
authorization through FY2010.
resources) incentive
$1.4 billion; set at $30 million for those years if
authorized
regular funding falls below $1.4 billion.b
Residential Energy
State may apply for special grants to plan,
No provision
No provision
No provision
The Government Accountability
Assistance Challenge implement and evaluate special initiatives
Office (GAO) must conduct an
(REACH) Option
designed to minimize health and safety risks
evaluation of REACH and also
resulting from high energy burdens on low
study the state evaluations of
income Americans; prevent homelessness as a
their REACH initiatives,
result of inability to pay energy bills; increase
including those concerning
efficiency of energy usage by low income
model energy efficiency
families and to target energy assistance to
education services. Within two
individuals who are most in need. HHS is
years of the enactment of the

---

CRS-17
109th Congress
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
S. 1786
Provision
Current law
2005, H.R. 6
(as it passed the Senate)
House-passed
House-passeda
Senate-passed
authorized to set-aside up to 25% of funds made
legislation, the report is to be
available for the leveraging incentive for this
submitted to the Senate Health
purpose and, out of those funds must reserve
Education Labor and Pensions
some money to make grants to states who will
and the House Education and
implement and evaluate model energy efficiency
Workforce committees.
education services.
Other federal
Very limited funds remain available for
Permits bonus funds
Permits bonus funds
No provision
No provision
funding sources
distribution by the Department of Energy to
received by federal
received by federal
certain states and insular areas as a result of the
treasury related to
treasury related to
settlement oil price overcharges cases (brought
leasing drilling rights in leasing drilling rights
under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act
the Arctic National
in the Arctic National
of 1973).c
Wildlife Refuge to be
Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for
appropriated for
LIHEAP
LIHEAPa
Use of funds
States are to use funds to provide assistance to
As part of providing
No provision
No provision
No provision
eligible households for meeting home energy
home energy assistance,
needs.
LIHEAP funds may be
used to purchase
renewable fuels,
including bio-mass.
Department of
Not applicable
DOE must report to
No provision
No provision
No provision
Energy Report
Congress on the use of
(DOE)
renewable fuels in
providing assistance
under LIHEAP

---

CRS-18
109th Congress
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
S. 1786
Provision
Current law
2005, H.R. 6
(as it passed the Senate)
House-passed
House-passeda
Senate-passed
Special Department
Not applicable
HHS must report to
HHS must report to
No provision
HHS must evaluate LIHEAP
of Health and
Congress on how
Congress on how
performance; develop a
Human Services
LIHEAP can more
LIHEAP can more
protocol for states to collect
(HHS) Report
effectively prevent loss
effectively prevent
data on certain home energy
of life from extreme
loss of life from
disconnections, past due
temperatures (within
extreme temperatures
accounts, etc; analyze public
one year of enactment)
(within one year of
health and safety threats related
enactment)
to lack of home energy; analyze
certain housing and regional
cost of living factors as they
affect the ability of low-income
households to meet home
energy needs; determine impact
of using an eligibility cut off of
60% of state median income
(due within 24 months;
authorizes “such sums as
necessary” in FY04-05 to carry
out this study).
Release of
LIHEAP contingency funds may be released to
No provision
No provision
No provision
HHS must release contingency
contingency funds
one or more states experiencing an emergency
funds to affected areas if it
— at the discretion of HHS. Emergency is
determines that in one or more
broadly defined and includes natural disasters;
states or regions 1) there is an
significant home energy supply shortages,
increase of at least 20% in the
disruptions or costs increases; significant home
cost of home energy over the

---

CRS-19
109th Congress
108th Congress
Energy Policy Act of
Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6
S. 1786
Provision
Current law
2005, H.R. 6
(as it passed the Senate)
House-passed
House-passeda
Senate-passed
energy disconnections; significant increases in
previous five-year average for a
use of public benefit programs, or in
month or more; or 2) that the
unemployment; or “an event meeting such
number of heating degree days
criteria as [HHS] may determine to be
or cooling days for a month was
appropriate.
more than 100 above the 30-
year average.
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on legislation in the 109th and 108th Congresses.
a. With one exception (noted in the following sentence), the provisions in this column were included in both the initial House-passed H.R. 6 (108th Congress) and the House-approved
conference agreement to that legislation. The exception is the provision that would have allowed bonus funds received by the federal treasury as a result of leasing oil drilling
rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be appropriated to HHS for distribution via LIHEAP. It was included in the first House-passed H.R. 6 (108th Congress) but was
not included in the House-passed conference agreement on that bill. (The conference agreement, which was not acted on by the Senate and was thus not enacted, would not have
permitted drilling in the ANWR).
b. In practice, Congress has not appropriated funds for these leveraging incentive grants separately but has instead provided that a certain amount of the regular LIHEAP funds
appropriation (typically $27 million in recent years) are to made available for this purpose.
c. These oil overcharge funds, which have been held in escrow and distributed by the Department of Energy, are nearly exhausted. For FY2002 (most recent year for which these data
are available) a total of two states reported spending just under $5 million in these funds for their LIHEAP programs.

---

CRS-20
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2002 to FY2005
(Dollars in millions)
TOTAL funds distributeda
Regular
Contingency
State
(regular and contingency)
allotmentb
distributedc
TOTAL
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Alabama
14.3
16.1
15.4
15.9
2.0
17.9
Alaska 6.4
7.8
7.5
8.7
1.4
10.1
Arizona
8.1
7.2
6.9
7.1
0.6
7.7
Arkansas
11.0
12.3
11.8
12.2
1.3
13.5
California 76.5
86.1
82.4
84.9
6.8
91.7
Colorado
28.8
30.2
28.9
29.8
2.6
32.4
Connecticut
36.7
43.8
40.2
38.9
7.9
46.8
Delaware
5.0
5.8
5.3
5.2
1.1
6.2
District of Columbia
5.7
6.3
6.2
6.0
0.6
6.7
Florida
22.7
25.9
24.5
25.2
2.9
28.1
Georgia
18.0
20.3
19.4
20.0
2.5
22.5
Hawaii
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.2
2.2
Idaho
11.2
11.8
11.1
11.1
1.1
12.2
Illinois
105.2
109.6
104.5
107.7
9.5
117.2
Indiana
47.6
50.2
47.3
48.8
5.1
53.9
Iowa
32.2
35.5
33.5
34.6
4.3
38.9
Kansas
15.3
16.1
15.4
15.9
1.5
17.4
Kentucky
26.1
26.1
24.6
25.4
2.7
28.1
Louisiana 14.7
16.5
15.8
16.3
1.5
17.8
Maine
21.9
28.6
25.1
24.3
6.3
30.6
Maryland
28.4
32.1
30.8
29.8
4.4
34.2
Massachusetts
74.3
86.1
80.4
77.8
14.1
91.9
Michigan
99.4
104.9
105.0
101.7
10.9
112.5
Minnesota
68.6
77.5
71.5
73.7
10.3
84.0
Mississippi
12.3
13.8
13.2
13.7
1.9
15.6
Missouri
41.1
43.8
41.7
43.0
5.0
48.1
Montana
10.9
11.9
11.2
11.6
1.2
12.8
Nebraska
16.8
17.4
16.6
17.1
1.9
19.0
Nevada
4.6
3.7
3.5
3.6
0.3
4.0
New Hampshire
13.3
16.9
15.2
14.7
3.5
18.3
New Jersey
69.7
78.7
74.5
72.1
11.8
83.9
New Mexico
8.0
9.1
8.7
8.9
1.0
9.9
New York
228.0
260.1
243.4
235.6
42.3
277.9
North Carolina
35.3
37.5
33.6
34.5
6.1
40.6
North Dakota
11.3
12.6
12.4
12.1
1.9
14.0
Ohio
94.5
98.1
98.4
95.3
9.4
104.7
Oklahoma
12.0
13.6
13.0
13.4
1.4
14.7
Oregon
22.3
23.8
21.8
22.7
2.3
25.0
Pennsylvania
121.4
136.7
130.9
126.8
18.7
145.5

---

CRS-21
TOTAL funds distributeda
Regular
Contingency
State
(regular and contingency)
allotmentb
distributedc
TOTAL
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Rhode Island
12.3
14.2
13.2
12.8
2.4
15.1
South Carolina
13.3
13.4
12.3
12.7
1.9
14.6
South Dakota
9.4
10.4
9.6
9.9
1.7
11.6
Tennessee
23.2
26.4
24.9
25.7
2.6
28.3
Texas
37.8
42.5
40.7
42.0
4.2
46.2
Utah
13.2
13.8
14.0
13.6
1.1
14.7
Vermont
9.9
12.6
11.4
11.0
2.7
13.8
Virginia
35.8
39.1
37.5
36.3
5.4
41.7
Washington
32.9
37.7
35.4
36.5
3.4
39.9
West Virginia
16.3
17.4
17.4
16.8
1.7
18.5
Wisconsin
62.4
69.5
64.3
66.3
9.0
75.3
Wyoming
5.3
5.5
5.2
5.3
0.5
5.9
Subtotal $1,753 $1,939
$1,840
$1,837
$247
$2,084
Tribesd
16.9
19.3
19.0
17.6
2.5
20.1
Territoriese
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.3
2.9
Leveraging/REACHf
27.5
27.3
27.3
27.3
0.0
27.3
Training/ Tech. Asst.g
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
TOTAL $1,800
$1,988
$1,889
$1,885
$250
$2,135
Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) data.
a. The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states (net of the direct
awards to tribes) and any contingency funds awarded to the state in that year. In FY2002 the
regular funds appropriation was $1.700 billion and HHS distributed $100 million in
contingency funds to 33 states and the District of Columbia that experienced extreme heat.
In FY2003 the regular funds appropriation was $1.788 billion and HHS distributed $200
million in contingency funds to all states (for higher fuel costs). In FY2004 the regular funds
appropriation was $1,789 billion and HHS distributed $99.4 million in contingency funds to
all states (because of higher fuel costs — with a greater share of the funding awarded to 19
states, including the District of Columbia, that also experienced extreme cold).
b. Because regular funds are released on a quarterly basis not all of these regular funds allotments (net
of tribal award) had been distributed as of May 17, 2005. However, because states may opt
to receive all or most of their LIHEAP regular funds in any given quarter and many states
elect to do this in the first two quarters of the fiscal year, the bulk of the FY2005 regular
funding has been distributed.
c. This column shows the amount of FY2005 contingency funds released as of mid May 2005. As of
that date HHS had distributed $250 million. An additional $46.7 million in FY2005
contingency funds are currently available for release in the event of an emergency.
d. This funding is made directly available to or for tribes but is reserved out of a given state’s
allotment amount. As prescribed in the statute, the tribal set-aside from a state gross
allotment is based on tribal households in that state.
e. The statute provides that HHS must set-aside not less then one-tenth of 1% and not more than one-
half of 1% for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

---

CRS-22
f. The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging
incentive program (designed to encourage states to increase non-federal support for energy
assistance). It also provides that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be
reserved for competitive REACH grants (for state efforts to increase efficient use of energy
among low-income households and to reduce their vulnerability to homelessness and other
problems due to high energy costs). The Congress has in recent years stipulated that a certain
portion of the LIHEAP regular funds be set aside for leveraging grants and, of this amount,
HHS has reserved 25% for REACH grants.
g. The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into
contracts with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical
assistance related to achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program.

---

CRS-23
Table 6. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2006
(Dollars in thousands)
Regular Fundsa
Contingency Fundsa
TOTAL
Distributed
Fiscal
President’s
year
request
Authorized
Appropriated
Appropriated
Distributed
1982
$1,400,000
$1,875,000
$1,875,000
—
—
$1,875,000
1983
1,300,000
1,875,000
1,975,000
—
—
1,975,000
1984
1,300,000
1,875,000
2,075,000
—
—
2,075,000
1985
1,875,000
2,140,000
2,100,000
—
—
2,100,000
1986
2,097,765
2,275,000
2,100,000
—
—
2,100,000
1987
2,097,642
2,050,000
1,825,000
—
—
1,825,000
1988
1,237,000
2,132,000
1,531,840
—
—
1,531,840
1989
1,187,000
2,218,000
1,383,200
—
—
1,383,200
1990
1,100,000
2,307,000
1,443,000
—
—
1,443,000
1991
1,050,000
2,150,000
1,415,055
195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992
1,025,000
2,230,000
1,500,000
300,000
0
1,500,000
1993
1,065,000
ssanb
1,346,030
595,200
0
1,346,030
1994
1,507,408
ssanb
1,437,402
600,000
300,000
1,737,402
1995
1,475,000
2,000,000
1,319,202
600,000
100,000
1,419,202
1996
1,319,204
2,000,000
900,000
180,000
180,000
1,080,000
1997
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
420,000
215,000
1,215,000
1998
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
160,000
1,160,000
1999
1,300,000
2,000,000
1,100,000
300,000
175,299
1,275,299
2000
1,400,000
ssanb
1,100,000
900,000
744,350c
1,844350c
2001
1,400,000
ssanb
1,400,000
600,000
455,650
1,855,650
2002
1,400,000
2,000,000
1,700,000
300,000
100,000d
1,800,000
2003
1,400,000
2,000,000
1,788,300e
0
200,000f
1,988,300
2004
1,700,000
2,000,000
1,789,380
99,410
99,410
1,888,790
2005
1,800,500g
None
1,884, 799
297,600
250,000h
2,134,799h
2006
1,800,000g
None
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on HHS data.
a. Amounts listed under the Regular Funds heading are for regular funding only. In 1994, Congress
enacted a permanent $600 million annual authorization for contingency funding. As shown,
however, before this authorization contingency funds were sometimes made available.
b. Such sums as necessary.
c. President Clinton released $400 million of these FY2000 contingency funds in late Sept. 2000
making it effectively available to states in FY2001.
d. These funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L. 107-116).
With the end of FY2002, the remaining $200 million of these contingency funds expired.
e. The final FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and
converted into regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally
appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
f. These funds were distributed out of contingency dollars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20). That law provided that the funds were “available until
expended.” Congress subsequently converted some of these dollars into regular funds (see
tablenote e).
g. Of this amount the President requests that $500,000 be set aside for a national evaluation.
h. The amount of contingency funds distributed in FY2005 is shown as of mid May 2005; the total
distributed amount for FY2005 includes all regular funds appropriation although (because
this money is distributed on a quarterly basis), not all states, as of mid May 2005 have
received all of their regular FY2005 LIHEAP funds.

---